Is ancient Jewish history more accurate than ancient Egyptian/Mesopotamian history? [Archive]

WebToaster

June 10th 2004, 07:10 PM

Is this statement alledgedly from the Smithsonian true? If it is true, how much more so is ancient Jewish history than many ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek histories, or others histories?
The statement (assuming it is from the Smithsonian) does NOT say ancient Jewish history is more accurate than ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Greek history. So the subject of your thread can not be supported by the Smithsonian statement.

It says "much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.."

The first problem is that it is said to be more accurate than "many" of the other histories. Does that mean its not as accurate as "some" of them? We don't know. There are a lot of Egyptian historical writings, and "many" of them are viewed as more inaccurate.

The next problem is that the Bible is separated into "historical books" of the old testament. So, unless you are willing to consider some of the Bible as non-historical, the comparison can't be made at all. In fact the article talks about parts of Genesis being folk tradition, so the the AIG site calls this the work of the devil.

kendemyer

June 10th 2004, 07:30 PM

Dear Bahai guy:

Let me clarify things because I think I could have been more clear in my initial post based on my examination of my initial post.

"Is the Old testament a better history in regards to ACCURACY than most ancient works from other civilizations which purport to be historical accounts?"

I am looking to a well supported essay or other scholarly work to support this position and it would be necessary that the work makes direct comparisons. Any decent links or books you could provide would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Ken

WebToaster

June 11th 2004, 12:27 PM

"Is the Old testament a better history than most ancient works from other civilizations which purport to be historical accounts?"
However, you have again asked a question which is close to meaningless. I can equally ask the question:

Is the Old testament a worse history than some ancient works from other civilizations which purport to be historicial?

The answer to the opposing question is yes. Egyptian history is pretty good, and is generally far more reliable to dates prior to Moses. Can the Bible explain how upper and lower Egypt were united? No...

So, to elicit a meaningful response, you're going to have to clarify your question far more specifically.

kendemyer

June 11th 2004, 03:51 PM

to: ALL

I wish to clarify my previous post and I edited my previous post for the sake of subsequent readers. I also think I could have been more clear in my previous post upon further reflection.

I am looking to see what history is the most ACCURATE in ancient times: Jewish, Egyptian, Mesopatamian, etc based on our current knowledge (I stress accuracy). In short, I would like to see what information (if any)supports the purported Smithsonian position.

I am looking to a well supported essay or other scholarly work to support this position and it would be necessary that the work makes direct comparisons. Any decent links or books you could provide would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Ken

WebToaster

June 11th 2004, 04:02 PM

I am looking to see what history is the most ACCURATE in ancient times: Jewish, Egyptian, Mesopatamian, etc based on our current knowledge (I stress accuracy). In short, I would like to see what information (if any)supports the purported Smithsonian position.
When you say 'ANCIENT' times you need to be VERY specific for the time and place in which you specifiy 'ANCIENT.' Is this 1500 BC, 2000 BC, 3000, 10000 BC, Greece, Palestine, Egypt, etc...?

Obviously, the Bible has little or no accuracy in specifying Chinese ancient history, or Egyptian history prior to Moses, so please clarify your statement.

kendemyer

June 11th 2004, 04:13 PM

TO: ALL

I do not plan on being picayune in my discussion(s) and quibbling about what is truly ancient.

I think most readers will recognize that accuracy is not concerned with breadth but the veracity of what is actually stated.

I plan on returning to this string in September when my workload is less because I am fairly busy in the summer due to the seasonal aspect of my industry. I thought this statement by the Smithsonian was interesting and I wanted to read more about this subject. Any input/work/citation of a scholarly nature that is well supported via comparisons would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ken

WebToaster

June 11th 2004, 04:29 PM

I do not plan on being picuyune in my discussion(s) and quibbling about what is truly ancient. Let's suppose you mean picayune and that 'ancient' is chronoligically associated with that which is prior to Moses (you haven't stated anything yet, so I'll concede this timescale).

I think most readers will recognize that accuracy is not concerned with breadth but the veracity of what is actually stated. Actually, you haven't stated anything yet, so please clarify. Is the Bible a good historical document for determining the history of upper and lower Egypt's consolidation? The Bible says nothing about this, so the 'breadth' of such concerns is non-applicable.

I plan on returning to this string in September when my workload is less because I am fairly busy in the summer due to the seasonal aspect of my industry. I thought this statement by the Smithsonian was interesting and I wanted to read more about this subject. Any input/work/citation of a scholarly nature that is well supported via comparisons would be appreciated. See ya then,
Jerry

learning

June 13th 2004, 12:46 AM

learning

June 13th 2004, 09:40 PM

Sorry, I have not found the book, but when I do, I'll come back to this.

Bubbahotep

June 14th 2004, 12:11 PM

Ken,

ancient near eastern chronology is based on Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronologies, not on the chronology of the Bible. This is because in many areas the chronology of the OT historical books doesn't jive with itself, let alone with outside sources. A good, easy book to read on the problems of OT history is Chronicle of the Old Testament Kings by Thames and Hudson. Check it out.

kendemyer

June 14th 2004, 03:26 PM

TO: Bubbahotep

I plan on reading the book recommended by Chris Chillin along with some of his other recommended books to me. Here is what Chris chillin wrote in another string:

"Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, has just recently come out with a massive new work on the Old Testament. This well-regarded Egyptologist is one of the top maximalists who contends for a high view of the Old Testament and its historicity. I have just ordered On the Reliability of the Old Testament and will make my own comments on it in the future. In the meantime, here is the only review of Kitchen's book that I have managed to find online." Please see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20788 for more details.

I have found through much previous experience that the skeptics claims fall flat. For example, I cite something I wrote to you in another string:

The recent Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman declares that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach to their Bible commentary (Please see http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/humanities/religion/obc/bib_schol/ ).

I believe it is fair to say then that the Bible's critics have made at least several errors in their commentary regarding the Bible.

Also, given your previous post to me in another string in which you were fairly bombastic and give no real support for your bombastic opinion (see post #17,18 of this string: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=588657#post588657), I regretfully have to say that I have little interest in reading the book you suggested. More importantly, I stated the material I am looking for in regards to this string earlier. I said:

"I am looking to a well supported essay or other scholarly work to support this position and it would be necessary that the work makes direct comparisons. Any decent links or books you could provide would be helpful."

In short, I am looking for a work which COMPARES the ancient Jews and Egyptians (or other ancient cultures) in terms of the accuracy of there respective histories they have compiled. I am willing to listen to both sides (skeptics/Christians/etc) but they must give comparisons to determine which culture was more accurate.

TO: ALL

Here is something that may interest readers:

A website declares:

"Ruling elites also seem to have an 'arrogance' problem. They are known to "edit down" accounts of their rival predecessors (e.g., they 'scratch out' their accomplishments on memorials), 'edit up' accounts of their genetic predecessors (e.g., make their ancestors into deities), and omit material that is not flattering to them (e.g., boast about winning a battle when they had lost the war).

For example, Ramases II (likely pharaoh of the Exodus) was one of the kings who vigorously pursued this [OT:PTLTR:224]:

"Negatively, the Ramesside kings were content simply to destroy the names and memory of the Aten kings wherever possible (restoring the names of Amun and the gods)..."

A second example can be seen in Assyria. So, CAM:181:
"Not surprisingly, the version of history presented in the Assyrian annals was biased, but sometimes the inscriptions of Assyria's rivals and neighbors provide a corrective. The royal correspondence of the Assyrian court also gives a more objective view. About 1,300 letters between Sargon and officials from all over this empire, and agents living outside the borders of Assyria, have survived. Many of the letters are fragmentary, imprecisely dated, and, as much of the background information was omitted because it was familiar to the correspondents, are often difficult to interpret. Still, they reveal the issues with which Assyrian domestic and foreign policy was concerned, which are not evident in the official propaganda. The royal inscriptions create an impression of inevitable success, implying that there was no resistance to the will of the king, before whom, with the gods on his side, all had to submit. The correspondence, in contrast, cast doubt on the outcome of some of the policies, describing how omens and oracles were consulted before any action was taken and recording failures as well as successes." "

taken from: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html

Lastly, I said earlier I did not plan to post to this string until September but I wished to reiterate what I was looking for in the meantime. I wish to say at this time that I regret I do not have a source/work that does a comparison of the accuracies of various ancient cultures historical accounts and I wish I could offer more help to the readers of this string.

Sincerely,

Ken

learning

June 15th 2004, 09:18 AM

This is the reference I was referring to. It speaks of the 'nations of Shem' in Appendix 1, of the book 'After the Flood' by Bill Cooper pages 169-185.
I shall list the 65 descendants that he mentions, with just five or so at first.
the initials refer to the following, 'The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible' IDB;
The New Bible Dictionary, NBD; Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, JA; Commentary of the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole, "P" to represent this.
1. Shem. The father of all the Semitic nations.
(Refs.: IDB 4:321. NBD 1175. JA 1.vi.4. P 1:28)

2. Elam: The founder of the Elamites, who were known to the Babylonians as the Elamtu, to the Greeks as Elymais, and whom the Romans knew as the Elymaei. The Elamites recorded their own name as the Haltamti. Subsequently, in the Old Persian inscriptions their name is rendered (h)uju, and huz in the Middle Persian, which is the archaic form of the modern Persian name of Khuzistan, which now covers what used to be the land of Elam. (see Map 2)
(Refs: IDB 2:70. NBD 355-6. JA 1.vi.3. P 1:28)

3.Asshur: The founder of the nation to whom he gave his name, Assyria. It may be possible to identify Asshur in the early king-lists of Assyria as Puzur Asshur I. According to thiese lists, Puzur Asshur I would have lived and reigned ca 1960 B.C., which accords rather well with the biblical chronology. Asshur was one of the earliest men to be deified and worshipped by his descendants. Indeed, as long as Assyria lasted, that is until 612 B.C., accounts of battles, diplomatic affairs and foreign bulletins were daily read out to his image; and every Assyrian king held that he wore the crown only with the express permission of Asshur's deified ghost (see Map 2)
(Refs: IDB 1:261. NBD 'Assyria' 100-7. JA 1.vi.3. P 1:27)

4. Arphaxad: He was the progenitor of the Chaldeans, his name, apparently, corresponding to that of arp-keshed, the border marches of Chaldea. That he was indeed the forebear of the Chaldeans is confirmed by the Hurrian(Nuzi) tablets, which render the name as Arip-hurra - the founder of Chaldea. The name was aslo known to the Akkadians as Arraphu. Some scholars have endeavoured to treat his name as a derivative of the Assyrian phrase arba-kishshatu, meaning the four corners of the world. The Assyrians knew his descendants as the Kaldu, who were adept astrologers, magicians, and mathematicians. Ptolemy recorded the name of their land as Arrapichitis, whilst it was known to others as Arphaxitis. Their very earliest settlement, however, would appear to be what is today a 2 1/2 acre ruin that still bears the name Arpachiya. It lies some four miles to the east of ancient Nineveh, and is the remains of a very early farming community. (see Map 2.)
(Refs: IDB 1:231. NBD 86. JA 1.vi.3. P1:28)

5. Lud: the early descendants of Lud, the Ludim, were known to both the Assyrians and Babylonians as the Ludu. Josephus tells us that their land was later knonw as Lydia (a direct Greek derivation of the name Lud) which lay in western Asia Minor. (Josephus rendered the name Laud.) The Lydians were famed in the old world for the skill of their archers. They spoke an Indo-European (Japhetic) language, examples of which are to be found on certain Egyptian monuments. The land of Lydia was finally conquered by Cyrus, king of Persia, in the year 546 B.C. (see Map 4)
(Refs: IDB 3: 178-9. NBD 755. JA 1.vi.3. P1:28)

Bubbahotep

June 15th 2004, 10:23 AM

Ken,

you wrote:

I have found through much previous experience that the skeptics claims fall flat. For example, I cite something I wrote to you in another string:

Hopefully your "previous experience" involved reading, as well as your apologetic material, the views of a wide range of scholars, including those who would disagree with your favored viewpoint. If you have done so you would know that the arguments of those who claim to have found archaeological proof of what the Bible says also often fall flat. What you want to do is look at what the evidence says. Which side does it support? Which side makes the fewest baseless assumptions? While Bible critics may have made some errors (most of the ones you seem to consider were made a long time before serious archaeology was done in the Middle East), Bible supporters have easily made just as many.

Now, you claim that because I gave you a "bombastic opinion" you're not going to read the book I pointed out to you. Sadly, the only thing this does is show a very childish attitude. "I'm not going to play with you because you hurt my feelings!" I don't think we need that here; such attitudes aren't held by people seriously interested in seeking the truth. Needless to say, I dispute your description of my post as "bombastic" and kindly ask you to point out how my post warranted such a description. If you cannot support your opinion, I will fully understand.

Anyway, here is a book that most certainly meets your request:

Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald Redford

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Egypt_Canaan_and_Israel_in_Ancient_Times.html

If you can get past the fact that I pointed you to this source, you'll find a lot of relevant information in there. Have fun!

PS Sorry to see that your business doesn't seem to be going too well. You've said repeatedly you won't be posting again until September, yet seem to have unlimited amounts of time to search online for websites and then to post them here. Hopefully things will pick up for you.

WebToaster

June 15th 2004, 11:15 AM

Now, you claim that because I gave you a "bombastic opinion" you're not going to read the book I pointed out to you. Sadly, the only thing this does is show a very childish attitude. "I'm not going to play with you because you hurt my feelings!" I don't think we need that here; such attitudes aren't held by people seriously interested in seeking the truth. Needless to say, I dispute your description of my post as "bombastic" and kindly ask you to point out how my post warranted such a description. If you cannot support your opinion, I will fully understand.
Bubbahotep: The first time I encountered Ken on TWeb he posted a site purporting to refute Darwinism, yet he also posted the disclaimer that the author of the site was a Muslim which brought into question the validitity of the entire site since the author didn't believe Christ was God (although the content of the site was in no way related to Christ). Ken was careful to weigh this against the Islamic world's contribution to mathematics 1000 years ago. (thank you very much)

That gave me a pretty good idea about the world view of Ken. Unless you are a Bible based Christian, any information you convey (no matter the topic) is highly suspect in his view.

kendemyer

June 15th 2004, 12:13 PM

TO: Bubbahotep

You wrote:

"PS Sorry to see that your business doesn't seem to be going too well. You've said repeatedly you won't be posting again until September, yet seem to have unlimited amounts of time to search online for websites and then to post them here. Hopefully things will pick up for you."

MY REPLY

1. I said I did not plan on posting until September. This certainly does not mean that I will not post until September. The reason I did not plan on posting until September is that I did not plan on a unreasonable skeptic posting inane posts. I will admit,however, that although I do not agree with the book you suggested in regards to its conclusions, you did finally post something that at least had some relevancy as far as what I stated I was looking for. I should say that I do not consider all skeptics as unreasonable as you. I can think of 4 skeptics who post in Apologetics 301 who are far more reasonable than you.

2. It seems as if you are jumping to conclusions regarding my business and the opportunities it affords me. Just because I can easily find material that easily refutes you bombastic posts does not mean the business I am in is not profitable. I think any reader who goes to the link I cited that directs them to your bombastic post in the other string will see that I am not exagerrating in the slighest regarding the nature of that post. Here is the strings address again and please read post #'s 17 and 18 at: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2

TO: Bahai man

I know that you are offended that my faith and the law of non-contradiction is diametrically opposed to the bahai position and that you were offended that I made a comment that I do not agree with the Muslim position. However, I see nothing wrong with citing a Muslim who points out the error of the macroevolutionary position and then pointing out that I do not agree with the muslim position as a matter of conscience. Again, if I thought that him being a muslim invalidated everything he said I would not have cited him in the first place! Somehow you fail to see that obvious point!

Bubbahotep

June 15th 2004, 03:41 PM

Ken,

you don't seem to get sarcasm. I'm sorry for you, sarcasm can be quite fun!

The reason I did not plan on posting until September is that I did not plan on a unreasonable skeptic posting inane posts.

No, above you specifically wrote:

I plan on returning to this string in September when my workload is less because I am fairly busy in the summer due to the seasonal aspect of my industry.

Which is it, Ken? Why should you be taken seriously in the discussions we've been having when you don't appear to have any problems with being two-faced on things like this? Now, you've called me both a hypocrite and unreasonable. Mind supporting your statements? Put your money where your mouth is? How are my posts inane and unreasonable? I've merely been calling you to task for posting things without doing serious research. If that's unreasonable, you're the only one who will lose.

I should say that I do not consider all skeptics as unreasonable as you. I can think of 4 skeptics who post in Apologetics 301 who are far more reasonable than you.

I'm sure they're honored by your opinion.:ahem: So how do you decide who is a reasonable skeptic and who is not, Ken?

Just because I can easily find material that easily refutes you bombastic posts does not mean the business I am in is not profitable. I think any reader who goes to the link I cited that directs them to your bombastic post in the other string will see that I am not exagerrating in the slighest regarding the nature of that post.

And you claim I'm bombastic! Thanks for the laughs, Ken.

kendemyer

June 15th 2004, 05:18 PM

to: Bubbahotep

1) Re: My work plans changing

I said my plans changed. You see a certain bombastic skeptic entered one of my strings and I felt he richly deserved a comeuppance. By the way, I just thought of a 5th skeptic at TWeb who is far less bombastic and reasonable than you.

2) Regarding your bombastic nature with some supporting evidence

I will let each reader decide for himself based on the Ezekiel/desolation string and other strings regarding your cordiality and your bombasticity or lack thererof. I think there is a lot of evidence there (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2&pp=16 ).

Lastly, I have noticed that so far you have not received any pearls despite the fact that you have challenged my strings for about 10 post (I understand that everyone is now given 200 pearls and that you still have 200 pearls). It seems as if the skeptics and Christians agree on one thing and that is your posts have not put any significant dents in my strings! So perhaps I am not the only one who finds you bombastic and unreasonable. And I will say that it may not be unusual to get pearls from both sides of the fence (namely, the skeptical side of the fence and the Christian side of the fence which seem to be the main fences! [I can only see this from my records of pearls] ).

Sincerely,

Ken

WebToaster

June 16th 2004, 12:21 AM

TO: Bahai man

I know that you are offended that my faith and the law of non-contradiction is diametrically opposed to the bahai position and that you were offended that I made a comment that I do not agree with the Muslim position. However, I see nothing wrong with citing a Muslim who points out the error of the macroevolutionary position and then pointing out that I do not agree with the muslim position as a matter of conscience. Again, if I thought that him being a muslim invalidated everything he said I would not have cited him in the first place! Somehow you fail to see that obvious point!
No Ken, I am not offended by your faith, or by any laws of non-contradiction, nor am I offended that you disagree with the Muslim position.

Whenever you judge someone by race, creed, or color this is called discrimination or bigotry. If you're discussing religion, that is certainly an area where honest people can disagree on creeds themselves, but if you're evaluating viewpoints on macroevolution then their creed has absolutely nothing to do with quality of their writings.

I may also disagree with the 'Muslim position' on many topics, but if a Muslim were to hand me a piece of literature, or work of science, I surely hope I'm able to evaluate this without prejudice toward the creed of the author.

And if you truly believe in the law of non-contradiction, then how was Christianity born? It certainly contradicts Judaism on several critical points.

WebToaster

June 16th 2004, 12:36 AM

Lastly, I have noticed that so far you have not received any pearls despite the fact that you have challenged my strings for about 10 post (I understand that everyone is now given 200 pearls and that you still have 200 pearls). It seems as if the skeptics and Christians agree on one thing and that is your posts have not put any significant dents in my strings! So perhaps I am not the only one who finds you bombastic and unreasonable. And I will say that it may not be unusual to get pearls from both sides of the fence (namely, the skeptical side of the fence and the Christian side of the fence which seem to be the main fences! [I can only see this from my records of pearls] ).
Yet, I see Bubbahotep has a net gain of 5 pearls in only 10 posts. That's one pearl gained every 2.0 posts, and combined with the coefficient of bombasticity, it results in a VERY low 0.87 on the bombastometer standard scale of 0 to 10. Congratulations Bubbahotep!

Whereas Ken only has 36 pearls in 292 posts, and that results in whopping 7.65 rating on the bombastometer!!!!

Ken is clearly more bombastic, and the bombastometer never lies!

Bubbahotep

June 16th 2004, 01:30 AM

I honestly have no idea what this pearls thing is all about, nor do I really care. I entered these boards because I saw Ken making some rather unsupported and incorrect statements that needed correcting. Unfortunately, rather than properly debating the evidence, he's thrown out offensive and unsupported labels and resorted to questioning archaeology when it doesn't support his position, even though he accepts it at face value if it agrees with his favorite book. Can't say this instills in one any confidence in his abilities to rationally and reasonably evaluate data or arrive at conclusions that are not conditioned by his preconceived pet hypotheses. However, I do not wish to go off track here.

I do want to point out something here. The original question on this thread is whether ancient Jewish history is more reliable than that of ancient Egypt. I think Ken is confusing two things here: the ancient history of Egypt as recorded by the ancient Egyptians themselves and the ancient history of Egypt achieved by modern scholars. The history written by ancient Egyptians is probably not much more reliable than the OT histories. They are both fairly typical of ancient histories, with the general progression of history fairly well recorded, but with errors in the details. Neither ancient Jewish or ancient Egyptian historians, however, can hold a candle to modern scholars. This is no fault of their own, though. It is simply a fact that modern scholars have so much more information and better technology to evaluate the data. Yes, the ancients were closer in time to the histories they were writing about. However, we today often have a better view of ancient history than ancients living only a century or two removed from given events. The ancient historians did the best they could with the material they had available and interpreted the material in the politico-religious-social system they grew up in.

I work in anthropology and archaeology and it has always interested me to see how different Biblical archaeology is from any other area of archaeology. Not because of the type of material being found (Israel, if anything, is rather poor in the "Indiana Jones" types of fantastic and rich finds) but in the rather desperate way certain people will try and shoehorn the evidence into pet theories. Ancient history has shown that one cannot blindly take a given ancient writing and accept as fact everything it says. Yet, this is exactly what so many Bible archaeologists do. Unless you accept the possibility that the Bible may be incorrect in at least some of its facts, you cannot be taken seriously as a scholar, ancient historian or archaeologist.

learning

June 16th 2004, 07:08 AM

But I have found that when one checks out the Israeli web site, and some of the archeaological stuff is written up by agnostics when it comes to faith, that there IS rich information of Biblical -historical information to do with Israel, the Bible etc. They used to say there were no Hitites as mentioned in the Bible, then they found them. They have found many things even recently, such as a fishing boat in the Sea of Galilee when the water there got really low a few years ago, and they think it is from the time of Christ. They have found wonderful mosaics of the Byzantine era in churches, with maps of Jerusalem etc. Now, I think that there may be more 'stuff' with Egypt re: archeaological artifacts, but I think both have rich historical data that are fascinating. As to the historical aspect of their history, I don't know the comparison of that, as I haven't had time to read it all, but I will continue posting about the Table of Nations from Genesis, as I have time. I became interested in this when I read a news clip that claimed part of the reason for the fighting of Russia and the Chekyans was that the Chekyans say that Russia should not annex their country, cause the Russians are descended from Maggog, and they are descended from Shem? or something like that, so they were not Russian. They trace their ancestry back to Noah!

bhukkadakota

June 16th 2004, 11:40 AM

learning

June 16th 2004, 02:36 PM

Actually, weren't the Summerians the first nation, or were they just a bunch of city states? The Egyptians were city states too, weren't they? ( as was Canaan before King David and King Solomon).

chsalvia

June 16th 2004, 02:43 PM

The Sumerians were separate city states until the time of Sargon, (or technically his predecessor, Lugal-zagesi), but the Egyptians were a united nation since the first dynasty.

learning

June 16th 2004, 02:50 PM

Yes learning they have found many things that were said in the bible. So that means the author described the places accuratly enough, but the egyptians descibed places like nubia and kush accurately too, so how is the bible historically superior than the egyptian documents? Egypt does happen to be the worlds first nation (like i mean the land united under one rule instead of tribes) and their history is mixed with alot of myth, but isnt that the same with the bible too? Is it stupid to believe Amon Ra created the earth but its sensible to believe the jewish god did?

How is the Bible historically superior? Well, the Egyptians would wipe out history of a certain ruler if they didn't like him/her, so that they wouldn't get to go to the afterlife, while I find the Bible tells all the faults of the Israeli's and other mankind. It is shockingly honest at times.

Anyways, historical accuracy doesn't prove or disprove a God necessarily, but some of it helps. Of course it can prove or disprove the Bible, but, a lot of believing something isn't always related to whether it is true or not, but whether you want or don't want it to be true, and whether it seems to ring true, and whether you find help in it or not etc.

I find that some historical facts help my faith, but a lot of it is trusting the Spirit of God, as He relates His word to me.

kendemyer

June 16th 2004, 02:54 PM

TO: chsalvia

Thank you for continueing to be unfailing polite in my very recent strings and trying to stay on topic. I think your example should be noted by other less courteous posters.

TO: bahai guy

I originally wrote at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11792&page=2&pp=16

"TO: ALL

Here is something I read and saw that was interesting regarding homo erectus: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

(This site was authored by a muslim. I am not a moslim and disagree with this religion vehemently. On the other hand, I realize that not everthing a moslim says is automatically wrong. Earlier muslim made some contributions to mathematics for example).

Sincerely,

Ken"

You later wrote:

"Whenever you judge someone by race, creed, or color this is called discrimination or bigotry."

MY REPLY

Did I do this at this board? If you are implying I did do this, and I am only clarifying this matter, then please cite the string and post # where I did so and please provide the quote with supporting link. I do not believe you can show I did this and so far I have had no moderators tell me that someone has reported a post of mine because I made any inappropriate comments regarding judging a specific person because of their race, creed, or color. I do comment on behaviors of certain people during debates but I try to refrain from personal attacks.

I think you need to end your personal crusade against me because I take the position that Christianity is true and everything other worldview is false that contradicts Christianity in my estimation. I know I have come to this conclusion without malice and with due diligence and based on personal expereince and I do it in good conscience. It seems as if you cannot tolerate me taking this position despite your crusade for people being more tolerant. I will ask you directly, and more pointedly, "Can you tolerate me taking the position that "Christianity is true and everything other worldview is false that contradicts Christianity in my estimation because I believe I have come to this conclusion without malice and with due diligence and based on personal experience and I believe I do it in good conscience." A simple yes or no will suffice. If not, then please tell me why it is totally and absolutely impossible to take this position with not a shadow or even an inkling of doubt. Please fully support this high standard of evidence I am asking for since you stress tolerance so vehemently. And please do it by starting another string because it will be off topic.

Next, if I have such a great hatred of Muslims then why did I quote a Muslim's site to support my position? You never did explain this matter. If you ever do decide to explain this matter then do it in the locker room because it will be off topic I still see nothing wrong with quoting a Muslim's site regarding a point of agreement while saying due to conscience that I vehemently disagree with the Islam position.

Also, if memory serves, I have stated this 2-3 times in very clear language. Why do you persist in your inane posts regarding this matter? You keep crusading about tolerance yet you follow me around the board railing at me because you do not tolerate my position regarding Christianity and I sincerely believe I have come to this conclusion without malice and with due diligence and based on personal experience and I do it in good conscience. Needless to say I find this hypocritical!

Lastly, I have found that many people at these type of boards fill their post with waste of time material. They do this by stating off topic and unsupported assertions. Of course, you have wasted no time in doing this string.

I cite:

"And if you truly believe in the law of non-contradiction, then how was Christianity born? It certainly contradicts Judaism on several critical points."

Please take your commentary to the locker room where I can ignore you easier should I choose to do so. Barring that, please open a new string on the above comment should you wish to try to defend it which I sincerely doubt you can. Again, open a new string because it will be off topic and I find your discourteous behavior while vehemently proclaiming tolerance to be inconsistent to say the least!

re: pearls

I would also say that I think it is humorous that you point out that someone decided to give Bubbahotep some pearls after I mentioned his lack of pearls but I think you will find it more difficult to show they were given before I made my comment and that they were a result of his commentary on my strings. I still reserve to say what I said regarding Bubbahotep's posts in my strings. Of course this is only my opinion now that Bubbahotep has been given 5 pearls! LOL And looking back I think I would now not mention his lack of pearls due the fact it was piling on given my critique of his main commentary in one of my post. In short, it did not have to be said and I should have been more charitable.

I would say though since you have been so uncharitable regarding me despite my courteous and less pointed remarks to you in the past I would say I feel no tinge of conscience pointing out that you seem to have -7 pearls since I believe people are given 200 upon entering TWEB.

I cite:

Bahai Guy

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 227
Pearls: 193
Points: 126 | 67
Skin: Aqua (Default)

I do not understand neg reps at TWEB but perhaps you are in the hole in regards to the bombasticmeter! LOL

To: Bubbahotep

I saw your last post. It was big on general statements backed with non-specifics and displayed an inadequate level of evidence. Please try to stay on topic. And again please fully support your conclusions.

Sincerely,

Ken

WebToaster

June 16th 2004, 04:41 PM

Did I do this at this board? If you are implying I did do this, and I am only clarifying this matter, then please cite the string and post # where I did so and please provide the quote with supporting link. I do not believe you can show I did this and so far I have had no moderators tell me that someone has reported a post of mine because I made any inappropriate comments regarding judging a specific person because of their race, creed, or color. I do comment on behaviors of certain people during debates but I try to refrain from personal attacks.
I'm not implying anything other than what's related to your quote here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=581269#post581269):
(This site was authored by a muslim. I am not a moslim and disagree with this religion vehemently. On the other hand, I realize that not everthing a moslim says is automatically wrong. Earlier muslim made some contributions to mathematics for example).

How does a discussion of the author's creed have anything to do with quality of his writings on Darwinism? Well, it doesn't, so why the comment? If you can tell me why the comment was necessary, I'll be happy to end my personal 'crusade.'

I will ask you directly, and more pointedly, "Can you tolerate me taking the position that "Christianity is true and everything other worldview is false that contradicts Christianity in my estimation because I believe I have come to this conclusion without malice and with due diligence and based on personal experience and I believe I do it in good conscience." A simple yes or no will suffice. If not, then please tell me why it is totally and absolutely impossible to take this position with not a shadow or even an inkling of doubt. Please fully support this high standard of evidence I am asking for since you stress tolerance so vehemently. And please do it by starting another string because it will be off topic. Wow, that was such a run-on sentence, honestly I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can I tolerate your beliefs? Yes, but if you want something answered in another thread, please start it up.

Next, if I have such a great hatred of Muslims then why did I quote a Muslim's site to support my position? You never did explain this matter.
Please show me exactly where I said you have a 'great hatred of Muslims.' All I'm trying to determine is if you are able to judge the quality of someone's work without regard to their race, creed, or color. I think that is a highly pertinent question when we're talking about comparing ancient histories since some of the works are by Christians, some by Muslims, some by atheists.

If you can only fairly evaluate a Christian work, then that's all I need to know.

kendemyer

June 16th 2004, 07:57 PM

TO: Bahai Guy

I originally wrote at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11792&page=2&pp=16 on 06-08-2004, 12:42 AM

"TO: ALL

Here is something I read and saw that was interesting regarding homo erectus: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

(This site was authored by a muslim. I am not a moslim and disagree with this religion vehemently. On the other hand, I realize that not everthing a moslim says is automatically wrong. Earlier muslim made some contributions to mathematics for example).

Sincerely,

Ken"

You later said at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11792&page=3&pp=16 at 06-09-2004, 02:53 AM

"Errr, Ken doesn't this statement strike you as pure bigotry? If you can't see the bigotry, change Muslim to Jew."

You then later said at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=591870#post591870

"How does a discussion of the author's creed have anything to do with quality of his writings on Darwinism? Well, it doesn't, so why the comment? If you can tell me why the comment was necessary, I'll be happy to end my personal 'crusade.' "

MY REPLY:

First of all I said that a man's creed has nothing to do with the quality of his anti darwinism writing's already.

I said http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11792&page=3&pp=16 on 06-10-2004, 11:41 PM the following:

"3) Lastly, in regards to:

You wrote:

"However, if an individual has written a refutation of Darwinism (as the site purports) a determination of the quality of the site has nothing to do with the author's religion, it is determined solely by the content of the site."

My reply:

Thank you for stating the obvious. If I did not believe this then I would not have posted the gentleman's material in the first place!"

NEXT:

Also you will notice that I said in the original quote at at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11792&page=2&pp=16

"On the other hand, I realize that not everthing a moslim says is automatically wrong. Earlier muslim made some contributions to mathematics for example)."

THE REST OF MY REPLY TO YOU TODAY

I did not want to any reader to think I endorsed the Muslim portion of his website or its associated links should there be any Pro Islam material. I did this as a matter of conscience since I am a Christian and would disagree with this material although Christianity does share some things with Islam such as monotheism.

For example, the author of that Muslim anti darwin site which is http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/ has another site. This other site is linked to his Muslim anti darwin site. That site is: http://www.harunyahya.com/

Here is an excerpt from the site http://www.harunyahya.com/ that I vehemently disagree with:

"Establishing an Islamic Union and a central Islamic authority, would be major steps forward in resolving the Islamic world's current problems."

Now rather than read the whole Muslim anti darwin site and all of its associated links I said I vehemently disagree with the Islam religion as a precautionary measure to inform the readers I my stance as a Christian in regards to the Islam position should the site or its links contain any comments such as:

"Establishing an Islamic Union and a central Islamic authority, would be major steps forward in resolving the Islamic world's current problems."

I also never said that his Muslim faith invalidates his beliefs regarding his anti -Darwinism. Why would I? This would be illogical and would undercut giving the link in the first place!

Now I did notice I said at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11792&page=3&pp=16 at 06-10-2004, 11:41 PM when defending my initial post which you took unreasonably took exception to:

"2) I was just stating that I do not agree with all of the site's material as a matter of conscience."

I should have been more precise:

I should have said:

2) I was just stating that I do not agree with any Islamic material the site or any of its associated links that contradicts Christianity that the site or its associated links may possibly contain.

I now hope now this tempest in a teapot ends. I do not appreciate it being implied that I am guilty being of pure bigotry. You certainly had no reason to say this statement. I think it was pure nonsense.

Sincerely,

Ken

Bubbahotep

June 17th 2004, 01:51 AM

chsalvia

June 17th 2004, 09:55 AM

How is the Bible historically superior? Well, the Egyptians would wipe out history of a certain ruler if they didn't like him/her, so that they wouldn't get to go to the afterlife, while I find the Bible tells all the faults of the Israeli's and other mankind. It is shockingly honest at times.

The Old Testament certainly points out the faults of the Hebrew Kings, however it has a theological agenda that attempts to fit history into a Deuteronomistic framework (i.e. Yahweh worship leads to prosperity, idolatry leads to disaster.) And so it glosses over or omits important historical events that do not fit this agenda. For example, King Ahab played a vital role in the battle of Qarqar, as we know from the annals of Sennacherib III. This battle was extremely important because it kept the Assyrians out of Palestine for over a century. Thus, Ahab helped save Israel. However, because he married a Baal worshipper, the later Deuteronomistic writers didn't like him, and so in the Old Testament we learn nothing about the good Ahab did for Israel, but only how he was a pathetic, wicked king who was too weak to stand up to his evil wife Jezebel.

Again, the Old Testament glosses over the reign of King Omri, but we know from Assyrian records that King Omri was extremely influential and powerful. The Kingdom of Israel was even referred to as “The House of Omri” for centuries after his reign, and yet, “The House of David” is rarely referred to by foreign nations. So…as you can see, the Old Testament gives a very biased view of history. It does point out the flaws of many Hebrew Kings, but it’s theological agenda tends to give certain impressions about history which are inaccurate.

chsalvia

June 17th 2004, 10:03 AM

Most of the kings are presented as either being practically saints or else they are utterly depraved. Hardly a reflection of reality.

Well, that's true for some of the kings, such as the wicked king Manasseh, or the good king Josiah. But many of the kings are not painted as complete saints or completely wicked, but somewhere in between. David is an obvious example, and King Jehu, even though he is praised for his violent elimination of Baal worship, is also criticized in 2 Kings 10:31.

However, there is a trend that the Northern rulers are considered more wicked overall than the southern rulers, with some exceptions such as Jehu and Manasseh, and the Judean kings after Josiah. This reflects the underlying theological bias behind the narrative, and shows why it cannot be completely trusted to depict historical reality.

learning

June 17th 2004, 02:37 PM

I'm just reading about Ahab and Omri, and there is a Psalm that some say is creditied to Ahab, and it is a Psalm to do with a King and Princess marrying, and so that shows something good. (It is from this Psalm that one gets the idea of every bride and groom being a king and queen, they say) Also, they praise King Asa of Judah with being a good King, but point out that when he died from a disease that afflicted his feet, he didn't turn to God for help. So it points out the bad in the good ones too.

kofh2u

June 17th 2004, 03:27 PM

What about the History of the Old Testament when it comes to the table of nations?
I have heard that many countries in the Middle East trace their nations ethnic or national identity to the people in the table of nations, such as Genesis 10.
I'll look it up tomorrow to give more detail, but it is interesting.

Now, on that particular point, the Table of Nations, I recommend Isaac Asimov's book, "The Bible."

He does an excellent job in this area of your interest.

However, I would caution you in general to remember that scripture is NOT a history book. Even the history that it contains, whereas it may be excellent and reliable, it is part of the Hebrew Epic which is actually the ONLY existing written insight into the Jew Mystery.

Regardless of the present religious community's effort to separate this particular work out from the multitude of cultural Mysteries Cults, those vert secret and esoteric organizations which have been largely responsible for social advancement throughput ancient times,... the Bible IS the Secret Esoteric Knowledge of Israel.

What I mean specifically, and for instance, is that, as Asimov initially informs, the names enumerated are eponyms for whole peoples, tribes, or even small nations throughout much of the genealogy found in Genesis. However, what even Asimov failed to realize is that there is much more secreted in these listings, and much of it intentional hidden, for reasons that were ... well, the mystery part of these Mystery Religions.

NOTE:

Secret cults of the Greco-Roman world. Derived from primitive tribal ceremonies, mystery religions reached their peak of popularity in Greece in the first three centuries AD. Their members met secretly to share meals and take part in dances and ceremonies, especially initiation rites. The cult of Demeter produced the most famous of the mystery religions, the Eleusinian Mysteries, as well as the Andania mysteries. Dionysus was worshiped in festivals that included wine, choral singing, sexual activity, and mime.
The Orphic cult, by contrast, based on sacred writings attributed to Orpheus, required chastity and abstinence from meat and wine. Mystery cults also attached to Attis, Isis, and Jupiter Dolichenus, among others.

learning

June 18th 2004, 08:45 AM

Well, I just looked up the author of that book, and why would I as a christian, want to read a book by a nonchristian attacking the Bible? :)

Voltaire said he would have the Bible destroyed in 100 years, and yet, it was his very home in Paris that ended up being a place where Bibles were distributed by a Bible society years after his death. I have looked into the past from where these skeptical thoughts come from. From the French Revolution, and that ended in dictatorship and massacre, so thanks, but no thanks. I'ld rather take 'the way' that John and Charles Wesley preached, that stopped the atheistic thought pattern that swept Europe at that time, it was stopped by the revival that came about by the faithful preaching of John Wesley over 20 years time throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. That brought about peaceful reform in the parliaments. In fact, John Wesley's last letter was to William Wilberforce who was working on outlawing slavery.
So Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll stick with the Bible. As for this secret society stuff, I don't know nor want to know about it. I'll stick with what can be known.

learning

June 18th 2004, 09:13 AM

Continuation of Table of Nations from same book as listed in first post on this subject.
By the way, the names of these tribes usually get their names from their early descendant. And there are Kings lists for the British, Swedish, Danish etc. that list their kings back to some descendants of Noah. But I am just going to deal with the ones from the Middle East here.

(these are continuation of the Nations of Shem)
6. Aram: He was the founder of the Arameans, known to the Akkadians as the Aramu, but who were later known to the Greeks as the Syrians (from Serug? see 29). In an Assyrian inscription of Tiglath-pileser I, from ca 1100 B.C., the Arameans are depicted as living to the east of the river Tigris. By the time of Tiglath-pileser III, however, some 400 years later, they were living all over Mesopotamia. After this they settled to the west, occupying roughly the same area that makes up modern Syria. A clay tablet from Ur bears the name of Aramu, and it is of interest to note that Aramaic is still spoken today (see Map 2)
(Refs: IDB 1:185. NBD 55-9. JA 1.vi.3. P 1:28)

7. UZ: There is still considerable disagreement as to the precise area in which the descendants of Uz settled, and given the somewhat nomadic nature of the Arameans (Aram was the father of UZ), this is hardly surprising. Northern Arabia, between Babylon and Edom, seems the most likely area of settlement (see Map 2) Josephus, probably correctly, identifies is as the calliscal Trachonitis)
(Refs: IDB 4:741. NBD 1306-7. JA 1.vi.4. P1:28)

8. Hul: His descendants settled to the north of the sea of Galilee, where they gave their name to the lake and vale of Hulch (the Biblical waters of Merom, which were known to Josephus as UI). The place was notorious amongst Victorian explorers of Palestine for its tribes of Bedhouin robbers, and its far from healthy marshes and swamps which today have been drained, the reclaimed land being farmed and settled. The modern Israelis have also set up a nature reserve there, and know the place under its ancient name of the vale of Hula. The lake of Hula is formed by the accumulation of water from two sources of the Jordan before beginning their descent to Galilee. (see Map 4) (Refs: IDB 2:658. JA 1.vi.3. P 1:28)

9. Gether: His descendants (known to Josephus as Gather) settled to the south of Damascus. Josephus identifies them as the latter-day Bactrians, famous amongst other things for a breed of camel. Whether this identification is correct or not cannot now be determined. It should, however, be noted that Bactria was populated by Aryan, or Japhetic, tribes in late Assyrian times, whereas the children of Gether were, of course, Semites. (see Map 4). (Refs: IDB 2:387. JA 1. vi.3. P 1:28)

10. Mash: The Akkadians rendered the name Mashu, which in turn was known to the Egyptians as Msh'r. It was also rendered Mishal, all of which names referred to a people that dwelt in Lebanon (see Map 4). However, in 1 Chronicles 1:17, the name is rendered Meshech, and this should not be confused with the Japhetic Meschech. Such confusion arises in Josephus and later in the 9th century historian Nennius (see chapter 4). (Refs: IDB 3:294. P 1:28)
(end of quote)
the last four were all descendants of Aram, no. 6 above.

learning

June 18th 2004, 09:59 AM

The following is a link I found in looking up lake Hula, and it is of pictures taken in the 1800's and early 1900's, and it shows lake Hula before it was drained and how they had to make reed mats for the swampy area etc. This has many pictures of the Holy Land in this time, which is very interesting to see. I'm going to make a new post just for this as it is so neat. You have to scroll down to find Lake Hula, but you'll find about three pictures to do with it.
www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/index3.html

learning

July 6th 2004, 09:32 AM

Continuation of Table of Nations from above source

11. Shelah: I have not yet been able to find his name in secular sources, although Josephus renders the name Sala. (Refs:IDB 4:319. NBD 1175. JA 1.vi.4)

12. Eber: Known to Josephus as Heber, he gave his name to the Hebrew race. Some have tried to identify him with Ebru, erstwhile king of Ebla, but this is unlikely on both chronological and ethnic backgrounds. The attempt to identify the children of Eber with theh Habiru of the Egyptian chronicles may also be somewhat forced, although it is fair to add that, although we tend to think only of the Jewish nation as Hebrews, in fact all of Eber's descendants, technically speaking, would have been Hebrew also, the Joktanite Arabs included.
(Refs: IDB 2:5. NBD 331. JA 1.vi.3 and 5. P 1:28)

13. Joktan: The progenitor of no less than thirteen southern Arabian tribes, he is remembered amongst modern Arabs as Yaqtan. Only the purest Arabs, it is still maintainted, are those Semitic Arabs descended from Joktan; whilst Hamitic Arabs are referred to somewhat disdainfully as Musta 'rabs, pretended Arabs. Joktan's name is preserved in that of the ancient town of Jectan near present-day Mecca (see Map 2).
Josephus knew him as Joctan. (Refs: IDB 2:963-4. NBD 652. JA 1.vi.3. P 1:28)

14. Almodad: Young gives Almodad's name as meaning 'The Agitator', which if correct, hides what is no doubt a most interesting background. The name is certainly Arabic, his descendants being known to early Arab historians as the al-Morad tribe, who are seemingly to be identified with the Gebonites (the name rendered Elmondad in Josephus). Their precise area of settlement cannot now be determined. (see Map 2)
(Refs: IDB 1:86. JA 1.vi.e. P 1:28)

15. Sheleph: Rendered Saleph in Josephus, the name is that of a southern Arabian tribe who were known to be pre-Islamic Arabs as the Salif. The were Yemeni tribe whose capital, Sulaf, lay some sixty miles due north of present day San'a (see 19 and Map 2). (Refs: IDB 4:320. JA 1.vi.4 P 1:28).