In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

So are you imagining an ocean directly on top of a giant sea of lava? That's my basic issue with the picture your painting of the formation of the earth. My understanding of physics is that there would have had to be something cool enough for water or ice to form on it, and that pretty much had to be rock. Or water all the way through I suppose.

Yes, a lava sea underneath an ocean... Most of the Earth's lava today is under water. It wouldn't take long for that lava to cool and become a crust and all that rock would have formed under water. If the Earth's ocean arrived later then all that rock (and zircons) comprising our crust would not have formed in water.

Our vision of the early Earth was informed by the belief our water appeared later from either Hadean outgassing or the late heavy bombardment. But our water is older than our rock, that means water was present when the crust was forming.

As to where the rock that wasn't formed in water, my original argument meant to be hinting that we only have the zircons because only zircons has the properties to survive through all those forces, though my knowlege of geology and stuff is way too sparse to say anything in that regard really. So the non water formed rock is in the same place that the water formed rocks the zircons had to come from are, not there anymore, destroyed.

But the Zircons formed in water, that means the original rock they formed in also formed in water. If we had plentiful rock (and zircons) forming in the absence of water we'd find zircons that didn't form in water.

 

[onejayhawk]

They have a specific and elaborate history, but enough of it is false that we cannot know which parts are correct without corroboration. We're supposed to credit a random story about Lot's wife in a book that puts Joshua shortly thereafter?

I do not understand your issue. Why is it absurd?

Joshua is not particularly close thereafter. I get that 400 hundred years in Egypt is glossed over, but that is understandable. This was an oral history being compiled into written form. The time in Egypt was not part of the oral tradition. After all, they were still in Egypt. It was not different.

Where is the 300 BC coming from? Solomon is reliably placed circa 900-1000 BC. It existed then.

J

 

[Agent327]

Yes, a lava sea underneath an ocean... Most of the Earth's lava today is under water.

No, it isn't. It's under the earth's crust.

And once again, there's no such things as 'zircons'.

We cannot give a scientific explanation, because it has to be a myth based on someone's supernatural explanation. Since it does not involve inventing the light bulb which human's can do, you claim that it cannot happen.

That doesn't follow at all.

I am trying to tell you that back then everything that could not be explained was blamed on the god's just like you are accusing me of doing.

I've made no such accusation.

Now that we have a better understanding, you claim that no being is capable of manipulating the universe, because we still cannot "think outside the box".

No such claim is or was made by me.

If you still want to claim that things happen by themselves that is fine. Why convince others that no being is capable of interacting with physical laws?

What on Earth does 'things happen by themselves' even mean ? And 'no being is capable of interacting with physical laws'? Where do you get such things even from? Not from anything I said, surely.

We have seen new volcanos form and die within a few decades. We have seen dormant volcanoes come back to life. We have even seen devastating tsunamis. Just because we assume that it takes millions of years, does not rule out that it can happen very quickly. We have just never observed it. We have not lived for billions of years to observe that. It is just assumed either way.

Volcanoes don't usually die. They may lie dormant for quite long though. As for the rest of this paragraph, I have no clue what you're trying to argue.

I cannot understand why there is such a fierce defense of logic, and reasoning over the topic. Have you read the Bible, and comprehend their thoughts on the matter? Even way back whenever you want to accept the actual writings, they reasoned that an intelligent creator designed a fetus in the womb. If that concept is just written off as mythology, then we who claim to have a choice over getting rid of such design are what? smarter? You may not accept it as literal, but the concept has to have some thought and reasoning behind it, not fuzzy logic. It was those who served the gods who mocked the Hebrews and claimed that the god's demanded babies to be sacrificed. We have the same arguments in this forum even today over the matter.

Fierce defense of logic? Well, that's very simple: an argument that's not logical, is nonsensical. That's why. Like ' they reasoned that an intelligent creator designed a fetus in the womb'. Not to my knowledge. Or to anyone who's had any decent sexual education. The reason I do not accept the non-historical books (nor the historical) as literal - apart from what I just explained - is that taking Genesis literal makes no sense. It's simply not how things happened. As to your child sacrifice argument: God himself demanded that... then changed his mind. According to the Bible. The father doesn't even question the sacrifice. What that tells a critical reader is that child sacrifice was normal practice. Literally.

So if one fact makes sense, we accept it. If another fact does not make sense, we rule it out as metaphorical?

Oh, facts out of context often make no sense at all. But a metaphorical fact, that I've never ever heard of.

How can the writings of any book stay the same for 2000 years relatively un-refuted, yet the writings of another cannot last for 700 years? For all indications it was the same author or so it is claimed.

Well, that then doesn't seem very plausible, does it?

For a base we will start out with Hammurabi and the dates for his rule over Babylon. They range from 1750 to 1686. That is a spread of 64 years, yet his rule was only 14 years. He was allegedly born in 1810 and died in 1750. That is supposed to be "set" in stone. If that which is supposed to be so historical, and such a wide range of dates be acceptable, why would the Biblical account which was one accepted record and dating system, be thought to have lost contact with their past?

Interestingly, there's nothing 'set in stone' about any pre 1000 BC dates. Theye're all approximate, basically. Might be off 25 years or more even.

Abraham may not be the famous one, who wrote laws, but their stories have some similarities even to the point that some rabbis thought that he was a contemporary of Hammurabi. They both fought off the 4 armies, to secure their land. They both held vast resources of cattle and grazing lands. They both stressed one "creator". Hammurabi was a prolific writer, and Abraham was said to be the first one to use the Hebrew alphabet which makes writing a lot easier than carving out figures in stone. Abraham broke off all ties with Babylonia, but they both could still be seen as Sephardic rulers, who lived at the same time. There was only a 400~ year time slot between that period and the beginning of the Hebrew nation led by Moses in 1300 BC. The Babylonian exile was only 700 years later in 600 BC.

Assuming Abraham was indeed a historical person (as Hammurabi is concerns there is no doubt about that), the one fought off local armies, while the other unified Mesopotamia under his sole rule. Secondly, there's nothing sephardic about Hammurabi:

Sephardi Jews, Hebrew: יהדות ספרד, also known as Sephardic Jews or simply Sephardim (Hebrew: סְפָרַדִּים, Modern Hebrew: Sfaraddim, Tiberian: Səp̄āraddîm, lit. "Spaniards"), are a Jewish ethnic division whose ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews coalesced in the Iberian Peninsula around the start of the 2nd millennium (i.e., about the year 1000). They established communities throughout Spain and Portugal

Then: 'the beginning of the Hebrew nation led by Moses in 1300 BC'. According to whom? Based on what? Scholars can't even agree if Moses was an actual historical person. And what is this 'beginning of the Hebrew nation'? The first mention of Hebrews in a historical context is on a victory stele ca 1205 BC, at which point they are referred to as a tribe. (Meaning they don't have cities.)

 

[Berzerker]

All the zircons prove is that water was involved in the chemistry of the planet. It doesn't prove that the rocks "formed in water", nor does it prove that there was even standing water at the planet's surface let alone an ocean. In turn, even if it could be established that there was an ocean at that time, it would not make the creation myths anything other than myths.

Berzerker's point is based on misreading of the science and the holy texts...which is somewhat rare, usually you see points like this based on a misreading of one or the other...

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6209/623.abstract?sid=5578d89e-121f-4fe5-906e-fdecd6ead30d

Sarafian et al. measured water isotopes in meteorite samples from the asteroid Vesta for clues to the timing of water accretion. Their samples have the same isotopic fingerprint of volatiles as both Earth and carbonaceous chondrites, some of the most primitive meteorites. The findings suggest that Earth received most of its water relatively early from chondrite-like bodies.

or...the findings suggest Earth, Vesta, and carbonaceous chondrites formed at the asteroid belt as one planet that broke up during a collision

Genesis doesn't describe how the primordial Earth formed or how soon it had water, only that it was covered by water and darkness prior to the appearance of dry land and life. That means Genesis is describing what the primordial Earth looked like ~4 bya - and that calls into question the nature of the late heavy bombardment

 

[Berzerker]

No, it isn't. It's under the earth's crust.

Thats called magma, not lava

And once again, there's no such things as 'zircons'.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/zircons

 

[trader/warrior]

Yes, a lava sea underneath an ocean... Most of the Earth's lava today is under water. It wouldn't take long for that lava to cool and become a crust and all that rock would have formed under water.

That is a highly volatile situation that would look nothing like an ocean on top of lava. Underwater lava has to be pushed there... through the crust. Liquid water can't form on top of liquid rock. The formation and cooling of the planet would have taken millions of years, the process you describe would be pretty much instant on a geological timescale, and there is no reasonable way at all for it to get to the state of having an ocean directly on top of a red hot planet in the first place.

If the Earth's ocean arrived later then all that rock (and zircons) comprising our crust would not have formed in water.

The source I gave for the likely oldest known crustal rock is somewhat controversial in its dating precisely because it did not contain any zircon which can be more reliably dated, but in that case, we have the actual rock. Without zircons. Because zircon isn't formed in any and all cases. In the zircon dating you cited, the original crust it came from isn't there anymore because it has been through the destructive forces of the tectonic cycle and was simply destroyed and reformed as new rock or sunk into the core. I have already cited sources that most of "all that rock" from the early earth would simply not have been preserved. The original crust, if you could even say that as an objective thing, was destroyed. Leaving only traces.

Most of our current crust was formed underwater because it comes from the continental ridges, which are mostly underwater.

But the Zircons formed in water, that means the original rock they formed in also formed in water. If we had plentiful rock (and zircons) forming in the absence of water we'd find zircons that didn't form in water.

Does zircon form in any and all rock formation conditions? As I said, I'm no geologist, but I think the notion that we'd have "plentiful" of rock and zircon in that case strange considering rocks and zircon of that age is exceedingly rare already due to the destructive forces it has to go through on a geological timescale.

It seems I'm so bad at wording myself or you aren't willing to engage many of the basic points I bring up that keeping this going is rather pointless, so probably my final post for now.

 

[Berzerker]

Liquid water can't form on top of liquid rock.

Why?

The formation and cooling of the planet would have taken millions of years, the process you describe would be pretty much instant on a geological timescale, and there is no reasonable way at all for it to get to the state of having an ocean directly on top of a red hot planet in the first place.

If we had a crust before water we'd find ample rock (and zircons) that didn't form in water

The source I gave for the likely oldest known crustal rock is somewhat controversial in its dating precisely because it did not contain any zircon which can be more reliably dated, but in that case, we have the actual rock. Without zircons.

Did the actual rock form in the absence of water?

 

[trader/warrior]

Why?

Liquid rock hot. Water need cold. Water fly out like piping teapot. This is reason for solar system "Frost line" you talked about earlier.

Observations of the asteroid belt, located between Mars and Jupiter, suggest that 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. This implies that when planetesimal formation occurred the snow line was located at around 2.7 AU from the Sun.[3]
...
Earth, which lies less than a quarter of the distance to the frost line but is not a giant planet, has adequate gravitation for keeping methane, ammonia, and water vapor from escaping it.

Earth must be big and cool enough that rock already formed to make ocean.

If we had a crust before water we'd find ample rock (and zircons) that didn't form in water

Crust not there anymore. Old rock, rare. On moon rock stays because moon don't have volcanic activity. earth crust is made new like a conveyor belt, that why old rock is rare.

Zircon strong, so can be old. But zircon only made in certain conditions, so only remnants of those conditions still there.

Ocean fills the lowest ground on earth, more volcanic activity in low places between continental plates. That's why most crust is now formed underwater.

Did the actual rock form in the absence of water?

I don't know, me not a geologist, and layperson sources did not specify. I said that already.

EDIT: Sorry if this post comes off as snarky, I like your threads as they bring up interesting topics even if we come at them from very different angles. This time I just got a bit frustrated. As much about my own ability to spell out what I mean as anything else.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

magmamen civilization are a proud race and i will not hear you disparage them

 

[trader/warrior]

By the way, I decided to look up some more in depth literature on the Jack Hills zircons. Sure the presence of of water has some evidence, but more evident about them is that they came from continental surface rocks that probably experienced heavy weathering. Though even this is debated as far as I can tell.


Page 673, 674, 675, or page 8, 9, 10 of the PDF: Lithium in Jack Hills zircons: Evidence for extensive weathering of Earth's earliest crust

In this study, we find wide variations in Li concentration in zircons of more than 6 orders of magnitude (b 8 ppb to 250 ppm, Fig. 2b). 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. Furthermore, the extremely low δ7 Li (b−10&#8240 observed in some Jack Hills zircons provide constraints on the origin of Jack Hills zircons.

....

The variability of δ7 Li in Jack Hills zircons, including some of the lowest values ever measured, is significantly different from that in primitive magmas derived from the mantle (Fig. 5). The highly fractionated values of δ7 Li found in Jack Hills zircons (Fig.5a) match those of weathered or evolved components of continental crust (Fig. 5c). As noted above, the concentrations of Li in these zircons are commonly over 10,000 times higher than in zircons from mantle-derived melts. These differences show that the parent igneous rock to Jack Hills zircons was not fresh ocean crust. Further support for this conclusion has recently been provided by the use of U–Yb, U/Yb–Hf and U/Yb–Y plots that allow good discrimination between zircons
grown in modern oceanic crust from those that evolved in continental
granitoids. Importantly, the Jack Hills zircons plot in the continental granitoid field (Grimes et al., 2007).

....

The much higher Li concentration in Jack Hills zircons compared to those of zircons from mantle-derived magmas suggests that the Jack Hills zircons crystallized in evolved magmas or magmas contaminated with surface material. The highly variable δ7
Li in Jack Hills zircons can be explained as the result of aqueous alteration at the surface of the Earth. Extremely low δ7 Li observed in zircons as old as ∼4300 Ma requires a low δ7 Li parental magma, implying the magmatic recycling of weathered crust. Thus, Li compositions of Jack Hills zircons support the existence of chemically differentiated and extensive, weathered crust by at least 4300 Ma.

Sorry if formatting is a bit off. Copy pasting from PDF's is a pain, and I'm not too sure about all the geology lingo.

Further reading, there is a lot of debate around these things:

Correlated microanalysis of zircon: Trace element, d18O, and U–Th–Pb isotopic constraints on the igneous origin of complex >3900 Ma detrital grains
Under 5.3. Hydrothermal zircon, page 12 of the PDF, only pasting the conclusion of that section:

Thus, with the exception of LREE enrichment, Type 2 domains in Jack Hills zircons do not have characteristics that resemble previously described ‘hydrothermal zircons’ formed by a wide range of fluid-assisted processes. Taken together with the constraints provided by oxygen isotope, U–Pb, and Th–U data, the Type 2 domains (where inclusions were not encountered, e.g.EA-4a, -4b) are best interpreted to have formed by alteration of Type 1 zircon, resulting in localized enrichment of LREE in grain areas with radiation damage — this enrichment process may have been mediated by a fluid at very low water:rock ratios. While this conclusion is similar to that reached by Hoskin (2005) and others, we find no evidence for external fluid interaction, which suggests either that the role of fluids in the LREE enrichment process is minor, or that the alteration effects of fluids are so localized that they are not detected in the volume analyzed for d18O by ion microprobe(Hoskin, 2005). Thus, to classify these grains as ‘hydrothermal’ based on the suspicion that a hypothetical fluid may have affected domains much smaller than the 10 lm ion microprobe spot is unwarranted, and would result in additional ambiguity over what constitutes ‘true’ hydrothermal zircon. We conclude that these are not ‘hydrothermal zircons’.

And here is a more recent paper that supports the conclusion of my first cited one that they came from weathered surface rocks:
Li isotopes and trace elements as a petrogenetic tracer in zircon: insights from Archean TTGs and sanukitoids
Page 21 of the PDF for the conclusion:

The high [Li] in Jack Hills zircons (6–71 ppm) and
other trace elements suggest that they grew in grani-
toids of proto-continental crust. Most of the Jack Hills
zircons have d7 Li and d18 O similar to those of TTG
and sanukitoid zircons, consistent with the proposal
that these rocks were protoliths for many of the detrital
zircons, as also suggested by [Ti]. A subset of Jack
Hills zircons have extremely low d7 Li (-18 to -4%),
reflecting melting of extensively weathered crust.

Ok, maybe I put a bit much effort into this debate, but it was quite interesting reading up on it.

(btw all the people saying using the term "zircons" is wrong, the professionals seem to disagree.)

 

[timtofly]

I do not understand your issue. Why is it absurd?

Joshua is not particularly close thereafter. I get that 400 hundred years in Egypt is glossed over, but that is understandable. This was an oral history being compiled into written form. The time in Egypt was not part of the oral tradition. After all, they were still in Egypt. It was not different.

Where is the 300 BC coming from? Solomon is reliably placed circa 900-1000 BC. It existed then.

J

Because that is when the first translations into another language were said to have happened. If they had an established ability to preserve the text from the Babylonian captivity in 700 BC, which is when they allegedly made it all up. That is a period of 400 years, why not the period of 400 years before that? Even in Egypt they were agricultural. Agriculture was around for a lot longer time than 3000 BC. Being able to write on animal parchment is a known fact since at least the 24th century BC, but they do not last as long as clay tablets, steles, or cylinders. Of course if someone deliberately destroys any of the above it can be lost forever. So they are only proof as long as they last, but that does not mean that other proof could not have existed, but that it has been lost to us. Using parchment just means that it has to be done over and over, as it is more susceptible to destruction than the other methods. It was also more personal, and prolific.

Other than they made it all up, is the argument that human error had been introduced over the generations. That has been refuted in the practice that the Jews have always been very particular in their method of copying the Torah. They also have claimed that they were able to chronicle and preserve their activities in the same way. Seeing as how that is all internal, it has been relegated to improvable. Then is the point, that God told them to do it, that makes it fantastic enough to be relegated to mythical. On the other hand, in the facts (that serve as proof for the rest of history), the people claim that they serve the god's or that the gods favor them, and that is dismissed, but the people were real. When there is a more specific and mundane history of the mistakes and adventures of a particular people group it is totally dismissed, because of the claim about God. In one case their personal belief can be separated from their historical accuracy, but in the other case, it cannot. That is not what makes sense to me. The other point is that science has given us a greater insight in how the universe functions. That does not disprove God, nor the inclination that there have been or still are gods. It just proves that humans have been able to push that reality out of their perspective of existence.

No one has brought forth proof that humans just made god's up. In fact the more I read about ancient history the more it seems that humans could not have made them up. There is evidence that an idol or statue was a link to another dimension. That is regardless how the Bible portrays it. It was not just the control of nature. It was the control over other humans. When it came to thought that humans could control things themselves the less important it was to have connections to the other dimension.

That doesn't follow at all.

Because to some people a light bulb would be a miracle. Humans have figured out some physical properties that can be applied to human life. You have dismissed miracles, because there is reasonable explanations for some of the phenomenon. Sometimes a miracle can just be the process itself and not what is actually happening.

When technology has made everything mundane, there is not a lot of room for miracles, but they still happen. There is too much information and statistics in human history to just dismiss the supernatural.

I've made no such accusation.

You expect people to read and conclude that such things could not possibly have happened in the way they are described.

No such claim is or was made by me.

I must have misconstrued the idea that: "If it has to do with miracles, then there is nothing to discuss"

What on Earth does 'things happen by themselves' even mean ? And 'no being is capable of interacting with physical laws'? Where do you get such things even from? Not from anything I said, surely.

There is the claim that all biological life came about on it's own evolutionary path.

If not; then God has the ability to manipulate everything in physics, and biology.

Volcanoes don't usually die. They may lie dormant for quite long though. As for the rest of this paragraph, I have no clue what you're trying to argue.

You said, "In geology there is no short time span". Modern humans have observed rapid changes in geology, and even though they were local does not mean, they cannot happen over a larger area of the planet. Especially if we receive bombardment again from large objects that happen to intersect the path the earth is taking through space. While it may be assumed that the sun and larger planets may prevent that, it cannot be ruled out 100%.

Fierce defense of logic? Well, that's very simple: an argument that's not logical, is nonsensical. That's why. Like ' they reasoned that an intelligent creator designed a fetus in the womb'. Not to my knowledge. Or to anyone who's had any decent sexual education. The reason I do not accept the non-historical books (nor the historical) as literal - apart from what I just explained - is that taking Genesis literal makes no sense. It's simply not how things happened. As to your child sacrifice argument: God himself demanded that... then changed his mind. According to the Bible. The father doesn't even question the sacrifice. What that tells a critical reader is that child sacrifice was normal practice. Literally.

I said babies, why change that to child? No where does it say that God told his people to kill their offspring in the same way the worshippers of Bel were offering up their babies as sacrifices. If you are referring to Abraham, does that mean that you take him as an actual person? Even if you do, or don't, it was a controlled hypothesis of an intelligent experiment. It was not some blind mass human excuse to get rid of unwanted offspring.

It is pretty easy to put life into a mundane biological phenomenon, but there are a lot of humans that see it as much more than that.

Oh, facts out of context often make no sense at all. But a metaphorical fact, that I've never ever heard of.

Then why call the accounts in the Bible only metaphorical?

Well, that then doesn't seem very plausible, does it?

Seeing as how this seems to be your only comment on this topic, how am I supposed to figure what you are thinking? Do you also assume that the Hebrews made up an elaborate account, because they could not remember what actually happened? Even secular archeology has determined that they are factual at least to Solomon. Jesus and his followers seemed pretty sure that even Moses, Elisha, and Abraham were actual humans, and that could have been refuted, but it seems that if it is a lie, then it has been kept that way to do what? Prove a point that Jesus was God?

Interestingly, there's nothing 'set in stone' about any pre 1000 BC dates. Theye're all approximate, basically. Might be off 25 years or more even.

What is 25 years compared to 100,000 or a hundred million?

Assuming Abraham was indeed a historical person (as Hammurabi is concerns there is no doubt about that), the one fought off local armies, while the other unified Mesopotamia under his sole rule. Secondly, there's nothing sephardic about Hammurabi:

I would like to see your proof on that Hammurabi claim. He only ruled for 14 years. Our current Presidents can hardly get things done in 8. Is 6 more years going to make that big of difference? Saying that he unified the whole of Mesopotamia seems a little legendary. From what I can tell, it was the work of the 5 that came before him, and it all fell apart after his rule, so it must not have been that unified.

I meant tenders of sheep, and lives stock. Got my words twisted there. They were Amorites, and nomadic. Even Abraham got other kings to work together for a common cause. The Hebrews never claimed that Abraham was a king or even a ruler. One does not have to be a king or ruler to influence other humans. Being a king can be self proclaimed, or other humans have recognized the ability of a human to be in control.

Then: 'the beginning of the Hebrew nation led by Moses in 1300 BC'. According to whom? Based on what? Scholars can't even agree if Moses was an actual historical person. And what is this 'beginning of the Hebrew nation'? The first mention of Hebrews in a historical context is on a victory stele ca 1205 BC, at which point they are referred to as a tribe. (Meaning they don't have cities.)

Because 1300 is when they started the journey to becoming a force to be reckoned with. I am not claiming that they did a super or even supernatural job of it. There were twelve tribes, if you want to get that literal. King David, their second king, ruled from 1010 to 970 BC. That is within your time frame. There were cities in the region. It just meant they had not taken over control of them, if that is what you are referring to. Are you saying that proves they did not even exist? Why would they be mentioned if they did not exist?

 

[onejayhawk]

Because that is when the first translations into another language were said to have happened. If they had an established ability to preserve the text from the Babylonian captivity in 700 BC, which is when they allegedly made it all up. That is a period of 400 years, why not the period of 400 years before that? Even in Egypt they were agricultural. Agriculture was around for a lot longer time than 3000 BC. Being able to write on animal parchment is a known fact since at least the 24th century BC, but they do not last as long as clay tablets, steles, or cylinders. Of course if someone deliberately destroys any of the above it can be lost forever. So they are only proof as long as they last, but that does not mean that other proof could not have existed, but that it has been lost to us. Using parchment just means that it has to be done over and over, as it is more susceptible to destruction than the other methods. It was also more personal, and prolific.

Other than they made it all up, is the argument that human error had been introduced over the generations. That has been refuted in the practice that the Jews have always been very particular in their method of copying the Torah. They also have claimed that they were able to chronicle and preserve their activities in the same way. Seeing as how that is all internal, it has been relegated to improvable. Then is the point, that God told them to do it, that makes it fantastic enough to be relegated to mythical. On the other hand, in the facts (that serve as proof for the rest of history), the people claim that they serve the god's or that the gods favor them, and that is dismissed, but the people were real. When there is a more specific and mundane history of the mistakes and adventures of a particular people group it is totally dismissed, because of the claim about God. In one case their personal belief can be separated from their historical accuracy, but in the other case, it cannot. That is not what makes sense to me. The other point is that science has given us a greater insight in how the universe functions. That does not disprove God, nor the inclination that there have been or still are gods. It just proves that humans have been able to push that reality out of their perspective of existence.

No one has brought forth proof that humans just made god's up. In fact the more I read about ancient history the more it seems that humans could not have made them up. There is evidence that an idol or statue was a link to another dimension. That is regardless how the Bible portrays it. It was not just the control of nature. It was the control over other humans. When it came to thought that humans could control things themselves the less important it was to have connections to the other dimension.

The whole idea that the Hebrew scriptures originated in the Roman era is foolish. I might grant that they took their current form in 300, but even that strains credibility. Sobeit. There are those taht argue that believers are not evidence of God. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Sobeit. They are clearly over 500 years older and it is entirely plausible that Moses actually had something to do with the Books of Moses. Back to your regularly scheduled disagreements.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Joshua is not particularly close thereafter. I get that 400 hundred years in Egypt is glossed over, but that is understandable.

What makes you think they actually spent 400 (or whatever) years in Egypt? But second, the entire story of Joshua's conquest of Canaan with the Hebrews is entirely fictional. The Hebrews were Canaanites, they weren't some invading army.

The time in Egypt was not part of the oral tradition. After all, they were still in Egypt. It was not different.

The time in Egypt is oral tradition, and was eventually compiled. And there's no evidence for it. On top of that, the completely fictional story of Joshua was place after the ostensible 'Egyptian' time. It's not unreasonable to assume some slaves escaped into the area previously known as Canaan, but there's no evidence of an Exodus and a conquest of the Promised Land.


It strains all credulity to think they have accurate oral records from the time of Abraham when they don't even have accurate records regarding the conquest of Canaan. The story of Lot survives hundreds of years longer than their forgetting their own revolution? Unlikely, to say the least.

Isn't this commonly known? That the Israelites didn't conquer Canaan as an invading force, but were Canaanites themselves?

Where is the 300 BC coming from? Solomon is reliably placed circa 900-1000 BC. It existed then.

500 BCE, but that's when we have evidence that the stories were compiled. We don't know when they were generated before then. The evidence for Solomon is reasonable, the Bible approaches real history right around the time of David. But we don't know when the story of Moses was created, or when the story of Abraham was created. We know that by the time the stories were compiled (in Babylon), they'd already forgotten their own actual history (and thus threw in the story of Joshua as if it were fact). Just because the Bible goes Abraham -> Moses -> Joshua in its stories, it doesn't mean the stories themselves first had their basis in that order.

The story of Paul Bunyan puts him before WWI, but the stories weren't created in that order.

 

[timtofly]

King David makes a lot of references to them. Are we saying that they made up, everything that King David thought out and had the scribes right down?

Abraham was not a Canaanite, neither were his descendants. They were Amorites. The Canaanites were not even Mesopotamian.

 

[Agent327]

Abraham was not a Canaanite, neither were his descendants. They were Amorites. The Canaanites were not even Mesopotamian.

Nor were the Amorites. One has to remember that on the fringes of all civilized areas there were semi-nomadic people. That's hardly surprising, but one should always keep that in mind. It's interesting though that the biblical books only started to be written after intense contact with those civilizations (notably the Mesopotamians, but also the Egyptians). And it's quite clear from the biblical books that the Hebrews were very impressed by those near civilizations.

They are clearly over 500 years older and it is entirely plausible that Moses actually had something to do with the Books of Moses.

Well, apart from the fact that we know he didn't write them, I'm not sure what else?

The Hebrews were Canaanites, they weren't some invading army.

The time in Egypt is oral tradition, and was eventually compiled. And there's no evidence for it. On top of that, the completely fictional story of Joshua was place after the ostensible 'Egyptian' time. It's not unreasonable to assume some slaves escaped into the area previously known as Canaan, but there's no evidence of an Exodus and a conquest of the Promised Land.

This is not entirely correct. There is evidence for Hebrews (Jews) in Egypt from Egyptian records, but not before 1200, as the first mention of them (in Canaan) dates to that time.

Isn't this commonly known? That the Israelites didn't conquer Canaan as an invading force, but were Canaanites themselves?

Not really, no. 'Cause the Bible word of God and all.

 

[Arakhor]

No one has brought forth proof that humans just made god's up.

Because that would be impossible. It's also just as bad faith an argument as insisting that you prove that God or gods do exist.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is not entirely correct. There is evidence for Hebrews (Jews) in Egypt from Egyptian records, but not before 1200, as the first mention of them (in Canaan) dates to that time.

You'll need to expand. I don't see a contradiction in our statements.

 

[timtofly]

What is being avoided, is the Amorites, who were a big influence in 1600 BC, should not be confused with their descendants later in the 400 years between then and 1200 BC.

 

[Agent327]

You'll need to expand. I don't see a contradiction in our statements.

That's because there isn't one, really.

 

[onejayhawk]

We do not know that Moses did not write, or cause to be written, the Books of Moses. It is plausible that he did.

It does not strain credibility that there are records from the time of Abraham and not from the time of the conquest. The Mosaic records were extant but the means to produce more was lost. This is consistent with a generation spent in transit.

It is not known that the story of Joshua is entirely fiction or even predominantly fiction. We managed to loose entire empires. The only surviving records of the period are on clay which the Hebrews did not use.

No. The Israelites were not Canaanites. They were coming from Egypt. That is one of the more absurd claims being made. The were blood kin to some Canaanite groups, but they were from outside.

The Pharoh who made Joseph his right-hand man was likely Sudanese, ie from one of the Blue-Nile dynasties. The Pharoh of Exodus was from a White-Nile dynasty. Significant passage of time is appropriate.

J