What does it take for me to get into Heaven?

[El_Machinae]

Regarding the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, I just don't see the issue. The Bible says it happened, so unless you have some sort of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I don't know how you can possibly prove to me that it did not happen. If you are going to claim that "there is no evidence", well all I can counter with is Sargon II. Until the 19th century there was no evidence of his existence outside of the Bible either, which was actually used as "proof" by some that the Bible was wrong.

It's not until about the time of Solomon does the Bible's telling of history reasonably approximate real history. Remember, most of the OT was compiled/redacted during the Babylonian era, so there's no reason for them to remember much about their previous kingdoms.

Sargon II was a couple hundred years after Solomon.

The evidence for there not being an Exodus is not 'lack of evidence', there's actually positive evidence. The people who lived in Israel around the time where the stories regarding Solomon start to jive with the archeology (i.e., the "Israelites") are contiguous with the Canaanites both before and after any putative 'Exodus'. In other words, the Israelites are not the Hebrews freed from Egypt (there's no evidence of such a people, but that's negative evidence) but are the Canaanites who already lived in those lands for thousands of years (that's the positive evidence).

You know how the stories of Joshua have the Israelites coming in and trashing big cities? That never happened. Those cities were ruined hundreds to thousands of years before any putative Exodus* could have happened (they certainly didn't all fall within one generation of each other). The people who dwelt the land of the fallen cities (the Canaanites) were never displaced. We can tell, through archeology, that the same cultures that dwelt within the cities (again, hundreds of years before any theoretical Exodus occurred) are the same peoples who lived in the time when the kingdoms started to come together (i.e., Solomon).

There's a ton of very good evidence for this. It appears that the cultures cropping up decided to invent a reason why there were ruins of ancient (and obviously powerful) cities. Maybe 'invent' is the wrong word, but it was biased remembering. The Israelites decided to think of themselves as the conquerors of Canaan, but their technological culture draws a direct line back.

*based on suggested Pharaohs that could've been the one mentioned in the Bible. A few have been suggested, but the fall of the Canaanite city states occurred before these Pharaohs lived AND there's evidence that the Canaanite tribes continued to dominate the land for generations after the death of these Pharaohs.


But, that's fine. My point is made with the Flood. If Jesus was mistaken regarding the historicity of the Flood (especially in regards to the detail differences between "all of humanity wiped out" and "local, severe flooding"), then I see no reason to think he's any more accurate when describing the ways to get into Heaven.

 

[timtofly]

Sargon II was a couple hundred years after Solomon.

The evidence for there not being an Exodus is not 'lack of evidence', there's actually positive evidence. The people who lived in Israel around the time where the stories regarding Solomon start to jive with the archeology (i.e., the "Israelites") are contiguous with the Canaanites both before and after any putative 'Exodus'. In other words, the Israelites are not the Hebrews freed from Egypt (there's no evidence of such a people, but that's negative evidence) but are the Canaanites who already lived in those lands for thousands of years (that's the positive evidence).

You know how the stories of Joshua have the Israelites coming in and trashing big cities? That never happened. Those cities were ruined hundreds to thousands of years before any putative Exodus* could have happened (they certainly didn't all fall within one generation of each other). The people who dwelt the land of the fallen cities (the Canaanites) were never displaced. We can tell, through archeology, that the same cultures that dwelt within the cities (again, hundreds of years before any theoretical Exodus occurred) are the same peoples who lived in the time when the kingdoms started to come together (i.e., Solomon).

There's a ton of very good evidence for this. It appears that the cultures cropping up decided to invent a reason why there were ruins of ancient (and obviously powerful) cities. Maybe 'invent' is the wrong word, but it was biased remembering. The Israelites decided to think of themselves as the conquerors of Canaan, but their technological culture draws a direct line back.

*based on suggested Pharaohs that could've been the one mentioned in the Bible. A few have been suggested, but the fall of the Canaanite city states occurred before these Pharaohs lived AND there's evidence that the Canaanite tribes continued to dominate the land for generations after the death of these Pharaohs.


But, that's fine. My point is made with the Flood. If Jesus was mistaken regarding the historicity of the Flood (especially in regards to the detail differences between "all of humanity wiped out" and "local, severe flooding"), then I see no reason to think he's any more accurate when describing the ways to get into Heaven.

Not sure if this was an answer to my post or if my post was a feeble pre-refute of this one. I can see your point about the Hebrews, are you also saying that the Arabs have no connections either? Did Muhammed fabricate his history after rejecting the teachings of the church? You do not have to answer on basis of sensitivity, I am just saying though, there are still doubts in my mind concerning the piecing together of ancient findings without bias as to previous knowledge of what may have happened. When someone says there are tons of evidence, I seem to remember that faith can move mountains. Does that mean that evidence can come to naught, or that we just do not know and choices need to be made? It also comes to mind when Joshua asked the Hebrews to choose in Joshua 24. He did not just talk about the gods of Egypt, or even Canaan, but also the gods before the "flood". It is in reference to the flooding of the Euphrates which had nothing to do with the exodus. If one looks at the satellite image of North America (between 10 and 100 miles out), picture the whole central plains under water, then picture a dam giving way in the middle and look at the debris field in the Gulf of Mexico. This is interestig in light that some say an asteroid hit the yucatan peninsala just south of there leaving a gaping hole in the earth that has since filled in. Incidently it filled in rather strangly like there was shifting of the mantle and land movement afterwards followed by the release of much water quickly some time later, to the north of it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yep, guess I will since it's becoming evident you're just prejudiced against religious documents.

Very mature.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Yep, guess I will since it's becoming evident you're just prejudiced against religious documents.

He was not being prejudiced against anything of religion, he was wanting you to use scientific evidence.

Those "bunch of rocks" you dismissed previously have been studied by geologists, studiers of the material that the world is made of. Stones can be studied... and their age calculated. Geology is linked as a part geograthym especilly in consideration of the erosion of rocks. Geology is a very intresting science and has serve in aiding our current understanding of the Earth including the movement of continants via the plates.

Although I would like for this topic to get back on topic...

 

[Borachio]

Can I completely derail it by asking "What does it take for me to get into Hell?"

Need I do anything? If I do nothing does it guarantee me a place?

Can I be assured that all the interesting people will be there?

Can I be certain that it won't still be full of Evangelicals wittering on at me?

 

[classical_hero]

Sargon II was a couple hundred years after Solomon.

The evidence for there not being an Exodus is not 'lack of evidence', there's actually positive evidence. The people who lived in Israel around the time where the stories regarding Solomon start to jive with the archeology (i.e., the "Israelites") are contiguous with the Canaanites both before and after any putative 'Exodus'. In other words, the Israelites are not the Hebrews freed from Egypt (there's no evidence of such a people, but that's negative evidence) but are the Canaanites who already lived in those lands for thousands of years (that's the positive evidence).

You know how the stories of Joshua have the Israelites coming in and trashing big cities? That never happened. Those cities were ruined hundreds to thousands of years before any putative Exodus* could have happened (they certainly didn't all fall within one generation of each other). The people who dwelt the land of the fallen cities (the Canaanites) were never displaced. We can tell, through archeology, that the same cultures that dwelt within the cities (again, hundreds of years before any theoretical Exodus occurred) are the same peoples who lived in the time when the kingdoms started to come together (i.e., Solomon).

There's a ton of very good evidence for this. It appears that the cultures cropping up decided to invent a reason why there were ruins of ancient (and obviously powerful) cities. Maybe 'invent' is the wrong word, but it was biased remembering. The Israelites decided to think of themselves as the conquerors of Canaan, but their technological culture draws a direct line back.

*based on suggested Pharaohs that could've been the one mentioned in the Bible. A few have been suggested, but the fall of the Canaanite city states occurred before these Pharaohs lived AND there's evidence that the Canaanite tribes continued to dominate the land for generations after the death of these Pharaohs.


But, that's fine. My point is made with the Flood. If Jesus was mistaken regarding the historicity of the Flood (especially in regards to the detail differences between "all of humanity wiped out" and "local, severe flooding"), then I see no reason to think he's any more accurate when describing the ways to get into Heaven.

There is a big problem with tradition chronology called the Hittite problem. Basically there is a gap of 500 years if you take the view that is commonly present in the world of archaeology. In fact for much of history, if it weren't for the Bible the Hittite would have been forgotten about. http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/hittite.html

In other words, unless Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek and Biblical chronologies are synchronized, the revision of history fails.

But the problem of doing that would have to mean decrease the traditional dates given to Egyptian Chronology, which so many people have held onto for so long

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He was not being prejudiced against anything of religion, he was wanting you to use scientific evidence.

Well, small adjustment. I was merely explaining what I think the scientific viewpoint was. VRWC can use whatever he likes to support his view. He is also free to tell me I am prejudiced against religious documents.

Is the Iliad considered a religious document?

Can I completely derail it by asking "What does it take for me to get into Hell?"

Feel free.

 

[Old Hippy]

There is a big problem with tradition chronology called the Hittite problem. Basically there is a gap of 500 years if you take the view that is commonly present in the world of archaeology. In fact for much of history, if it weren't for the Bible the Hittite would have been forgotten about. http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/hittite.html

for much of their history? maybe, but with over 30,000 different clay tablets from all walks of life found plus many large stone carved writings, they are definitely not forgotten
with the Hittite problem,there are two... one is the language itself which has been somewhat solved with the finding of Egyptian/ Hittite peace treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Hittite_peace_treaty

the second relating to the 500/400 years discrepancy, well it is actually covered by an accepted shortening of 400 years by archaeologists ...

The disparities between the two sets of dates result from additional discoveries and refined understanding of the still very incomplete source evidence. For example, Breasted adds a ruler in the Twentieth dynasty that further research showed did not exist. Following Manetho, Breasted also believed all the dynasties were sequential, whereas it is now known that several existed at the same time. These revisions have resulted in a shortening of the conventional chronology by up to 400 years at the beginning of Dynasty I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology

But the problem of doing that would have to mean decrease the traditional dates given to Egyptian Chronology, which so many people have held onto for so long

Synchronisms

A useful way to work around these gaps in knowledge is to find chronological synchronisms. Over the past decades a number of these have been found, of varying degrees of usefulness and reliability.
Synchronisms with other chronologies. The most important of these is with the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies, although synchronisms with the Hittites, ancient Palestine, and in the final period with ancient Greece are also used. The earliest such synchronisms appear in the 15th century BC, during the Amarna Period, when we have a considerable quantity of diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian Kings Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, and various Near Eastern monarchs. (See Chronology of the Ancient Near East.)

so the real problem then becomes the "bible problem" matching in with 6/7 other religious records from different empires and people, that synchronize, which can only be solved by fudging the found, carved in stone/clay historical documents or to take the bible as somewhat out on dates