Hebrew civilization

[yewsef]

Except that it never happened. There's no evidence for this whatsoever outside Hebrew mythology.

Hello my dear friend Cu Chulainn

Do you mean that the Pharaoh (I can't remember his name, maybe Ramses II) who died chasing Moses in the sea didn't exist? if that's so, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. The mummy was recovered and is diagnosed and recognized to be the pharaoh of that specific time.

But it's important to recognize that much of what is in there is probably false. I'd say that its almost certain that Israel was once led by two men of David and Solomon's approximate descriptions but I'd argue that many of their exploits are tall tales. The problem with the veracity of the Bible is that the mythology is so interwoven with the plot that its very hard to be sure what is based on reality and what is legend. The same is true of all such writings.
The Bible is chock full of myths and legends, what makes you think that they are any more valid than European myths? I think you might have your own bias.

I never said that everything in the Bible or Torah is true. I never said that. I said there's history books that are NOT religious books recognize David and Soloman. I dont know why you re-attack the bible when I didn't mean that. I said David and Soloman existed. I didn't say they had merits or exploits. They existed not because the bible says so, but because they are recognized as History Figures written in other books.

If you want to prove that there are many lies in the Bible then that's a debate I dont want to go through, and I haven't researched about. What I said was simple. David and Soloman existed and are recognized as historical figures in OTHER books that are NOT religious. I hope this makes sense.

 

[demokratickid]

My dear, misguided, Cu Chulainn,

I must throw my support behind Yewsef. Objectively, David and Solomon did exist as two spereate figures as 'kings' of hebrew land. Where that land is EXACTLY and how big it was is still hotly debated in the halls of academia. To that, I must digress to the "Naked Archologist" on the History Channel International. HE is a well respected figure among the Middle Eastern and Archeological community. He says the same thing about the case that Yewsef and Myself are making. There goes another well-respected figure, joining the ranks of the truthful ones. Point made by Cu, point taken, and point denied!

 

[cybrxkhan]

Maybe you don't know that Pharaos declared themselves as Gods. The guy who chased Moses and died in the sea exists today as a mummy. He declared himself as God too.

they did declare themselves gods. sort of. and the pharaohs were viewed either as a manifestation of Horus, another god, during the Old Kingdom Egypt, or just simply a relative of the gods, during the New Kingdom. Amon-Ra was a separate entity, a combination of the gods Amon and Ra. Believe me, i know. Egypt is my second-most favorite history after China.

So, since NOW Europian are more advanced they don't want to believe that BEFORE Middle East was very advanced and they had better means of keeping the history as history, regardless of what's written in the religious books.

and nobody in the West or the Middle East wants to admit that even the Asian civilization, based around India and more China was hell more advanced than they could ever be.



and about Ramses II. we have good proof he exists, unless all those Egyptoarchaeologists have been reading Egyptian wrongly for the past two centuries (which is a slight possibility). why? because he built tons of hell big wonders, stuffing his huge name on every one.

 

[yewsef]

they did declare themselves gods. sort of. and the pharaohs were viewed either as a manifestation of Horus, another god, during the Old Kingdom Egypt, or just simply a relative of the gods, during the New Kingdom. Amon-Ra was a separate entity, a combination of the gods Amon and Ra. Believe me, i know. Egypt is my second-most favorite history after China.




and nobody in the West or the Middle East wants to admit that even the Asian civilization, based around India and more China was hell more advanced than they could ever be.



and about Ramses II. we have good proof he exists, unless all those Egyptoarchaeologists have been reading Egyptian wrongly for the past two centuries (which is a slight possibility). why? because he built tons of hell big wonders, stuffing his huge name on every one.

Alright, I take my word on Amon Ra since I thought he was one of the Pharaos but probably I got confused and I'll take your words for it. So, I take back what I said. But my point was, the History figures existed. The humans, and there are proofs of their existance. Just like you said about Ramses II. David and Solomon had left proofs of their existance because of lands and structures left by them and because of history books. Even Poetry is saved and Poetry is used to recognized history, since Poems are songs and songs last longer than books sometimes.

 

[demokratickid]

Nobody in the West or the Middle East wants to admit that even the Asian civilization, based around India and more China was hell more advanced than they could ever be.

That is true, but one must rember that China was relativly free ffrom major wars and had preivious research to build on. The West, however, were figthing too often amongst themselves to get a streamlined path to technology. So yes, while China was technologically advanced for a long time, they had less Crusades to run and hadn't the problem of tight religious tensions.

 

[rabidveggie]

I know Ramses II existed, but there is no evidence of any slave revolts during his reign and he didn't die through drowning. Anyone who takes the bible literally is mentally handicapped anyways.

 

[demokratickid]

rabidveggie- Anyone who takes the bible literally is mentally handicapped anyways.

My dear, misguided, and very offensive, rabidveggie,

No one person should take the bible literally in the MODERN frame of mind. One can in the ANCIENT frame of mind. To be quite honest, I think you are capable of doing neither. Anyone who would say so brazen and brash a comment must re-establish their own dignity, honor, and self-respect before they irrevocably lose it. It is hard to please, easy to offend. I have read the Bible many times and though I am not a Christian or a Jew, I can tell you for certin that your remark offends me aswell as many of the other devot people world wide. The Pope would certainly not agree. So.. IF he's infalable, you shure as the day exsists, are not infalable. Either way I and many others have and will take offence to such a pompous remark. The ramblings of one man can ruin it all for the amount of people present. If you want to be a bible-hater, be a bible-hater! I really don't care, just don't do it in my face in these forums. Start a thread if you like, but this is on the subject of Hebrew civilization, not of how our hatred of the Bible has grown since... whenever, whatever, whoever... To end, I will say this. I welcome and encourage you to make remarks, but demand that you do not insult anyone's faith. ANYONE'S. At all. That goes for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc... You get the picture. Just don't make tyrades aginst the faith, kapeshe?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Anyone who takes the bible literally is mentally handicapped anyways.

i am no monotheist myself, i am no supporter of monotheism, and although i think the bible is sometimes biased and wrong, i will have to disagree with your statement. the bible, at times, can be wrong, of course. but other times, it can be a useful resource, no matter how biased it is. even if all of its contents are a bunch of lies, it is still a very good "book", a good place to learn about morality and that stuff. in truth, you can't take anything, not even the most obvious and truthful of things 100%. there must always be doubt, but there also must always be non-doubt.

That is true, but one must rember that China was relativly free ffrom major wars and had preivious research to build on. The West, however, were figthing too often amongst themselves to get a streamlined path to technology. So yes, while China was technologically advanced for a long time, they had less Crusades to run and hadn't the problem of tight religious tensions.

though that is true, China did have huge problems of its own. for one thing, it was being constantly attacked by "barbarians'" - some were actual brutal pillagers, others just smaller nations. but it was constantly attacked.

not only that, the huge size of its empire made it not so easy to administer; corruption, rebellion, and such matters were always there, even in the most efficient of regimes.

and the Chinese themselves fought amongst each other often enough, though not as much as the Europeans.

China was a very unstable state, compared to the Europeans. at least they were constantly at war. one moment China was a peaceful center of civilization, another it was a battleground of ambitious and cruel men.

but i will agree that China had a slight advantage over the Europeans. with a hell more people, you obviously get hell more great people.

 

[demokratickid]

That's true, the more the merrier! (And more production, efficency, etc...) I made a mistake on my previous statement. I meant to say 'offensive wars' instead of just 'wars'. That changes the dynamic. Another thing, while there was unrest, the science experiments moved on. Not so in Europe. A war comes along, OH NO! NUH UH! NO MORE SCIENCE! You scientists are now in the army, 'cause we fighting a war over a pointless 30 km strip of land that is barren anyway, so drop that test tube, man!

 

[cybrxkhan]

That's true, the more the merrier! (And more production, efficency, etc...) I made a mistake on my previous statement. I meant to say 'offensive wars' instead of just 'wars'. That changes the dynamic. Another thing, while there was unrest, the science experiments moved on. Not so in Europe. A war comes along, OH NO! NUH UH! NO MORE SCIENCE! You scientists are now in the army, 'cause we fighting a war over a pointless 30 km strip of land that is barren anyway, so drop that test tube, man!

actually, i think i just realized why China was the most advanced civ on earth. now, all of you, im sure, have heard of the hard-pushing Asian parent stereotype. well, its true. and that stereotype has existed in Asia since civilization was born there...



but China did have its share of offensive wars, though they were not as many and much more purposeful, for more like 30 km strip of land for each soldier. but eventually, when actual civilized states grew around their borders, the CHinese were smart enough to go "hehehe lets not use soldiers, lets use culture and potential economic markets to conquer these people!!!"


anyhow... we're getting off topic. um... can someone continue the topic, thank you very much.



anyways, we're starting to get off topic.

 

[yewsef]

I know Ramses II existed, but there is no evidence of any slave revolts during his reign and he didn't die through drowning. Anyone who takes the bible literally is mentally handicapped anyways.

It's true that there's no evidence that Ramses II was drowned because it wasn't Ramses II who chased Moses. It was Mineptah the successor of Ramses II if I am not mistaken. There's diagnoses that proves that Mineptah cause of death was drowning. I'll check the article and paste it here.

 

[cybrxkhan]

It's true that there's no evidence that Ramses II was drowned because it wasn't Ramses II who chased Moses. It was Mineptah the successor of Ramses II if I am not mistaken. There's diagnoses that proves that Mineptah cause of death was drowning. I'll check the article and paste it here.

i think hes also spelled Merneptah. but from what i remember, Merneptah was quite old when he took the throne, at least in his fifties, which is equivilent to the modern day... oh, about eighty or something.

 

[yewsef]

The info I got is from the very professor who diagnosed Mineptah but it's in a text book I did search the net to quote this.

Mineptah reigned for just 9 years, and met an extremely violent death. His mummy was x-rayed by
Dr. Maurice Bucaille who concluded that most bones are broken and that his death is consonant with the description of
the Pharaoh who ended up in the Red Sea together with his army.
http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~leila/mitanni/mineptah.html

Also Morris Boukay mentioned what says "and the results of the medical investigations came to support the previous assumption, as in the year 1975 a lameness extraction from a small muscular tissue occurred in Cairo, with the valuable help that professor Michfl Durigon offered. And the accurate microscopical examination showed the perfect preserved status for the smallest dissectional muscular parts, and it points that such a perfect preservation couldn't be possible if the body remained in water for a while, even if it stayed outside the water for a long time before it submit for the preparatory operations of the mummification. And we have done more than this while we were interested in searching for the possible reasons of the pharaoh's death."

Medical legal studies took place on the mummy with the help of Ceccaldi the manger of the legal identification laboratory in Paris and professor Durigon, which allow us to make sure that there was a reason for a fast fastly death due to cranial cerebrum bruises which caused a large sized gap at the level of the vault of the skull accompanied with a break caused by a strong stroke, and it is obvious that all these investigations are agreeing with the stories of the Holy books which points out that pharaoh died when the waves came back on him (3).

http://www.55a.net/eng/23.htm

For some reason I only found pages written in French and German about this discovery. Only few pages in English. Makes me wonder why.

Here's another read.

http://55a.net/en/miracles/a021.php

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I believe you misunderstand me. Existed? Absolutely. Slew giants with slings? Probably not so much. Egypt had a great many Pharaohs. That there's one that appears to have drowned is highly circumstantial evidence and is rather irrelevant seeing how the large amount of magic in Exodus makes it nearly completely untenable. If the writers are willing to fudge big things, then they certainly will mess with the more mundane details.

 

[Horizons]

I believe you misunderstand me. Existed? Absolutely. Slew giants with slings? Probably not so much. Egypt had a great many Pharaohs. That there's one that appears to have drowned is highly circumstantial evidence and is rather irrelevant seeing how the large amount of magic in Exodus makes it nearly completely untenable. If the writers are willing to fudge big things, then they certainly will mess with the more mundane details.

The Pharaoh who chased the Hebrews did not drown, G-d permitted him to live and return to tell the tale so that the Egyptians would know that G-d really existed and was more powerful than the Egyptian idols.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

The Pharaoh who chased the Hebrews did not drown, G-d permitted him to live and return to tell the tale so that the Egyptians would know that G-d really existed and was more powerful than the Egyptian idols.

Since when did 'God' become profanity?

 

[demokratickid]

I believe you misunderstand me. Existed? Absolutely. Slew giants with slings? Probably not so much. Egypt had a great many Pharaohs. That there's one that appears to have drowned is highly circumstantial evidence and is rather irrelevant seeing how the large amount of magic in Exodus makes it nearly completely untenable. If the writers are willing to fudge big things, then they certainly will mess with the more mundane details.

Cu Chulainn- of course there were no giants slain. The bible's measuring system is different and often times confusing. Golaith was inbetween 6'6" and 7'6" tall. It sounds tall today, but then it would have been gargantuan, a veritable 'giant.' Their perspective was very different from our own, and, therefore, that's how we incorretly assume he is a GIANT, not a giant. (If you follow...)

 

[rabidveggie]

Umm... I'm Catholic so ya I've read the bible. I ask you what the Churches position on the creation story until only recently. They stated the Earth was created in seven days until science proved otherwise. They then said that the seven days could mean a different amount of time. Evolution is another example of this which was proven by Darwin and fought by the church and eventually Adam and Eve were changed. I did not say that those that believe in the bible are stupid, I said those that take each story literally and refuse to look at the deeper meaning are stupid. I think the Bible has many good lessons but if you begin thinking that somehow the first humans Adam and Eve actually ate from Forbidden fruit and were cast out where they proceeded to have two sons, one killing the other being the first man well... That doesn't make a lot of sense. Also I believe the Papacy is a corrupt governing body which have become too inflexible and are killing off the faith. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible saying that God would select a divine individual to lead the church through time. Pope John Paul II is one of the few good Popes not corrupted by their power.

Does that clarify my position?

 

[Syagrius]

King David or King Solomon as leader would be good !

 

[Vox Mentis]

Since when did 'God' become profanity?

It's a Jewish thing, I think. IIRC, it's because it's forbidden to destroy or erase the name once it's been written, so they don't write it at all most of the time.