Celsus

YHWHTruth, I would like to get back to you, but I'm fairly busy at the moment. One thing you might want to do first is read some archaeology since the 1960s. Almost nothing that has been said since the likes of Albright et al. is taken at face value any more. That is, if you aren't here with an agenda but to learn. It is an exciting journey!

Joel

Edit: Could you provide the reference for where this information is being taken from? Thank you.

lpetrich

Here are some of my favorite examples of Biblical errancy:

If there was some historical Noah's Flood, it would have been a relatively localized event -- or simply an exaggeration of some real flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. And the large majority of humanity would not only have survived it, but would have been unaware of its occurrence.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah features symbolic names -- "burned/scorched" and "heap" ruled by "son of bad" and "son of mischief". Or more colorfully, Burntville and Rubbleheap ruled by Mr. Wicked and Mr. Mischief. This suggests that the story was a fictional tale inspired by the sight of various abandoned cities.

The patriarchs, dated to 2000-1500 BCE, ran camel caravans, something that did not start until nearly a millennium later.

No event corresponding to the Exodus is mentioned in any Egyptian records; it is too big to hide, and it could easily be given some Sahhafian spin ("We expelled those pesky disease-ridden slaves...").

Jonah could not have survived three days in the stomach of a sea monster, because he would have quickly run out of air -- before being digested. That is if he had been swallowed at all, and only a Sperm Whale has a throat wide enough to swallow him.

YHWHtruth

From http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbBreakingIllSpecial2.html

"Take, for example, the Exodus. We don't need Professor Herzog to tell us that 2 million Israelites did not cross the Sinai on their
way out of Egypt, despite the biblical implication as to this number (Exodus 12:37). And neither an archaeologist nor a historian can speak to the question as to whether God parted the Red Sea. It is also true that, as Professor Herzog tells us, no Egyptian document mentions the Israelites' presence in Egypt, nor the events of the Exodus. That is really all he says to support his grandiose lead: "The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert." Given this lead, I am surprised that he did not add the usual canard that there is no archaeological evidence of the Israelites' wandering in the desert.

Instead, Herzog begins to contradict himself. He admits that "many [Egyptian] documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta." This suggests that it is at least plausible that the Israelites (or the Israelites in formation) were among these groups. And Herzog fails to mention that the Egyptians tell us that these shepherds (and others) came from Asia and that they settled in precisely the area where the Bible tells us the Israelites settled.

Herzog counters, however, that "this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional." Does this prove that the Israelites were not one of these groups? Hardly. Herzog's point is perhaps that the story could have been invented years later. Of course that it is possible. But the reverse is equally possible. He has surely not proved that Israel was not there. Yet that is all he says to prove his major point.

In fact, much more could be said that indicates the plausibility of
an Israelite sojourn in Egypt. An Austrian archaeologist has
identified a so-called four-room house usually identified with
Israelites that he discovered in Goshen, the part of the Nile Delta
where the Israelites settled. A prominent English Egyptologist has noted that the price for which Joseph was sold into slavery was the price at the time of the supposed event, rather than the much higher price that prevailed when the story was composed. All scholars agree that in the mid-second millennium B.C. Egypt was ruled by some Asiatic interlopers known as the Hyksos. All this—and much more—plausibly suggests a real, historical prehistory of the Israelites in Egypt."

Max

lpetrich

Another Biblical howler is the kind of genetic engineering practiced in Genesis 30: Jacob makes solid-color livestock have spotted and streaked livestock by showing them some sticks with stripes painted on them.

However, such Lamarckian inheritance simply does not happen. There are numerous examples of the non-inheritance of mutilations, learning, and other such experience, and there is zero evidence for a mechanism for inheritance of such features.

There is a possible way for immune responses to be inherited, by a gene for some useful antibody getting copied into the genome of a germ cell. But only one biologist (Steele, IIRC) has ever claimed success in finding that phenomenon, and most other features lack such an inheritance pathway.

There is also some possible evidence of controlled gene editing in Escherichia coli bacteria being inherited, but I'm not sure of the status of that.

Peter Kirby

So what is the archaeological evidence of a large number of Israelites wandering in the Sinai desert for forty years in the second millennium BC?

best,
Peter Kirby

YHWHtruth

Peter did you see the link?

Herzog's Attack on the Bible Unjustified
written by Hershel Shanks.

Thought I would share this

Max

YHWHtruth

lpetrich reading the account in toto clears this up. So here Jacob started off tending only sheep of normal color and goats with no markings. However, he worked hard and did what he thought would increase the number of off-colored animals. He took green sapling staffs of the storax, almond, and plane trees, and peeled the barks of these in such a way as to give them a striped, spotty appearance. These he placed in the gutters of the animals’ drinking troughs, apparently with the idea that if the animals looked at the stripes when in heat there would be a prenatal influence that would make the offspring mottled or abnormal in color. Jacob also took care to place the sticks in the troughs only when the stronger robust animals were in heat. Ge 30:37-42.

Results? The offspring abnormally marked or colored, and therefore Jacob’s wages, proved to be more numerous than those of normal solid color, which were to be Laban’s. Since the desired results were obtained, Jacob probably thought his stratagem with the striped sticks was responsible. In this he no doubt shared the same misconception commonly held by many people, namely, that such things can have an effect on the offspring. However, in a dream his Creator instructed him otherwise.

In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics, and not the sticks, were responsible for his success. Whereas Jacob was tending only solid-colored animals, yet the vision revealed that the male goats were striped, speckled, and spotty. How could this be? Apparently they were hybrids even though of uniform color, the result of crossbreeding in Laban’s flock before Jacob began being paid. So certain of these animals carried in their reproductive cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling future generations, according to the laws of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel in the last century. Ge 31:10-12.

Peter Kirby

Max, I will read what you post on this board (in fact I'm obligated to do so as a moderator). I saw the link but read the portion you quoted. In it, the idea that there is no archaeological evidence for the Israelite trek through the wilderness described in Exodus is called a "canard." Is there in fact such archaeological evidence? Or is the fact that there is no such archaeological evidence just so numbingly familiar to scholars that they downplay its significance?

best,
Peter Kirby

lpetrich

(On Biblical genetic engineering...)

YHWHtruth:
... Since the desired results were obtained, Jacob probably thought his stratagem with the striped sticks was responsible. In this he no doubt shared the same misconception commonly held by many people, namely, that such things can have an effect on the offspring. However, in a dream his Creator instructed him otherwise.

How enlightening it is to actually read the Bible!

Genesis 30 clearly implies that it was those sticks that did it -- when Jacob showed them, the livestock were born spotted and streaked, and when Jacob did not show them, the livestock were born solid-colored.

So if it wasn't those sticks that did it, then it must have been a remarkable coincidence.

In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics, and not the sticks, were responsible for his success. ...

Except that Genesis 31:10-12 indicates no such thing. It does NOT state that the spots and stripes were some recessive genetic features that were brought together in some of the livestock that Jacob cared for.

In fact, Genesis 30 does not describe ANY selective breeding for color patterns -- just the showing of those sticks.

lpetrich

Some more Biblical howlers:

* What was that star that those astrologers had followed to Jesus Christ's birthplace? Why did nobody else see it?

According to Matthew, when Jesus Christ was born, King Herod ordered the mass murder of baby boys in Bethlehem to keep Jesus Christ from continuing to live. However, no other historian mentions this alleged event, even though they give a rather unflattering portrait of Herod.

* Jesus Christ being taken up some mountain where he could see "all the kingdoms of the world". Where is that mountain?

The distance one can see from a mountain with height h on a world with radius R is sqrt(2*h*R) when h << R. And for a mountain the height of Mt. Everest, about 8.9 km above sea level, that distance is about 340 km. Which is only a small fraction of the extent of the Roman Empire, let along the distance to Persia and India.

* According to Matthew, when JC was executed, there was an unusual darkness starting at noon that lasted for three hours.

It is curious that nobody else saw that darkness, with the alleged exception of a certain Thallus, who is quoted thirdhand as having noticed some unusual darkness at one time.

Why didn't Pliny the Elder see it? He was about 7-10 years old when it happened, and he would certainly have been interested in it. He wrote a big volume called Natural History, in which he discussed, among other things, eclipses, and he died while observing the famous 79-CE eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.

Why didn't Philo Judaeus of Alexandria see it? Philo would have been about 50 years old, and he would have had no trouble seeing it if it happened.

Why didn't Josephus mention it? Though he was born or soon to be born when it happened, he discusses in detail the career of Pontius Pilate, who had lived through that alleged event.

Why didn't Suetonius or Tacitus mention it? They had chronicled the reign of Emperor Tiberius, who had lived when this alleged event happened.

So let's score that event:

Matthew: yes
Pliny: no
Philo: no
Josephus: no
Suetonius: no
Tacitus: no

Yes: 1
No: 5