Jack the Bodiless

Hinduism teaches a greater degree of diversity than Christianity! There are many gods (far more than the three of Christianity) with nested hirearchies (one god can be an avatar of another god who is in turn an avatar of another), with the whole lot ultimately anchored in the unity of the Brahman. There are numerous parallels between Hinduism and modern physics (try reading Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics).

The "reality is an illusion" issue is separate from the "amount of diversity" issue. But quantum physics (Schrodinger's Cat and so forth) supports the Hindu model.
Such as? Most modern anthropologists no longer believe this. And DNA analysis shows that modern Jews and modern Palestinians come from the same ancestral Caananite population. For instance, it is not possible to distinguish between a European with Jewish ancestry and a European with Palestinian ancestry.
From the <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html" target="_blank">Skeptic's Annotated Bible</a>:
From the genealogies (who begat whom, and how old they were at the time), it is possible to count back from the founding of Solomon's temple to the creation of Adam, circa 4000 BC. The scriptures are certainly incompatible with the Earth's true age of 4.6 billion years or thereabouts, the creation sequence does not fit the fossil record (birds and whales come after land animals, grass comes after the demise of the dinosaurs etc).

And there are five great mass-extinctions in the fossil record, the most recent being the one that killed off the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. There was no mass-extinction in recent history, and no trace of a worldwide flood. Many geological features (such as layers of polar ice, or layers of fine sediment in lakes) go back many thousands, even millions, of years.
Again, what evidence? The Bible would have been modified (and yet it still contains references to polytheism: God is described several times in the plural, or as one god among many (the "mightiest" of the gods). The miracle-working powers of the Egyptian priests are another good indication of other gods.

I suggest you read <a href="http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awscrip/jm1/0250JGoddess.html" target="_blank">Hebrew Goddesses and the Origin of Judaism</a> for an overview of Jewish polytheism.
Incidentally, "Israel" stems from "El". The Israelites are the people of El.

Ed

No, you have misunderstood. The degree of diversity is irrelevant, it is the reality of the diversity that is the problem with Hinduism. Hinduism teaches that there is only one reality(god) and individuality and diversity is an illusion, ie that we are not individual persons we are just part of god. Christianity teaches that individuality is real because our differences are real just as each of the persons of the trinity are different persons. And our common sense tells us that those differnces between us are real. So you think quantum physics proves that all is really one? How?

Quote:

Ed:There were semites already living in Canaan but there is evidence that the hebrews came from Egypt. JTB:Such as? Most modern anthropologists no longer believe this. And DNA analysis shows that modern Jews and modern Palestinians come from the same ancestral Caananite population. For instance, it is not possible to distinguish between a European with Jewish ancestry and a European with Palestinian ancestry.

I am not saying that the hebrews have Egyptian ancestry. They originally came to egypt from Canaan and basically lived in what we would call today a segregated ghetto so those findings you mention fit the scriptures.

Quote:

JTB:wrong about the names and reigns of the Persian kings, Ed:I am not sure what you are referring to. From the Skeptic's Annotated Bible: quote: Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Actually the term translated as father in the KJV can also mean ancestor but not necessarily biological ancestor more like predecessor.

Quote:

JTB:But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assissinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebochadnezzar. (See The Neo-Babylonian Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica).

Since viceroys acted in the capacity of king they often were called "king" in ancient documents. There is evidence that Nabonidus was in Tema in North Arabia when Cyrus overthrew Babylon and Belshazzar was "acting" king during this absence.

Quote:

JTB: Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrecly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus. (See biblical literature, Daniel, Encyclopedia Britannica)

According to cuneiform texts Darius the Mede was probably another name for Gubaru who was appointed governor over all of Babylonia. See above how leaders are often referred to as kings even though they may not be THE king.

Quote:

JTB:wrong about the age of the Earth and the creation sequence, and wrong about the Great Flood. Ed:Actually contrary to popular opinion the scriptures do not give the age of the earth. How do you know the creation sequence is wrong? No humans were there. What do you mean wrong about the Great Flood? JTB:From the genealogies (who begat whom, and how old they were at the time), it is possible to count back from the founding of Solomon's temple to the creation of Adam, circa 4000 BC.

The hebrew word for "begot" can also mean "became the ancestor of" so the time between the individuals could very well be indefinite.

Quote:

JTB:The scriptures are certainly incompatible with the Earth's true age of 4.6 billion years or thereabouts,

Not given the above translation.

Quote:

jtb:the creation sequence does not fit the fossil record (birds and whales come after land animals, grass comes after the demise of the dinosaurs etc).

You are assuming that the fossil record reflects the creation sequence, the fossil record may reflect ecological zonations. Also the hebrew term for birds and whales is not as specific as our terms are, ie it basically just means flying creatures and large sea creatures, but actually there may have also been some land creatures created on the 5th day, verse 21 says "and everything that moves". The same applies to the term "grass", the hebrew means "grasslike plants".

Quote:

JTB:And there are five great mass-extinctions in the fossil record, the most recent being the one that killed off the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. There was no mass-extinction in recent history, and no trace of a worldwide flood. Many geological features (such as layers of polar ice, or layers of fine sediment in lakes) go back many thousands, even millions, of years.

Given that the bible does not tell us when the flood occurred we dont know that it was in "recent" history. Also, many scientists believe that Mars once was totally covered by a planetary flood so why not earth? Given that the flood only lasted one year and the earth-changing powers of the large plant population on earth and the volcanic activity on the earth there may not be that much evidence for the flood left. But there are many fossil beds that do show evidence of hydraulic castastrophe.

Quote:

JTB:Furthermore, according to historians, the Jews weren't even monotheistic until the Babylonian captivity, monotheism was imposed on them by the Zoroastrians. Ed:Which historians? There is evidence that the jews were monotheistic from Moses on.

Actually you are partially right. My statement needs correction. From about the time of Solomon till the return from the Babylonian exile there were long periods when the majority of jews were polytheists. However, earlier hebrews learned from Moses that there was only one God. Read Deut. 4:28, 39.

Quote:

jtb:Again, what evidence? The Bible would have been modified (and yet it still contains references to polytheism: God is described several times in the plural, or as one god among many (the "mightiest" of the gods). The miracle-working powers of the Egyptian priests are another good indication of other gods. I suggest you read Hebrew Goddesses and the Origin of Judaism for an overview of Jewish polytheism.

Of course it contains references to polytheism, because that is what his true followers were fighting. As far as God being referred in the plural this is either a reference to his triune nature or in ancient times kings were often referenced in plural form. And God was/is King of the universe. Actually the egyptian priests were not performing a true miracle it was more of a magic trick. They may also have been getting help from demons which they may have thought were "gods".

[b] Yes, up to a point see above about after Solomon's time. But there is also archaeological evidence of followers of Yahweh. El means God and was often used to refer to Yahweh in his generic relationship to man. This is not the same El that had a wife.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Ed

I think I have defended my viewpoint throughly.

Quote:

Ed:It depends on what kind of maze. Some mazelike apparati are similar to what cockroaches do in nature instinctively to find food so it hardly qualifies as abstract reasoning. What do you consider "more interesting"? Dat:How do you know that it is instinct, rather than intellect? The mind is complicated, and not only for humans, but for all organisms with the organ. We are very ignorant about its workings and its limits; to rule something like abstract thought away from other animals without any clue as to what animals are even thinking is absurd.

Animal behaviorists learn about animal minds by studying their behaviors. More complex and original behaviors usually mean higher reasoning skills while simple behaviors and complex but repetitive behaviors usually mean less reasoning abilities and more instinctive brain activity.

Quote:

Ed:There may not be absolute proof that animals cannot reason abstractly, but all the evidence points to that fact. But even just simple animal minds existences cannot be explained adequately by resorting to mindless impersonal processes. Dat:WHAT evidence? The truth is, we have no evidence whatsoever for or against the case - do you know what your dog thinks? Or the language that he speaks? (and I don't mean body language, either) Animal psychology is very primitive, mostly because we don't have many much knowledge on animal communication and hence animal thoughts. Your "evidence" is an argument from ignorance.

See above about the study of behaviors. Actually we can sometimes determine what dogs think up to a point. Dogs do not have a true language, of course they can communicate but not linguistically. All zoologists agree on this fact.

Quote:

Dat:And once again, I wonder how you can go and claim that they cannot come from impersonal processes without any clue as to their structure and workings.

Because all of human experience tells us that reasoning has never come from non-reasoning. And communication has never come from non-communication.

Quote:

Ed:Just because we haven't experienced "outside" this universe doesnt mean we cannot use logic to understand it. There are many things we have not experienced and yet use logic to explain them, ie subatomic particles, prehistory, deep space, black holes and etc. Dat:I have already explained this - the assumption is made that anything within our Universe follows the laws of physics and logic. Once again, that says nothing about the conditions outside the Universe. We can directly verify that these laws apply; that is why the assumption has remained true thus far. On the other hand, you wish to make an assumption where no verification can exist. I do not see how you can stubbornly continue to assert your case when, once again, there is no evidence either way. Your attempts to a) shift the burden of proof and b) argue from our ignorance of the matter is unflattering.

As I stated before, we cannot directly verify that the laws of physics and the laws of logic were valid in prehistory. Yet we assume they were. You have not demonstrated that because we cannot verify their validity in some situations we should therefore throw out the laws of logic. Some cosmologists have claimed to apply mathmatics(a form of logic) to make the claim that there are multiple universes outside ours. So many cosmologists would disagree with you.

Quote:

Ed:See above about things that we try to explain that cannot be truly directly observed. Dat:Ed, they cannot be observed, period. There is no conceivable way for you to observe anything outside our Universe. There is no reason for you to believe that you can. Hence, there is no reason for me to believe that any assertion that you make on the properties outside this Universe have an ounce of truth to them.

See above.

[b] You are the one trying to limit science, without logic science is dead. I am trying to expand science, even beyond our own universe.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Datheron

Ed,

Perhaps you do think so; but I certainly do not. Shall we take a consensus, or should I use examples from the past to show why I feel the way I feel...?

True - but how do you know? What constitutes as "complex" vs. "simple"? What is the borderline between behavior that suggests reasoning skills, vs. behavior that suggests normal purely reactive behavior? Such details cannot be ignored - nor can we truly define these with any true meaning, for we are too primitive to do so. In any case, you are still arbitarily declaring intelligence to be a human-only assert, which is still unfounded.

Argument from authority and ignorance. Zoologists agree to the point that all we know at the moment is that dogs don't have a complex language, but that says very little about the dog. Until we can actually discover the neurons that fire to make up the dog's thoughts, we can only make somewhat informed guesses on the dog's intelligence, which is in no way conclusive of the matter.

Because they are merely tautologies that do not tell us anything! As I have shown above, the instant I ask to you start defining each term as to make the tautology meaningful, you stumble, trip, and make baseless assumptions.

Because we can directly test their results; I have posted this before. If the laws of logic and physics did not function as they do now, then the results that we receive from the past should be significantly different and definitely contradict all logical and physical laws today; the fact that they do not, that they comform to what we have modelled, suggests that they are consistent within our Universe. And as I have also posted many times, we cannot make this claim about anything outside our Universe! There are no results to test, no data to fit to test whether these laws were valid. Therefore, how can you say anything about it? You're still operating on an ad ignoratum throne; just because it is impossible to prove or disprove the claim, you automatically assume that you are correct. Being a scholar of Aristotlian logic, I don't have to tell you the fallacy in that.

As for the cosmologists, note that they are merely claims. They realize as much as I do that there would be no way to show that their claims would be true; they would realize that there is no answer to my query of "how do you know that mathematics operates outside our Universe?" If you do know of a few cosmologists, do ask them this question and my follow-up, and see whether they can explain this blatant unfounded assumption.

I am trying to retain the integrity of science and its reliance on the scientific method. Like most respectable scientists, I do not attempt to go beyond what science can measure - you will note that not many scientists will attempt to use physics to explain the meaning of life, for example. Expanding into arenas where science is invalid only gives it a bad name and cheapens its integrity; is that what you're trying to do?

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Datheron ]</p>

GunnerJ

Ed, I don't know why I bother arguing with you, but perhaps some lurker will benefit from watching me demolish your consistantly fallicious arguements. Certainly, you lack the reasoning skills to.

NO, you derive the Trinity from the scriptures and call it implied. Others do, and have, dissagreed with you. The Jehovah's Witnesses will argue that the Trinity is entirely unBiblical. Isaac Newton studied the Bible furiously and came to the conclusion that the Trinity was antithetical to Christ's teachings. What were they doing wrong? Why is it that, if your god is a "diversity within a unity" (hereafter abreviated as DinU), why was it not explicitly stated? Why did it take hundreds of years for the doctrine to be formalized by fallible, uninspired humans?

After 400 years. It was "understood" by a few parts of the church since the first century, others dissagreed. Now, I'll admit that I don't know everything about the development of Christianity, but the fact that it took four centuries of theological debate to actually come up with the Trinity seems a bit suspicious. Your whole argument is resting on the idea of a DinU god, that Xianity supposedly represents. Why was it not explicitly stated in the Gospels, by Jesus? Wouldn't he know more about the Xian god than anyone? Why didn't he clue his followers in? Note that this is all argumentitive, due to the doubt about Jesus' actual existance...

Bullshit. This is the hoary old argument that the Gospels have more copies than the accounts of the Gaelic wars. It's totally meaningless, for the following reasons:
-Ceaser's conquests were documented by the people he conquered
-Caeser left evidence behind on the battlefields, and in the form of Rome's actual occupation of Gaul
-The descriptions of his war do no appeal to the supernatural. And if there are any claims that Jupiter hurled lightning on the Gauls, or that Minerva or Castor and Pollux arrived on the battlefield to help Caeser out, they are taken with a grain of salt by historians.

These three things are what differentiate Caeser's campaign in Gaul from the supposed life of Jesus: Independant, first-hand accounts; physical evidence; and a lack of supernatural elements (or, the doubt of supernatural events being real.)

And that's the smoking gun. Shouldn't such a thing be of more importance?

What, all the things in the unverse can be grouped into taxonomical classes, and that is what a DinU means? Are Jesus, Yhwh, and the Holy Ghost all different gods within the unified "God" class? Are you sure you want to venture down this poorly-thought-out neo-Platonic path?

Wow. Just... wow. Where to begin?

You say Genesis teaches a definite begining to the universe? I say so do a hundred other creation myths.

You say that this is a "Truth?" I say it's a theory describing the growth of the Universe from its earliest point. I'm unsure of what scientists mean when they talk about "light cones," but I'm pretty sure that the Big Bang is described as the begining of our Universe because we have no observational way of confriming anythting outside of this Universe's dimentions, and the temporal dimention essentially began at the Big Bang. It is in no way an absolute truth that the Big Bang was the beginning, as we have no idea of what else may exist outside or before this Universe, which is what the BB is the start of. Please stop whoring the word "truth" by applying it to scientific theories.

You say Genesis is historical because it describes a starting point of this Universe? I say that's about it. Genetics, age of the Earth, sequence of life's development, the "Flood," origin of languages; Genesis is wrong on all these counts. Too bad for you.
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Great. A tomb lies in Isreal, so Jesus must have risen from the dead. We're looking for historical evidence of Jesus and the miracles he performed. This pithy example of the tomb of a person described in the Gospels proving the Gospels true is just another example of why extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.

No, it isn't. You have yet to show that (morality/personality/life) cannot possibly come from (amorality/impersonality/non-life.) All you can do is sidetrack the argument by saying that this doesn't happen (a statement I disagree with, due to evolution.) Sorry, bub, but simply because something doesn't happen has does not mean that it cannot happen. THAT is how you are shifting the burden of proof, that is why your causal barrier is arbitrary and artificial.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Oh yeah, real good distinction there.

You haven't proven the distinction (actually, barrier) is real. I am under no obligation to disprove something that has not yet been proven, like a causal barrier between "personal" and "impersonal," or "life" and "non-life," or "moral" from "amoral," or "communication" from "non-communication." I see the evidence for these causal relationships and the possiblities you deny in evolution. Take any objections to this to the E&C forum. Your only proof for these barriers is "A" is different from "~A," Therefore, "A" could not arise from "~A." Pretty weak.

Not surprising.

::Smacks forehead:: Such a definition is the only thing that can logically validate such a causal barrier between "personal" and "impersonal."

ONCE AGAIN you switch the burden of proof. It is not enough to be skeptical of such things as morality from amorality. You are trying to prove that your god exists by saying that a causal barrier between them must exist. YOU have to prove this causal barrier. You say that we've never seen such a thing happen, and that it therefore cannot. You say it cannot, I say it may, you say prove it does. Even if we don't know that it does, that doesn't prove it can't. Argument form ignorance. Got it?

Further, you are digging yourself into a hole. By saying that norality must come from morality, you are saying that God is moral. But I thought the Xian god trancended morality (i.e., is amoral), which makes it ok for him to slaughter whole civilizations and condone the mass rape of their women and rip open pregnant womens' wombs and send she-bears to maul children to death and drown all living things because he screwed up his own creation and other such nasty things...

Tautology. Please come up with a definition of personal that doesn't validate itself (i.e., one that actually means something.)

Indeed I do. Why must this only come from "personal" things?

Ed seals his own doom...

You follow this up with...

...outside the Universe. You betray your complete ignoracne of the concept of burden of proof by saying this, because evidence can only be observed within the Universe; the Universe is the limit of our observational ability. Please, PLEASE, don't try to lecture me on what the burden of proof means. It just makes you look more like an ass.

Further, I'd like you to reconcile this supposed "probability" of logic existing outside the universe with your statement above about hydrogen and helium are things that must exist in the Universe, therefore making it impossible for them to exist outside of the Universe. But logic is a contrivance of language, which is an invention of things in the universe. Why is it unlikely for H and He to exist outside the Universe, but likely for logic to also exist? How do you know? What authority do you have to make such pronouncements? Will you please argue by your own standards?

Complete and utter bullshit. You shot yourself in the foot by saying that the first cause must simply be capable of producing the things in the universe (hydrogen and helium.) That's what the "law of suffiecient cause" means. Nothing more. There is no logical reason why a DinU universe must be caused by a DinU god. your limiting of omniscience to logically possible things is thus rendered irrelevant. Further, you have not even demonstrated that the universe is a DinU, except by appealing to vague and meaningless terms like "essence." Even if you did, there is still no logical reason why a DinU universe can't be created by a "pure unity" or a "pure diversity" or a "Diversity not united by 'essence.'" This whole line of argument is therefore nothing but a HUGE, ugly, embarrasing non-sequitir.

Yes. And if I "think" that I'm Gawd's gift to women, but am consistantly unable to get laid, what does that say about my opinion of myself as a ladies' man?

Your initial argument was this:

The First Cause argument can point to the Xian god for these reasons:

-The universe contains personal beings, and only personal beings can create personal beings. The Xian god is a personal being, and therefore is the first cause.

This has been shown to be a baldfaced assertion based only on the fallicious argument that because something doesn't happen, it can't. You thus set up an arbitrary, artificial causal barrier that can only be defended by perpetuating your earlier fallacy, or by employing circular reasoning. Not only that, but the status of personal God is not unique to Xianity.

-The cause must be trancendant, and the Xian god is trancendant.

This is more baseless assertion, and is particualrly weak because not only is it contradicted by the Bible, but it is in no way unique to the Xian god.

-The universe is a DinU, and that implies a DinU first cause, whih the Xian god is.

Not only is it based on a false premise, (i.e., that the Universe, and the Xian god, are DinU) it is a complete non sequitir.

This whole argument also fails to prove the other atributes of the Xian god (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevlonce, omnipresence), but simply implies them to be true because the other claims in the argument are. Even if they are true, this is total BS.

So, while you may think that you've proven the validity of your arguments, I think the lurkers can tell who the dillhole here is.

lpetrich

Ed had argued that only "personal" beings can create other such beings, and that the Universe must have had such a creator: the Christian God.

However, a Muslim can replace "Christian God" with "Allah" and have a similar argument for the existence of Allah.

Furthermore, evolutionary biology suggests an alternate origin for "personal" qualities, in analogy with the development of technology over humanity's history.

lpetrich

I'm amazed that the Argument from Design continues to be taken seriously at this day and age.

I invite its advocates to study some artifiicial-life software; a wide variety of patterns can emerge as a result of simple algorithms -- *without* those patterns having been designed in, as it were.

John Paul

BUT you can only infer that the universe had a cause because it is determined to have a beginning. Before the creation of the universe, there would be no time hence no need for a beginning. This would imply that since there was no beginning for what was before the Big Bang/ Whatever your opinion of the beginning of the universe is....would require no cause. God is infinite in and of himself, therefore cannot be "defined" by the laws of the universe and world he created. He is above all things and can do whatever he wants.

GunnerJ

The Pope himself steps into the fray! We're honored, Your Holiness.

Eh? Please elaborate.

Prove it. I defy you to logically show that the start of the time we measure by implies that no temporal dimensions existed prior to our universe.

Sure, if that's true. But then again, if there's no time, there no way for any first cause to act.

There by providing the theist a convienient out by special pleading whenever the concept of god is held up to logical scrutiny.

lpetrich

Ed:
Please give an example of impersonal object that has a mind, will, and conscience.

LP:
Depends on what "personal" is supposed to be; this could be a circular statement.

Ed: Because morality cannot come from amorality.

LP:
Check out research into the evolution of cooperation. Such cooperation does produce something like "morality". Bees in a hive don't sting each other (queens do sting rival queens, but that's the only exception), and wolves in a pack don't try to have each other for dinner. Could their behavior represent a sort of "morality"?

Also, put some liquid water into your refrigerator's freezer. Check again a day later -- it will have become ice. Now if solidness can only come from solidness, how could this have happened???

Ed:
No, the trinity is an implied doctrine derived from the scriptures which was understood in an early form in the middle of the 1st century but was formalized in greater detail in the 4th century by the biblical scholar Athanasius.

LP:
It's more of a projection onto the Bible, which explicitly states no such thing.

Ed:
What do you mean supposed? Jesus' existence is better documented than Caesar's Gallic wars. ...

LP:
Horse manure. Richard Carrier has examined a closely-related event, Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon river -- and he found it to be MUCH better documented.

Also, if Jesus Christ had been as famous as the Gospels describe him as having been, then it's a miracle that no outside historian had discussed him detail. Such historians only start learning about him in detail several decades afterwards.

Ed: And though you may think it laughable, the scriptures have been shown time and again to be generally historically reliable.

LP:
And which errors does the Bible have?

Ed:
Genesis teaches that the universe had a definite beginning at least 3000 years before cosmological evidence was discovered that pointed to the same truth.

LP:
As does every mythical-past creation story. Now can you please tell us what errors you believe Genesis to have?

Ed:
And every year archaeologists discover evidence that confirms the accuracy of the gospels. Just recently Caiphas' tomb was found, he was the high priest that was at Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin.

LP:
So what? Getting background details correct says absolutely zero about the Gospels' central character. A historical novelist will always try to get background details straight; what would one say about a historical novelist who pictured Julius Caesar as directing airstrikes against the Gauls?

Also, the discovery of Troy in NW Turkey might be interpreted as confirmation of the Iliad, and therefore of the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus. So shall we sacrifice an ox to Zeus?

Ed:
There were semites already living in Canaan but there is evidence that the hebrews came from Egypt.

LP:
What evidence? It must be from outside the Bible.

Ed:
Which historians? There is evidence that the jews were monotheistic from Moses on.

LP:
What evidence outside of the Bible? None that I know of; they had started out by worshipping several deities, with YHWH being only one of them. The idea of worshipping The Only God started only later.

[About the kings mentioned in the Book of Daniel]
Ed:
Actually the term translated as father in the KJV can also mean ancestor but not necessarily biological ancestor more like predecessor.

LP:
Convenient evasion. If one casts one's net wide enough, one can prove anything. And the same of Ed's other comments about the Book of Daniel.

Ed:
The hebrew word for "begot" can also mean "became the ancestor of" so the time between the individuals could very well be indefinite.

LP:
Yet another convenient evasion.

jtb:the creation sequence does not fit the fossil record (birds and whales come after land animals, grass comes after the demise of the dinosaurs etc).

Ed:
You are assuming that the fossil record reflects the creation sequence, the fossil record may reflect ecological zonations.

LP:
That is such a gigantic load of sauropod doo-doo that I don't know where to begin. It was well-established back when Darwin wrote his magnum opus that the Earth's rock strata are laid down in temporal sequence.

Ed:
Also the hebrew term for birds and whales is not as specific as our terms are, ie it basically just means flying creatures and large sea creatures, but actually there may have also been some land creatures created on the 5th day, verse 21 says "and everything that moves". The same applies to the term "grass", the hebrew means "grasslike plants".

LP:
Pure evasion. Day 5 is sea + air creatures and Day 6 is land creatures -- no mention of land ones in Day 5.

Ed:
Given that the bible does not tell us when the flood occurred we dont know that it was in "recent" history.

LP:
The Bible is clearly shoddily-written, then. I notice a total lack of physical evidence for a worldwide flood. There is also some strong biogeographical evidence of faunal continuity that suggests either (1) continuous habitation or (2) careful replacement after a flood.

Consider Australian marsupials. Why did all the kangaroos hop to Australia and leave none behind? Why didn't some of the wombats decide to burrow into the base of Mt. Ararat? Why didn't some of the echidnas decide that Mt. Ararat ants were good enough for them?

Or consider the edentates (armadillos, sloths, South American anteater), a distinct group of mammals that lives in the Americas. Why didn't any of the sloths decide to stay behind and much Mt. Ararat leaves? Why didn't some of the anteaters decide that Mt. Ararat ants were good enough for them?

Or consider the Afrotheria (((elephants, sea cows) hyraxes), aardvarks, golden moles, elephant shrews, tenrecs), named for the African home of seveal of them. Why didn't some of the aardvarks decide that Mt. Ararat ants were good enough for them?

However, continental drift has a natural explanation: Australia has been isolated for the last 120 million years, and South America and Africa have also been isolated for much of that time.

Ed:
Also, many scientists believe that Mars once was totally covered by a planetary flood so why not earth?

LP:
Liquid water, yes. A planet-wide flood? No positive reason to believe that that had ever happened.

Ed:
Given that the flood only lasted one year and the earth-changing powers of the large plant population on earth and the volcanic activity on the earth there may not be that much evidence for the flood left.

LP:
How very convenient [sarcasm].

Ed:
But there are many fossil beds that do show evidence of hydraulic castastrophe.

LP:
LOCAL floods, yes. And NOT some single global flood. Mars also has evidence of local floods in some places, but no convincing global flood.

Ed:
From about the time of Solomon till the return from the Babylonian exile there were long periods when the majority of jews were polytheists. However, earlier hebrews learned from Moses that there was only one God. Read Deut. 4:28, 39.

LP:
Moses may have been a semi-mythical or an entirely-mythical person; later generations then projected their laws and decrees onto him.

Ed:
As I stated before, we cannot directly verify that the laws of physics and the laws of logic were valid in prehistory.

LP:
So you prefer to manufacture convenient laws of physics and laws and logic in order to rescue the Bible, simply because you were not around back then?