In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

By the way, I decided to look up some more in depth literature on the Jack Hills zircons.

from your links:

the water snow line during formation of Solar System was located within this region. The outer asteroids are icy C-class objects (e.g. Abe et al. 2000; Morbidelli et al. 2000) whereas the inner asteroid belt is largely devoid of water.

And God placed Heaven amidst the waters, dividing the waters above from the waters below - and the waters below became our seas. And the waters above? Its beyond the snow line, the asteroid belt shows us where the division occurred. Genesis told us where Heaven is...

The observed high Li concentrations in Jack Hills zircons, typically 10 to 60 ppm, are commonly over 10,000 times higher than in zircons from ocean crust gabbros (Fig. 4). In this respect, they are comparable to those of zircons from granitic pegmatites and pelitic migmatites suggesting that these 4000 Ma zircons crystallized in an evolved magma that assimilated surface material.

These differences show that the parent igneous rock to Jack Hills zircons was not fresh ocean crust.

Those zircons are post LHB...and regarding granite:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251429100_No_H2O_no_granites-No_oceans_no_continents

The short version: the ocean(s) preceded the continents, granite needs water to form

And here is a more recent paper that supports the conclusion of my first cited one that they came from weathered surface rocks

weathered by what?

Following the lunar cataclysm and the formation of the Moon the tides were much larger.

 

[Agent327]

And God placed Heaven amidst the waters, dividing the waters above from the waters below - and the waters below became our seas. And the waters above? Its beyond the snow line, the asteroid belt shows us where the division occurred. Genesis told us where Heaven is...

You do understand 'above'and 'below', don't you? Because one has to wonder, if you do, how on Earth you can see a connection with a frost line, which is neither above nor below anything. And the latter, again, has nothing to do with 'Heaven'.

Those zircons are post LHB...and regarding granite:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251429100_No_H2O_no_granites-No_oceans_no_continents

The short version: the ocean(s) preceded the continents, granite needs water to form

Not really. You see, what we call 'continents' are the bits of Earth's crust that stick out above water level. That's pretty much the definition of continent - except it doesn't explain the formation or movement of continents. It's actually the liquid beneath Earth's crust that determines that. Pretty basic geology, actually. Not sure why you had to dig up a 1983 paper for that.

You should count the assumptions you are making. It's a lot.

Is it? Let's see:

For example, it is not unreasonable for a single person to found a scholastic order.

It is actually, For one you'd need scholasticism - which in itself already implies a literate class. (Not sure what a 'scholastic order' would be though.)

He may not have been alone. Scribes have servants. Regardless, Hebrews and Jews have been scholars literally as long as they can remember.

No, they really really haven't. You see, for anyone to be a scholar he would need to be literate.

The language is a good reason to convert to a script based writing. They may have wanted to distance themselves from Egypt and Egyptian things. Hieroglyphics suck for many purposes. The oldest known writings are 300 years later. You assume that they are the first such writings. It would not have been an easy transition but we have nothing transitional.

This contains not a single sentence that is actually factually correct. Quite remarkable.

It is not unreasonable to think Moses had something to do with the Books of Moses. Wrote them?, Perhaps not. Ordered them compiled? Much more likely.

Actually impossible. You see, the Mosaic books would have to written first for them to be compiled. So, in conclusion, your thinking is as unreasonable as ever. In fact, it seems utterly incapable of processing anything pointed out to you. You just repeat the same nonsensical statements that aren't based on any biblical scholarship whatsoever.

 

[Arakhor]

You should count the assumptions you are making. It's a lot.

I'm engaging your laundry list of assumptions, given that you are wriggling like a hagfish to insist that Moses not only existed, but also existed exactly as portrayed as in the Bible.

Interestingly, his 120-year lifespan isn't just an impossibly long time to live 3,500 years ago, it's also the precise maximum length of time mentioned for the descendants of Noah in Genesis 6:3. (A Bible citation? Whatever next?!)

 

[onejayhawk]

It is actually, For one you'd need scholasticism - which in itself already implies a literate class. (Not sure what a 'scholastic order' would be though.)

You have an existing teaching order (oral tradition). You simply need to teach them something new.

No, they really really haven't. You see, for anyone to be a scholar he would need to be literate.

False.

This contains not a single sentence that is actually factually correct. Quite remarkable.

False again. You seem to be good at mistaken assumptions.

Actually impossible. You see, the Mosaic books would have to written first for them to be compiled. So, in conclusion, your thinking is as unreasonable as ever. In fact, it seems utterly incapable of processing anything pointed out to you. You just repeat the same nonsensical statements that aren't based on any biblical scholarship whatsoever.

The books do not have to be written. They only have to exist in the oral tradition. The Hebrews had a teaching order built into the priestly order. Developing a written tradition is not a big step. Finding or creating an alphabet is far harder.

This continuing assumption that scholars have to be literate is biting you in the ass. They don't. We have many counter-examples, such as Druids. Writing improves the toolset a lot, but it is not the whole toolbox. The role does not change dramatically. Existing mnemonic methods can be adapted.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

Writing was wide spread in the region and had been since Phoenician was developed in the 18-17th C BCE

It was fully formed by 1200 BCE and had splintered into local versions now called Proto Hebrew and Aramaic (Greek too). They were used in the region up to Babylonian exile: ~600-538 BCE
After the exile both Samaritan Script and Classical Hebrew were in use during the 6th and 5th C

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written in a mix of classical and proto Hebrew from about 300 BCE to 50 BCE. Proto Hebrew may have been the written language of common folk while priests etc. used the more formal classical style.

So, the question is not whether or not the Hebrews could write, they could. When they were resettled after exile, they began to write things down in their new written language.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm engaging your laundry list of assumptions, given that you are wriggling like a hagfish to insist that Moses not only existed, but also existed exactly as portrayed as in the Bible.

Interestingly, his 120-year lifespan isn't just an impossibly long time to live 3,500 years ago, it's also the precise maximum length of time mentioned for the descendants of Noah in Genesis 6:3. (A Bible citation? Whatever next?!)

From your link:

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The 120 years represents the period of time before the Flood when man would be wiped out. But thats 120 divine years, God's time... Sitchin found a clue to what that meant in the various King's lists which describe incredibly long reigns divisible by 3600.

Thats 432,000 years... A number with cosmological significance in varied cultures, from the Indian cycles of time and the architecture of Angkor Wat to Valhalla when 800 warriors proceed to battle with the wolf thru 540 doors. Joseph Campbell delved into the subject in his classic The Masks of God (Oriental Mythology).

As for the long lives of the patriarchs, the passage quoted above says the sons of god came down and mated with women and had children, the Nefilim... This was the source of longevity in certain people. As the bloodline weakened their lifespans became shorter.

 

[Berzerker]

You do understand 'above'and 'below', don't you? Because one has to wonder, if you do, how on Earth you can see a connection with a frost line, which is neither above nor below anything. And the latter, again, has nothing to do with 'Heaven'.

The waters above Heaven refers to the region beyond the snow line, the waters below Heaven became our seas. Two sources of water separated by an asteroid belt.

Not really. You see, what we call 'continents' are the bits of Earth's crust that stick out above water level. That's pretty much the definition of continent - except it doesn't explain the formation or movement of continents. It's actually the liquid beneath Earth's crust that determines that. Pretty basic geology, actually. Not sure why you had to dig up a 1983 paper for that.

Are Hawaii and Iceland continents? The paper is about how the continents required plentiful water to form - they needed an ocean to produce granite.

 

[Agent327]

The waters above Heaven refers to the region beyond the snow line, the waters below Heaven became our seas. Two sources of water separated by an asteroid belt.

No, they don't. The writers of Genesis had no clue about the existence of any frost line or asteroid belt. Secondly, the asteroid belt doesn't separate 'two sources of water', it is a source of water.

Are Hawaii and Iceland continents? The paper is about how the continents required plentiful water to form - they needed an ocean to produce granite.

Hawaii is a string of volcanic islands. Underwater volcanoes. Whether Hawaii and Iceland are continents (obviously not) is neither here nor there. Great Britain is also an island, but it's part of the Eurasian continent. As is India, which used to be an island. Whether granite requires water has no relation with the formation of continents.

The 120 years represents the period of time before the Flood when man would be wiped out. But thats 120 divine years, God's time... Sitchin found a clue to what that meant in the various King's lists which describe incredibly long reigns divisible by 3600.

What King's lists? There are quite a few of those.

Thats 432,000 years... A number with cosmological significance in varied cultures, from the Indian cycles of time and the architecture of Angkor Wat to Valhalla when 800 warriors proceed to battle with the wolf thru 540 doors. Joseph Campbell delved into the subject in his classic The Masks of God (Oriental Mythology).

As for the long lives of the patriarchs, the passage quoted above says the sons of god came down and mated with women and had children, the Nefilim... This was the source of longevity in certain people. As the bloodline weakened their lifespans became shorter.

First, there's no such thing as 'divine time'. Time is a strictly human concept. So speaking of '120 divine years' is nonsense. Second, sons of gods aren't humans, and there's no relation between being a god's son and longevity. There is a very clear one between healthy life and life span though. Thirdly, 432,000 is not a number 'with cosmological significance in varied cultures. Lastly, gods and giants having incredibly long life spans is not uncommon in ancient mythology; there's no need to make up explanations as to 'how this could happen'. It simply couldn't. It's mythology, not fact.

Writing was wide spread in the region and had been since Phoenician was developed in the 18-17th C BCE

Writing was not 'wide spread': only clerks could write. You see, you had to have attended some form of schooling before being literate.

It was fully formed by 1200 BCE and had splintered into local versions now called Proto Hebrew and Aramaic (Greek too). They were used in the region up to Babylonian exile: ~600-538 BCE
After the exile both Samaritan Script and Classical Hebrew were in use during the 6th and 5th C

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written in a mix of classical and proto Hebrew from about 300 BCE to 50 BCE. Proto Hebrew may have been the written language of common folk while priests etc. used the more formal classical style.

So, the question is not whether or not the Hebrews could write, they could. When they were resettled after exile, they began to write things down in their new written language.

We seem to have a rather large gap between when writing became 'wide spread' and when the first writings by Hebrews are attested. That rather suggests Hebrews learned writing rather late. It also doesn't prove 'Hebrews could write', but rather that they couldn't. It took them at least 4 centuries to acquire the skill. Which is remarkable, considering how 'wide spread' writing was - according to you, at least.

You have an existing teaching order (oral tradition). You simply need to teach them something new.

A distinct possibility - but not really related to anything called scholasticism.

False.

No, it isn't. And the onus is on you here, so 'False' is not really any sort of argument.

False again. You seem to be good at mistaken assumptions.

No, I just can't be bothered with correcting every single one of your unfounded presumptions. (Again, saying 'false' doesn't make any of your statements true.)

The books do not have to be written. They only have to exist in the oral tradition. The Hebrews had a teaching order built into the priestly order. Developing a written tradition is not a big step. Finding or creating an alphabet is far harder.

Perhaps you should try and read a non-existing book some time, as that is what you are talking about.

This continuing assumption that scholars have to be literate is biting you in the ass. They don't. We have many counter-examples, such as Druids. Writing improves the toolset a lot, but it is not the whole toolbox. The role does not change dramatically. Existing mnemonic methods can be adapted.

Druids aren't scholars, my friend. Nor are magicians. In fact, I dare you to name a single non-literate scholar.

I'm getting the distinct impression you are words you don't actually know the meaning of: book, scholar, scholasticism. None of these words mean what you seme to think they mean. Check a dictionary.

 

[Arakhor]

The 120 years represents the period of time before the Flood when man would be wiped out. But thats 120 divine years, God's time... Sitchin found a clue to what that meant in the various King's lists which describe incredibly long reigns divisible by 3600.

Given that the Babylonians used base 12 for their astronomical calculations, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that duodecimal multiples pop up routinely, especially in the Bible.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Writing was wide spread in the region and had been since Phoenician was developed in the 18-17th C BCE

It was fully formed by 1200 BCE and had splintered into local versions now called Proto Hebrew and Aramaic (Greek too). They were used in the region up to Babylonian exile: ~600-538 BCE
After the exile both Samaritan Script and Classical Hebrew were in use during the 6th and 5th C

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written in a mix of classical and proto Hebrew from about 300 BCE to 50 BCE. Proto Hebrew may have been the written language of common folk while priests etc. used the more formal classical style.

So, the question is not whether or not the Hebrews could write, they could. When they were resettled after exile, they began to write things down in their new written language.

Writing was not 'wide spread': only clerks could write. You see, you had to have attended some form of schooling before being literate.

We seem to have a rather large gap between when writing became 'wide spread' and when the first writings by Hebrews are attested. That rather suggests Hebrews learned writing rather late. It also doesn't prove 'Hebrews could write', but rather that they couldn't. It took them at least 4 centuries to acquire the skill. Which is remarkable, considering how 'wide spread' writing was - according to you, at least.

As I said: "wide spread in the region". Once writing took hold (Cuneiform in Mesopotamia and the Phoenician phonetic alphabet along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea) it was widely used. Sure only the literate could read and write (by definition) and most people couldn't, but bureaucrats, rulers, priests and merchants all used scribes if they couldn't do it themselves. Writing was common place even if only used by a few. Trade, government and religion all needed it.

What we do know is that Hebrews lived in the region prior to 600 BCE. The assyrians conquered the region in the mid 750s and That was followed by the Babylonians about 600 BCE when some portion of the population were carried off to Babylon. When that "captivity" ended in 538 BCE, the Hebrews reorganized themselves and began to write down what they saw as the history of their people. They used the newly developed Samaritan and Classical style of writing when they did so.

Non Jewish sources (there are only 4) mention the Hebrews/Israel during the period from 1200 to 800 BCE. It is quite likely that there was an Israeli Kingdom during that period even if no Hebrew written records of exist prior to the end of the exile when the OT was written down.

Merneptah Stele about 1200 BCE
Mesha Stele dated to 840 BCE
Tel Dan Stele dated around 800 BCE
Kurkh Monoliths, Assyrian conquest of Israel 853 BCE

It didn't take the Hebrews four centuries to learn to write, don't be silly. Of course merchants and community leaders all knew how to write. I would suggest that unlike the Mesopotamians who frequently wrote on stone/clay, the Hebrews wrote on papyrus, and repeated conquests and time have kept any of that material from surviving. It was the formalizing of their religion that created a new environment for preservation.

 

[onejayhawk]

A distinct possibility - but not really related to anything called scholasticism. No, it isn't. And the onus is on you here, so 'False' is not really any sort of argument. No, I just can't be bothered with correcting every single one of your unfounded presumptions. (Again, saying 'false' doesn't make any of your statements true.) Perhaps you should try and read a non-existing book some time, as that is what you are talking about.

Druids aren't scholars, my friend. Nor are magicians. In fact, I dare you to name a single non-literate scholar.

I'm getting the distinct impression you are words you don't actually know the meaning of: book, scholar, scholasticism. None of these words mean what you seme to think they mean. Check a dictionary.

That last is ironic because of all the drivel that precedes it. The druids are simply one example of non-literate scholars. Writing is not a prerequisite for scholarship. It simplifies things. More importantly for our purposes, it preserved the scholar's thoughts. However, men and women of learning have always been part of every culture. Often they doubled as fortune tellers and healers.

Whatever else they were, they kept the cultural memory, ie the oral tradition. We have tracked stories in not-literate cultures for over three hundred years. Several were able to preserves stories almost unchanged for the whole period. Memorization can and has filled the role of writing for millennia. Writing is better but not essential.

Give up this assumption that learning began with the first written word. it's laughable. If you want a name, try Tenska'tawa.

J

 

[timtofly]

As I said: "wide spread in the region". Once writing took hold (Cuneiform in Mesopotamia and the Phoenician phonetic alphabet along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea) it was widely used. Sure only the literate could read and write (by definition) and most people couldn't, but bureaucrats, rulers, priests and merchants all used scribes if they couldn't do it themselves. Writing was common place even if only used by a few. Trade, government and religion all needed it.

What we do know is that Hebrews lived in the region prior to 600 BCE. The assyrians conquered the region in the mid 750s and That was followed by the Babylonians about 600 BCE when some portion of the population were carried off to Babylon. When that "captivity" ended in 538 BCE, the Hebrews reorganized themselves and began to write down what they saw as the history of their people. They used the newly developed Samaritan and Classical style of writing when they did so.

Non Jewish sources (there are only 4) mention the Hebrews/Israel during the period from 1200 to 800 BCE. It is quite likely that there was an Israeli Kingdom during that period even if no Hebrew written records of exist prior to the end of the exile when the OT was written down.

Merneptah Stele about 1200 BCE
Mesha Stele dated to 840 BCE
Tel Dan Stele dated around 800 BCE
Kurkh Monoliths, Assyrian conquest of Israel 853 BCE

It didn't take the Hebrews four centuries to learn to write, don't be silly. Of course merchants and community leaders all knew how to write. I would suggest that unlike the Mesopotamians who frequently wrote on stone/clay, the Hebrews wrote on papyrus, and repeated conquests and time have kept any of that material from surviving. It was the formalizing of their religion that created a new environment for preservation.

The problem with dating the writings is that criticism has to do with the type of writing, and even the scholars agree that they were writing on scrolls dating back to the 700's. There was writing before the prophets, and there were no prophets after the captivity. Moses and Joshua were the first two prophets. What they wrote and what they had written, was not made up. The Deuteronomistic source was already in place when Solomon built the first Temple. The scholars claim that Jeremiah may have written it as an attempt to explain what happened, but how could they carry out what was written in the book 200 years before it was written out?

Either it was a historic work written by Jeremiah, and a true accounting of history like any other history book, or it actually happened and the Hebrews wrote it out as it was happening. Why put in the history book that there was a system of education, if the system was made up? Were they trying to make themselves look more educated and scholarly than the rest of the people groups around them? Are we saying that Aristotle and Plato did not educate those around them, because someone wrote about them doing so?

The prophets themselves as they proclaimed what they envisioned had scribes writing down what they said. They would deliver it to the king in written form. It was not some personal re-telling. One cannot memorize what another person is saying at the same time the thoughts are coming out in verbal form. It has to be written down, and then memorized. While it is possible for a person to keep repeating the same thing over and over again, how would one know if it was original or not? It was written down, and new information would come to mind, and that was written down.

Scholars agree that redaction was taking place. That would seem to indicate that a lot of information had been compiled, and it was narrowed down to a few important aspects and the rest was forgotten over time. Even in this digital age where it seems that a persons whole life can be captured digitally, most would have to agree that 90 percent of the material, could be tossed aside and one would still have a decent picture of that person's life. It still goes back to the point that a people group felt the need to preserve their history and for over a thousand years, every one thought they did a great job, until a few people thought the stories were too fantastic and tried to disprove that they happened. It is the Bible critics who seem to be making up history, because they had an agenda to do so. It does not seem plausible that 18th century scholars were just trying to make themselves look more intelligent than they were. I think that they honestly thought they could prove the Bible was made up.

It is not logical to claim that the OT is not a history book, and then make the claim that it was a failed attempt at history just to make a point. The more you try to prove that the writers were historians, the more you make the writings a work of history. There is no proof that the writers got their history wrong, because that goes against science. One cannot prove that something did not happen. One can only cast doubt on the ability of the writer to get their information correct. While other groups were passing their stories down from word of mouth from generation to generation, which works like the telephone game, the Hebrews were editing their written history to pass along what they thought was important. If they trained one scribe, what good would that be? They trained hundreds of scribes, and there was a redundancy in their method.

 

[Agent327]

Once again I have to wonder why the original OP question wasn't asked on the Ask A Theologian thread.

The problem with dating the writings is that criticism has to do with the type of writing, and even the scholars agree that they were writing on scrolls dating back to the 700's. There was writing before the prophets, and there were no prophets after the captivity.

Actually, there is no evidence for this. So I'm not quite sure how scholars could agree.

Moses and Joshua were the first two prophets. What they wrote and what they had written, was not made up. The Deuteronomistic source was already in place when Solomon built the first Temple. The scholars claim that Jeremiah may have written it as an attempt to explain what happened, but how could they carry out what was written in the book 200 years before it was written out?

Back to the scholars: most agree that Moses didn't write - nor that he was even one the various authors of the Pentateuch. It's even debatable whether Moses was a historical person at all. (Which would be impossible if we had any piece of Moses' writing, now wouldn't it?)

Either it was a historic work written by Jeremiah, and a true accounting of history like any other history book, or it actually happened and the Hebrews wrote it out as it was happening.

Only reporters do that. And we're pretty sure there weren't any news papers around.

The prophets themselves as they proclaimed what they envisioned had scribes writing down what they said.

No, they didn't.

They would deliver it to the king in written form.

Again, no. You can't even deduce this from the Bible, you're just making things up.

Scholars agree that redaction was taking place. That would seem to indicate that a lot of information had been compiled, and it was narrowed down to a few important aspects and the rest was forgotten over time.

Again, no. It means that there were various oral traditions, which, when written down, had to be edited to make at least some sort of intelligible narrative. You can already note this in Genesis, where the first creation story is interrupted halfway by a second one, which differs slightly. This means that there were two oral traditions (at least).

It still goes back to the point that a people group felt the need to preserve their history and for over a thousand years, every one thought they did a great job, until a few people thought the stories were too fantastic and tried to disprove that they happened. It is the Bible critics who seem to be making up history, because they had an agenda to do so. It does not seem plausible that 18th century scholars were just trying to make themselves look more intelligent than they were. I think that they honestly thought they could prove the Bible was made up.

It is not logical to claim that the OT is not a history book, and then make the claim that it was a failed attempt at history just to make a point.

I wouldn't know any biblical scholar who does that. I'm getting the impression you had little idea what historical philology or biblical philology implies. Scholars generally recognize several biblical books as 'historical books', because they actually contain records of contemporary events. That would be hard to maintain about Psalms, Canticles, Genesis or even Exodus as a whole. To name just a few obvious examples.

As I said: "wide spread in the region". Once writing took hold (Cuneiform in Mesopotamia and the Phoenician phonetic alphabet along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea) it was widely used. Sure only the literate could read and write (by definition) and most people couldn't, but bureaucrats, rulers, priests and merchants all used scribes if they couldn't do it themselves. Writing was common place even if only used by a few. Trade, government and religion all needed it.

Actually there are very few religious texts dating from the beginning of writing. Also, cuneiform and hieroglyphs are millennia older than alfabtic scripts.

Non Jewish sources (there are only 4) mention the Hebrews/Israel during the period from 1200 to 800 BCE. It is quite likely that there was an Israeli Kingdom during that period even if no Hebrew written records of exist prior to the end of the exile when the OT was written down.

Merneptah Stele about 1200 BCE
Mesha Stele dated to 840 BCE
Tel Dan Stele dated around 800 BCE
Kurkh Monoliths, Assyrian conquest of Israel 853 BCE

It didn't take the Hebrews four centuries to learn to write, don't be silly.

You did notice that the time scale between the first and the second stele is about 4 centuries? And the Hebrew kingdoms left not written records - and very few others.
The papyrus that you mentioned was only used in Egypt - where it was at hand.

That last is ironic because of all the drivel that precedes it. The druids are simply one example of non-literate scholars. Writing is not a prerequisite for scholarship. It simplifies things. More importantly for our purposes, it preserved the scholar's thoughts. However, men and women of learning have always been part of every culture. Often they doubled as fortune tellers and healers.

Whatever else they were, they kept the cultural memory, ie the oral tradition. We have tracked stories in not-literate cultures for over three hundred years. Several were able to preserves stories almost unchanged for the whole period. Memorization can and has filled the role of writing for millennia. Writing is better but not essential.

Give up this assumption that learning began with the first written word. it's laughable. If you want a name, try Tenska'tawa.

A Shawnee prophet is a scholar? Let's see:

Scholar noun

a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities.
"a Hebrew scholar"
synonyms: academic, intellectual, learned person, professor, man of letters, woman of letters, mind, intellect, savant, polymath, highbrow, bluestocking

Looks like, besides druids, prophets also aren't scholars.

 

[onejayhawk]

A Shawnee prophet is a scholar? Let's see:
Looks like, besides druids, prophets also aren't scholars.

By your definition, "a specialist in a particular branch of study", he is a scholar. Druids as well. Also shamen, mystics, astrologers, etc.

You are not even trying to be fair minded. What's with that?

J

 

[Berzerker]

No, they don't. The writers of Genesis had no clue about the existence of any frost line or asteroid belt. Secondly, the asteroid belt doesn't separate 'two sources of water', it is a source of water.

The authors of Genesis claimed a hammered out bracelet divided two sources of water, the water below Heaven became our Seas and the water above still exists beyond the Heaven (snowline).

Hawaii is a string of volcanic islands. Underwater volcanoes. Whether Hawaii and Iceland are continents (obviously not) is neither here nor there.

Your definition of continent is changing

Whether granite requires water has no relation with the formation of continents.

Continents require granite, and granite requires water - and lots of water is required to produce a continent's worth of granite.

What King's lists? There are quite a few of those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

The "sar" represented 3600 years, or 1 divine year.

First, there's no such thing as 'divine time'. Time is a strictly human concept. So speaking of '120 divine years' is nonsense.

A thousand years to man is but a day to God... The authors of Genesis sure believed in a divine time regardless of your opinion.

Second, sons of gods aren't humans, and there's no relation between being a god's son and longevity.

The sons of God had children with human women, these were the Nefilim and their lifespans diminished over time.

Thirdly, 432,000 is not a number 'with cosmological significance in varied cultures.

I just provided several examples from varied cultures

Lastly, gods and giants having incredibly long life spans is not uncommon in ancient mythology

You can argue with yourself:

there's no relation between being a god's son and longevity.

Once again I have to wonder why the original OP question wasn't asked on the Ask A Theologian thread.

Pagan creation myths > monotheism > theology... Plotinus deals with theology, not creation myth. But you're free to ask him, I've tried in the past and he declined since its not his field of expertise.

It means that there were various oral traditions, which, when written down, had to be edited to make at least some sort of intelligible narrative.

Oral traditions were unintelligible narratives?

You can already note this in Genesis, where the first creation story is interrupted halfway by a second one, which differs slightly. This means that there were two oral traditions (at least).

They weren't dealing with oral traditions, Genesis derives from Mesopotamian creation myths written down long before the Babylonian exile. And Genesis is not concerned with turning an oral tradition into a written one, its concerned with transforming a pagan creation myth into a monotheistic one.

Given that the Babylonians used base 12 for their astronomical calculations, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that duodecimal multiples pop up routinely, especially in the Bible.

The number 12 pops up quite a bit too, but the cylinder seal VA 243 shows 12 objects, 11 orbs surrounding a star, and the Enuma Elish describes 12 celestial gods before Heaven and Earth are created...

 

[Arakhor]

The number 12 pops up quite a bit too, but the cylinder seal VA 243 shows 12 objects, 11 orbs surrounding a star, and the Enuma Elish describes 12 celestial gods before Heaven and Earth are created...

Mythology echoes the Babylonian number of choice. What a shock.

I just provided several examples from varied cultures

Actually, you just name-checked a few things. The only actual example was '800 wolves through 540 doors', which (failing any sort of background information) is probably complete coincidence.

 

[timtofly]

Once again I have to wonder why the original OP question wasn't asked on the Ask A Theologian thread.

We are discussing the topic. Cannot do that in an "Ask A" thread.

Actually, there is no evidence for this. So I'm not quite sure how scholars could agree.

Evidence for what? That the Hebrews could not write?

Back to the scholars: most agree that Moses didn't write - nor that he was even one the various authors of the Pentateuch. It's even debatable whether Moses was a historical person at all. (Which would be impossible if we had any piece of Moses' writing, now wouldn't it?)

Are there scholars before higher criticism who questioned the historacity of the OT?

Only reporters do that. And we're pretty sure there weren't any news papers around.

It was not a romantic novel either. So what is it if it is not an accounting of what was going on? Is the claim that they cannot write, nor can they write about their experiences?

No, they didn't.

Why would they make that up? It is right there in the text.

Again, no. You can't even deduce this from the Bible, you're just making things up.

Because that was their claim. The job of the scribe was to write things down. It would then be read to the king. If the king did not like it, he would destroy what was written. Sometimes even harm the prophet.

Again, no. It means that there were various oral traditions, which, when written down, had to be edited to make at least some sort of intelligible narrative. You can already note this in Genesis, where the first creation story is interrupted halfway by a second one, which differs slightly. This means that there were two oral traditions (at least).

The oral tradition was the Talmud. That was a totally separate work from the written one. Are you claiming that they used scribes for passing along an oral tradition, and even though they were called scribes, they could not read or write? If you followed your own argument, there would be dozens of oral traditions pushing the amount of scribes into the hundreds, if not thousands. There were 4 separate written sources minimum, and they were maintained by different schools of scribes in written form. The Greek philologist accepted all written evidence that the Hebrew scribes sent them, and there is no evidence that they questioned the veracity of the material.

I wouldn't know any biblical scholar who does that. I'm getting the impression you had little idea what historical philology or biblical philology implies. Scholars generally recognize several biblical books as 'historical books', because they actually contain records of contemporary events. That would be hard to maintain about Psalms, Canticles, Genesis or even Exodus as a whole. To name just a few obvious examples.

Then why go to such extremes to prove that what the Hebrews wrote down never happened?

Actually there are very few religious texts dating from the beginning of writing. Also, cuneiform and hieroglyphs are millennia older than alfabtic scripts.

Do you think that the modern philologist succeeded where the Greek philologist failed?

 

[Berzerker]

Mythology echoes the Babylonian number of choice. What a shock.

The 120 years in Genesis is not based on the number 12, its related to the sumerian sar or divine/kingly year of 3,600 years totaling 432,000 years before the Flood.

Actually, you just name-checked a few things. The only actual example was '800 wolves through 540 doors', which (failing any sort of background information) is probably complete coincidence.

I cited the Indian cycles of time and the architecture at Angkor Wat and referenced Joseph Campbell's book dealing with the number. Now you wanna argue about what the word 'example' means?

 

[Arakhor]

I don't know about you, but if I'm citing examples, I generally explain why they're examples. Otherwise I could be spewing total hot air and you wouldn't know any different.

 

[Berzerker]

I did generally explain, 432,000 appears in the Indian cycles of time, the architecture of Angkor Wat, and the Norse myth of the end time and is featured in the work of Joseph Campbell