Did Old Testament events really occur?

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: Let's take for example the Exodus:

"According to Jeffery L. Sheler of Newsweek, in The Fight for History, says, "Some scholars, for example, say thre is no quest of Canaan -- key events in the Bible that explain Israel's emergence in the Promised Land during the Late Bronze Age. Expunging those events from ancient history, some argue, would seriously weaken modern Israel's claims to a biblical birthright in the Middle East."

There seems to be archeological evidence that is creating an international split concerning biblical stories of the Old Testament. Archeologists are finding that there is little to no historical evidence to acertain what is recorded in the Torah such as the Exodus, that ancient Israel as described in the Bible never existed, and that Abraham, Moses and Kings David and Solomon are fictional characters of Hebrew mythology. Scholars also believe that the entire Old Testament was composed around 538 BC (more than a thousand years after the events had occurred. As one would imagine, religious leaders have tried to prove the archeologists and biblical scholars wrong.

Stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood have long been believed by researchers to be myths as were the patriarchs of old, David and Solomon, and the Hebrew prophets -- all myths, but what does this mean?

The evidence -- or lack of it -- has led biblical scholars to come to the conclusion that not only was there no Exodus of the tribe of "Apiru" out of Egypt, there was probably no Babylonian exile either. The lack of archeological evidence as compared to what the researchers have found is leading them to conclude that there was no historical authenticity for Israel's claim to the Promised Land!

Enter the Palestinians. Thus far, nothing has been found by archeologists to confirm the historical and biblical existence of Abraham, which would affect both the Jews and the Arabs, nor have they found anything directly related to the patriarchs of old! Nothing has been found to corroborate the biblical account of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. However, the absence of evidence does not mean there is no evidence.

Theories such as these raise deeply sensitive questions. Did the ancient Apiru plunder and pillage they way through Palestinian lands? Did the ancient Asiatic Semites really break into two separate religions -- Judaism and Islam? Did the Hebrews invade and occupy the homeland of the Arabs? Was there a group of Apiru who became the Hebrews? Maybe not. Maybe the existence of the ancient Apiru was just a myth? Could it be possible the Hebrews existed only in myth? Should the Bible be relied on as truth when the research proves its stories to be mythical? How does that affect Jews and Muslims today? Is the history of the Jews in jeopardy? Judaism is almost non-existent today. Could it be that Judaism never historically existed according to the archeological evidence? That would certainly change the face and politics of the Middle East. Only 0.23% of the world's population are practicing Jews. Muslims comprise about 20% of the world's population. My final question is, if the archeological evidence confirms the biblical writings to be myths, does that mean those who fled from Egypt were Egyptians and not ancient Hebrews? It would mean that most of our ancestral lines would have come from out of Egypt and not out of Israel (i.e. the diaspora). Maybe peace will finally come to the Middle East. Science cannot prove what exists. Science can only confirm what doesn't exist.

Your comments are welcomed.
 
The funny thing here is that all of Egyptian history - and from links to Egypt we date the Hittites, Babylonians, Canaanites and even the early Greeks - is dated using two questionable links to the Bible. The first link is to the Exodus. Early Egyptologists assumed that Rameses II (the Great) was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The second link is between Shishak of the bible and Shoshank I.

When you say there is no archeological evidence, what you really are saying is that there is no evidence of the Hebrews "at the time of Rameses", not that there is no evidence of Hebrews in Egypt. There is in fact lots of evidence for Hebrews in Egypt, just not at the time of Rameses.

As it turns out, there is no evidence for these links - the Egyptologists simply made them up. If you get these two erroneous links out of the way, then the true time of Moses, Joshua, Joseph, David, and Solomon come out and there is evidence for these stories. Moses actually becomes a contemporary of Hamarabi and David becomes a contemporary of Akhenaten. Joshua is put at his correct time which correlates nicely with one of the destruction dates of Jericho. Solomon goes into the prosperous Bronze Age which is exactly as described in the bible.

The problem is not the bible, but rather the almost two centuries old errors of the first Egyptologists sent by Napoleon.

http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/dyns/kings.htm
 
Last edited:
A stone engraved with King David's name has found. Cities much like Sodom and Gomoreah have been found. But more importantly, you're the confusioning Israel, a place where both Jews and those of other religions live, with a state only allowing Jews to live. Not the same. From the times of the romans till now Jews lived in Israel.
 
Dear Medicine Woman,

There may be a serious lack of historical materials regarding Babylon, but that is only because that entire vacinity was sacked and burned more than a few times. First Persia destroyed it. Then Islam ransacked the area. Then in the 12 Century the Golden Horde under Genghis Khan killed everybody they could find and burned everything they couldn't carry away. Then a few centuries later Timerlane, to be just like his 'hero' Genghis Khan did it all over again. After that, History can only learn about Ancient Babylon from second or third hand. The same goes for Persian History.

But not having specific proofs does not mean that things never happened.

We would NEED Babylon to explain where the Bible DID come from. We know that the first substantial editions of the Torah came with the Jews from Babylon. The Jews had thrown in with the Persians and had helped overthrow Babylon by opening the Gates from within. As a reward for their treachery they were given property rights over Judea. They came back and dispossessed everybody that had stayed (only the Ruling Families had been taken hostage back to Babylon). And they wielded the Torah over them and used it as a tool for consolidating their power in the Priesthood of Levi -- the most Powerful Ruling Family to come back from Babylon.

Incidentally the Persians also paid them off in herds of sheep and goats. This is the reason why the Torah declared against the eating of pork. The Jews from Babylon wanted a total monopoly in the Meat Market and so outlawed all local meat production. Think about it. Most urban areas will be Pork Producers because Pork can be raised on various slops and urban waste products.

The Stories of the Bible were largely borrowed from old Babylonian Legends. Babylon had been quite a Cosmopolitan Civilization with communications extending everywhere, and so the Stories of the Bible could have been quite universal. Scholars think that the Moses stories may have sourced out of the Kashmir. Some of the place names in the Kashmir appear to be straight out of the Old Testament, and a census conducted in the first Century AD showed that the name of every third male child was 'Moses'. Also, "The Land of Milk and Honey" seems more fitting for beautiful Kashmir then for Palestine that is rather dry and rocky in comparison.

Also, all of the best of the Old Testament seems to source out of Zoroastrian Philosophy. All that seems to be originally Hebrew smackes of primitive amoral tribal animistic Religion, which, really, is no religion at all. I think the Jews are given a lot of credit simply for having been clever plagiarizers of previous Higher Religious Traditions which were unfortunately destroyed by Barbarian Incursions that destroyed the Original Sources. But it is telling that the Hebrews were not much better than ignorant hill people before they came back from Babylon, suddenly, toting their Torah. It is like some Hollywood Screenwriter adapting "Romeo and Juliet". It does not make him William F. Shakespeare.
 
As it turns out, there is no evidence for these links - the Egyptologists simply made them up
Click to expand...

This is the same sentence you use for everything, and it's somewhat disturbing.

Tree ring dating: Everyone is wrong but me, they all made it up
c14 dating: Everyone is wrong but me, they all made it up
Evolution: Everyone is wrong but me, they all made it up

etc etc etc

Isn't it worth considering that they didn't 'make it up', but that you just don't understand anything about it?
 
Leo Volont said:
Incidentally the Persians also paid them off in herds of sheep and goats. This is the reason why the Torah declared against the eating of pork. The Jews from Babylon wanted a total monopoly in the Meat Market and so outlawed all local meat production. Think about it. Most urban areas will be Pork Producers because Pork can be raised on various slops and urban waste products.
Click to expand...
This account is urban myth, probably with some anti-Semitic roots. Typically, the cause/effect was incorrectly attributed to the gods.

In reality, avoidance of pork was pretty universal in the region. There's this small problem of Trichinella spiralis which had unhealthy effects when consuming members of the family Suidae whose unpleasant eating habits made it particularily prone to this little nematode. Modern meat processing practice has all but eliminated it.
 
I'm struggling through the book The Bible In History by Thomas L. Thompson in which he more or less decries any archaeo-historical reading of the bible - in concert with any biblical reading of archaeology. He basically argues the fact that too much archaeology is tied up with trying to prove some kind of link with what is in the Bible.

However, he is far too extreme, in that he reckons that everything in the Bible is totally and utterly mythical and imagination with no historical basis whatsoever, so that you shouldn't even "read between the lines" to deduce the true history (or a true history, in the sense that certain events may have happened to certain people, but we can't pin it to a specific period) of Palestine for the first and second millennia BCE. So, early in the book he cites the famous "Moabite Stele" in which the same sort of story as appears frequently in the books of Kings and Chronicles is written on a stele from the point of view of a Moabite king. But he argues that it is just as fictional as the Biblical account. My interpretation is that the stele is at least confirmation of the Bible's statements about a people called Moabites who worshipped a god named Chemosh (who is named as the angry deity on the stone).

However, I prefer Asimov's Guide to the Bible which accepts more or less prima facie that most of the Pentateuch is likely to be mythos, but that the Histories (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are more historical (although with certainly a lot of mythology mixed in).

I'm finding The Bible in History quite a difficult read, but I will get back to it.
 
Silas: I'm struggling through the book The Bible In History by Thomas L. Thompson in which he more or less decries any archaeo-historical reading of the bible - in concert with any biblical reading of archaeology. He basically argues the fact that too much archaeology is tied up with trying to prove some kind of link with what is in the Bible.

However, he is far too extreme, in that he reckons that everything in the Bible is totally and utterly mythical and imagination with no historical basis whatsoever, so that you shouldn't even "read between the lines" to deduce the true history (or a true history, in the sense that certain events may have happened to certain people, but we can't pin it to a specific period) of Palestine for the first and second millennia BCE. So, early in the book he cites the famous "Moabite Stele" in which the same sort of story as appears frequently in the books of Kings and Chronicles is written on a stele from the point of view of a Moabite king. But he argues that it is just as fictional as the Biblical account. My interpretation is that the stele is at least confirmation of the Bible's statements about a people called Moabites who worshipped a god named Chemosh (who is named as the angry deity on the stone).

However, I prefer Asimov's Guide to the Bible which accepts more or less prima facie that most of the Pentateuch is likely to be mythos, but that the Histories (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are more historical (although with certainly a lot of mythology mixed in).

I'm finding The Bible in History quite a difficult read, but I will get back to it.
*************
M*W: Thanks for this post. I'd like to read them myself. I've often heard that the Penteteuch was NOT written by Moses and that it is tainted with symbolism.
 
marv said:
This account is urban myth, probably with some anti-Semitic roots. Typically, the cause/effect was incorrectly attributed to the gods.

In reality, avoidance of pork was pretty universal in the region. There's this small problem of Trichinella spiralis which had unhealthy effects when consuming members of the family Suidae whose unpleasant eating habits made it particularily prone to this little nematode. Modern meat processing practice has all but eliminated it.
Click to expand...

No! What you are purporting is the Myth. It is the version that is most flattering to the publishers and bankers of the World.

But the Truth is EVERYBODY ELSE LOVES PORK, and IT TASTES BEST WHEN YOU COOK IT. Chinese have no problem with Pork. Japanese have no problem with Pork. Europeans have no problem with Pork.

The only people who had a problem with Pork are people who were given huge heards of Goats and Sheep whose value would double if Pork were for whatever reason outlawed.

Oh, but I know what you are all thinking... no Jew in the History of the World has ever been known to be motivated simply by monetary interests... Yeah, we hear that all the time. It is right up there with Zionism is not a form of Racism.
 

Zoroastrianism had a major influence on Judeo-Christianity; in fact, Mithra, who later became Yazat, was a son of a god and his mother was a virign. Traditionally, Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December.
 
LensmanZ313 said:

Zoroastrianism had a major influence on Judeo-Christianity; in fact, Mithra, who later became Yazat, was a son of a god and his mother was a virign. Traditionally, Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December.
Click to expand...

Yes!

I always thought it was a grave matter being parochially overzealous of the Early Christian Churchs to define themselves so apart from the Zoroastrians, but then again, they were severly eager even to war among themselves.

God, on the other hand, and even the Blessed Virgin Mary, would ever appreciate the sincerity of the Zoroastrians. For instance, the Sufis, who claim for Public Relations reasons to be Islamic, are actually Zoroastrian, but claim to be Islamic so they don't get their heads cut off.... anyway, they have had many authentic Saints... and a Religion cannot have Saints unless it is acceptable to God. A reverse instance of this principal, is demonstrated by Protestant Christianity, which in 500 years has yet to have its first Saint.

Anyway, Zoroastrianism has largely been beaten out of the World, Islam being its worst enemy. It survives in India as Parseeism. There are still scattered Zoroastrian Villages around -- one I heard about still passes on the Legend of the Divine Princess who protected the Village during the times of the Islamic Conquests. Now, that Village, and all such Villages are surrounded by an Islam armed with Military Power and wishing to use the tools of State, even Democracy, to suppress all Minorities... even Minorities that are Right and Correct in the Eyes of God.

In the midst of all the propaganda for Democracy, we must remember that nothing could conceivably be worst for Minority Rights then democracy. Minorities do not win elections, do they?
 

Even in legend, it was said that Zoroaster's mother was a virgin, and visited by "angelic" beings; Zoroaster didn't start teaching his philosophy until the age of thirty . . . .
 
Leo Volont said:
No! What you are purporting is the Myth. It is the version that is most flattering to the publishers and bankers of the World.

But the Truth is EVERYBODY ELSE LOVES PORK, and IT TASTES BEST WHEN YOU COOK IT. Chinese have no problem with Pork. Japanese have no problem with Pork. Europeans have no problem with Pork.

The only people who had a problem with Pork are people who were given huge heards of Goats and Sheep whose value would double if Pork were for whatever reason outlawed.

Oh, but I know what you are all thinking... no Jew in the History of the World has ever been known to be motivated simply by monetary interests... Yeah, we hear that all the time. It is right up there with Zionism is not a form of Racism.
Click to expand...
No, I'm thinking that you're a rabid anti-Semite.

I don't think that any Jew would deny that some Jews are certainly motivated by monetary interest - as are many, many Gentiles. They might well claim that the reason many people who deal with financial matters happen to be Jews is that .... well, they're simply better at it than the Goyim. On the other hand many Jews would agree with you about the racism of Zionism - maybe that surprises you?

However, you appear to be attaching mercenary motives to the Jews for having introduced a law which ..... only affects the Jews. So at worst, some Jews were getting rich at the expense of other Jews. Let's assume that you are correct in your assertion - that the only reason for the anti-Pork law was mercenary. Is that any reason to start ranting in the way you did? The "Publishers and bankers of the world" - presumably these the ones in the global Zionist Conspiracy you evidently believe in. Why would they be particularly flattered by the nematode worm explanation of the pork-ban? I'm quite sure that much more flattering explanations could be thought up. In fact you could see the "pork-market manipulation" explanation as more flattering than either the hygiene one or the one I personally believe is responsible for the ban - some individual priest's personal disgust for pigs.

You disgust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top