MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Creation Myths, Ancient & Modern (Philosophy)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Marduk


In: berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Who do you think you are talking to? Clearly the only person here who has been bitchy is the previous poster who for some reason thinks that only he knows the truth. This belief is common amongst Biblical redactors of the lowest order who wouldn't know the truth if it punched them in the face.

Please delete my member profile and all my posts immediately
you can then blissfully listen to his brand of crap for the rest of your days. Admin-sponsored bullshit really isn't my thing -- thanks but no thanks.

PS In future you should realise posters who make unsupported claims without links and post lots of CAPITALS in their posts are suffering from a mental affliction known as fundamentalism. Supporting fundamentalism isn't a good idea because people who do know what they are talking about will refuse to post here. People like me.
Ciao
_________________

I have crossed oceans of time to be with you again and although heaven may be closed i am always open even on christmas
Send private message Send e-mail
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Any person who is truly serious about validating his self-conceived premise would be happy to suffer blows from those who wish to do it harm. Shit, I'm still applying cover-up to wounds long since scarred over. Afterall...all is fair in love, war and knowledge, so I'm told.

Marduk and Komorrkid, let the dross rise, may you both skim. I for one am loving it....please continue.

PS This may come off as a bit naive, (for you are both obviously well-versed in Middle Eastern history), but in agreement with Marduk I prefer at least one link in support of an 'unfamiliar' claim.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Clearly the only person here who has been bitchy is the previous poster who for some reason thinks that only he knows the truth

I'm not the one who professes truth. Truth is a philosophical concept that can be bent and twisted to suit any paradigm. I'm the guy who knows the FACTS and physical evidence (and the lack thereof) is far more persuasive than philosophical beliefs. Belief in any concept, philosophical or otherwise, is the worst kind of fundamentalism there is as it excludes all contradictory evidence other than the core belief. The tenor of your last post suggests quite clearly to me that you have a zealously fundamental belief in a subject that you have never even thought to question at its most basic level.

In the beginning only Harper knew the facts and we who were permitted to enter his QUEST were shocked and even repulsed at his revelations. His theories were rubbish, we knew better, after all everything he said contradicted the long held beliefs that we grew up with. How could he be right and everyone else in the world be wrong? But with the help of lateral thinkers like Ish and a bunch of willing Questers with open minds we became enlightened and began to question the fundamental beliefs that we all held so dearly. SLOT, SCUM and OGRE are just some of the result of this enlightenment. Since those times I have adopted the dictum of 'question everything' and if it smells like dingo's droppings it usually is.

The Old Testament is a prime candidate for this dictum. Its content is replete not only with religious significance it is also a compendium of ancient people. Not only can it be read as a historical document but is also a demonstrative record of place, time, geography, flora, fauna, culture and climate. Places and people have names, geographical features are described in detail, plants and animal are catalogued, cultural diversity is explained, climatic conditions are depicted, genealogies are explained, historical events are recorded and lifestyles are compared. Its narrative has the unmistakeable ring of authenticity; who would go to so much trouble to create a simple myth. There is no other ancient scrip that even comes close to its all encompassing, warts and all chronicle of ancient people; not Egyptian, not Akkadian, not Babylonian, not Hittite (if they ever existed), not Phoenician, Sumerian or Assyrian and not even Persian -- none.

The only other ancient text that resembles the Old Testament in its all-embracing narrative is the work of Homer and everyone know that's just myth, right?

Of the hundreds of places and features related in the Old Testament none but a handful have be found in Palestine and of those more than half are disputed by competing archaeologists.

The main reason for this is that over 90% of the 'digs' in the last hundred years have been carried out by Biblical Archaeologists who majored in Biblical History and minored in Archaeology.

We take for granted that specialist do their homework properly. When it comes to ancient history, not many of us are in a position to check. We are not archaeologists, and ancient languages and scripts are beyond the scope of most of us to decipher. So when specialists pronounce on a subject we take it on trust and leave them to disagree on arguable points. But with matters they agree on they can get away with almost anything. In the field of Biblical archaeology there is ample opportunity not only for error but also for perpetuating it indefinitely.

Dig anywhere in the Near East and you will find evidence of ancient cultures. But to dig is one thing; to interpret what is found is another. Herein lies the difference between scientific archaeology and Biblical archaeology. The former is a systematic and objective attempt to study ancient cultures and trace their development on the basis of the evidence found, taking into account any limitations of the discipline and its methods. The latter is no more than a search for material findings in areas marked out according to preconceived notions of Biblical geography, in an effort to provide archaeological and textural substantiation for equally preconceived notions of Biblical history.

When a Biblical archaeologist finds the remnants of old fortifications near Beersheba, he proclaims the evidence of 'Israelite' fortification without giving thought to any other possibility. When he finds evidence of a copper mine near Elath and an inscribed ring nearby with the word lytm he announces that the ring belong 'to Jothan' (l-ytm) King of Judah, proving conclusively that he has found King Solomon's copper mine and the city of Ezion-Grber.

If the ring was inscribed with lytm mkl yhwdh (Jotham King of Judah) he may have been justified. But lytm could be 'anyone named Jotham' (Hebrew or not) or it could also mean 'the God Atam' ytm can also be translated as Atum the Egyptian God. This is but one of the flaws in accepting Biblical scholarship as proof of a Palestinian heritage for the Old Testament.

In recent decades more independent scientific evidence is truly enlightening and brings the previously held views by historians and Biblical scholars into sharp focus.

    1. There is not evidence that Hebrews were ever captives anywhere in Ancient Egypt at the time the Exodus is supposed to have happened, no matter whose chronology you use.

    2. Of the handful of Biblical place names (disputed or not) that do exist in Palestine none correspond to the geographical locations set down in the Old Testament.

    3. Jericho provides no chronological, textural or physical evidence that conforms to the Joshua story.

    4. Archaeological evidence in and around Jerusalem shows no evidence of Solomon's magnificent 'other' building projects so vividly described in the Bible.

    5. Geological and climatic evidence conclude that the area was as barren then as it is today and that the arable land surrounding Jerusalem could never have supported the population densities recorded in the Old Testament.

    6. There is no record that a King Hiram (hyrm) of Tyre ever existed in any ancient text relating to that city. There is evidence of a King Ahirim ('hrm) but he was the King of Byblos an entirely different place.

These are just a small example of the contradictory evidence now available. It is also one of the prime reason some scholars point to the Old Testament being nothing more than allegory. When there is no evidence assume myth. There is no such thing as no evidence. It's just that there is no evidence in Palestine. But because an Old Testament in Palestine fixates them, they cannot or will not accept that the events took place somewhere else even when the evidence points them in the right direction.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The reference to this discourse are found in the following:

The Bible Came From Arabia -- Kamal Salibi
Secrets Of The Bible People -- Kamal Salibi

The Queen of Sheba and Israel -- Bernard Leeman
http://www.queenofsheba.info/files/part-1.pdf

http://www.queenofsheba.info/files/part-2.pdf

http://www.queenofsheba.info/files/part-3.pdf
Send private message
Marduk


In: berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/salibi.html
nutter
_________________

I have crossed oceans of time to be with you again and although heaven may be closed i am always open even on christmas
Send private message Send e-mail
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
The Old Testament is a prime candidate for this dictum. It content is replete not only with religious significance it is also a compendium of ancient people. Not only can it be read as a historical document but is also a demonstrative record of place, time, geography, flora, fauna, culture and climate....Its narrative has the unmistakeable ring of authenticity.......some scholars point to the Old Testament being nothing more than allegory. When there is no evidence assume myth.

Very interesting, and quite within the grasp of probability still considering the parallels with Mesopotamian myth. However, I am bewildered by what you perceive as 'religious significance' in these texts.

Let us grant you that the places are 'historical' yet not in Palestine (I don't have a problem with that premise). OK then what are we to make of all fabulous events of the Old Testament i.e.,
six days of creation,
the great flood with only Noah surviving,
the conception of Isaac,
the flaming bush,
the plagues of Egypt,
the parting of the Red Sea,
the purified waters of Marah,
manna in the wilderness,
water from the rock,
the voice of God,
the finger of God,
the transfiguration of Moses
the 7 trumpets of Jericho,
the sun stood still,
the fire of Elijah,
the ascension of Elijah,
Elisha's resurrection of the Shunammite woman's child,
David and Goliath,
Jonah and the whale,
Daniel and the Lion's Den,
etc...

I could go on and on and on and on, so are we to 'believe' that these events do not have any allegorical/mythological merit whatsoever, and fall merely into your category of 'religious significance'? If so, then please outline what you perceive as 'religious significance'. Then define where, and by what criteria, we should draw the line between 'actual history' and 'religious significance'.

Why not an allegorical/historical blend of sorts, much like Homer's Odyssey and the synoptic gospels?

Komorikid wrote:
who would go to so much trouble to create a simple myth

I would. I'm kind of surprised by that statement, Komorikid, for these are not 'simple myths' in my mind. One only needs to read the Shipwrecked Sailor, the Epic of Gilgamesh /Atrahasis/ Ishtar, Hesiod's Works and Days, Homer's Odyssey, Plato's Republic/Phaedo, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Virgil's Aeneid, the works of Philo, the Synoptic Gospels, Plutarch's Lives, Diogenes' Lifeof Pythagoras, etc.. in order to sense the complexity of the mythmaker's thought processes.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory of Christian Origins Mission Statement
Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions, which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine that is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues, which are relevant to the Church as a whole
.

Before replying to the article on Marduk's link please take note of the mission statement above. This a fundamentalist Christian Site that debunks alternative Biblical History.

With that in mind I offer the following:

He recognized a mess of place names from the Bible that were supposed to be in Palestine. On the other hand, he thinks there is not enough evidence to connect these place names to Palestine. Ergo, the OT events took place in Arabia

One has to have a place name in Palestine in order for someone to take it with them to a new destination. The place names in the Old World that were transposed to the New World still exist today (Newcastle, London etc). Where are all these places in Palestine?
They don't exist!

For one thing, no evidence at all is provided that any of these Arabian locales existed as long as 2400-3500 years ago by their names.

No evidence exists that these places were ever in Palestine at all, at any time in History.

Salibi begs off that perhaps archaeology will one day verify his conclusions, and we will presumably find vast evidence beneath Arabian soil of the "real" Jewish locale.

No independent archaeological evidence exists that conclusively proves the 'real' Jewish locale was Palestine.

Consider how many place names we have in the USA with duplicate names: Miami. Albany. Columbus. How many places do you know named "Shady Oak"? It does not occur to Salibi as it should that many Biblical names are just the sort of thing we would expect people to come up with elsewhere in the same cultural milieu at any given time.

One would also expect that any given place name has an origin that can be verified. Hebron (the example used) in Palestine cannot. The Palestinian Hebron is the town of al-Khalil (hlyl) and not the Hebrew (hbrwn). Khalil is an Arabicised form of the Hebrew (hll) which means hollowed out or cave. The town gets it name from a nearby cave (attested by Arab geographers), which was consecrated by later tradition as the tomb/shrine of Abraham. A classic example of Biblical scholarship's sleight-of-hand.

he admits that there was a later Jewish population in this area (And would we not expect them to use some of the old homeland names? -- Salibi even admits that later "nostalgic immigrants" to Palestine might have renamed sites after the old homeland, so why not the other way around?)

You have to have an original before you can copy it.

What, um, about that Jews clearly lived in Palestine during the Roman era? No problem: After the Exile, everyone returned to Arabia, but didn't like it anymore, so they moved to Palestine and forgot all about their old homeland, with some help from the Hasmonean kings, who were intent on establishing their claim to Palestine.

This is more smoke and mirrors. Notice how we have Jews living in Palestine in the Roman era as if to say there were none living there before the Roman Empire. Salibi makes quite clear in his book that there were Hebrew-speakers living in Palestine at the same time as the Bible narrative and that they were speaking a similar language.

The Hebrew of the early Bible known as Old Hebrew is classified linguistically as Canaanite and was a language spoken along the coastal regions of Syria/Palestine and along the Red Sea coast of Arabia and the Horn of Africa. Primitive versions of this language still exist in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Biblical scholarship's reference to Hebrew implies that it was a dedicated language spoken only by Jews. This is totally spurious. Caananite/Old Hebrew was a well-attested common language shared over a wide area of the Near East.

Also worth noting is that at the time of the Hasmonean kings there existed in Southwest Arabia the Jewish State of Hymar which occupied North Yemen. If the Hymarite were privy to the true history of early Biblical history the Hasmoneans would have a pretty good incentive to doctor the true records

Um, well, what about things like the Tunnel of Siloam in Jerusalem, which match what the OT reports about Hezekiah? Again, no problem: all kinds of cities build water tunnels for all sorts of reasons, and no inscription connected to the tunnel actually says the city is Jerusalem.

So tell me what definitive proof is there that this tunnel was built in the time of Hezekiah? What contrary evidence has been forthcoming from Biblical scholarship to refute Salibi's claim? None; character assassination, careful ignoral, stony silence but no contrary evidence.

Well, darn it, what about people like the Moabites who we have clear evidence for in things like the Moabite stone, found right where we would expect? Again, pouf, bam! Actually the Moabites used to live down in Arabia too, but the Israelites knocked them flat, so they moved to Palestine to get away from them and then carved the Moabite Stone.

When did he carve it? It certainly wasn't before he had his arse kicking by Omri and Ahab. His Moab was usurped by the Israelites and he fled. Where he placed the stone was where he fled to Qarhoh. So the true name of the stone should be the Qarhoh Stone. The inscription is a story of Mesha defeat and subsequent abandoning of Moab for greener pastures.

What about features like the Jordan River? We don't have time to divert into how the present Jordan got that name, we are told, but nothing in the Bible says the Jordan was a river.

And it seem that you don't have time to divert into how the present Jordan got that name either or you would have posted it by now and saved us the monologue.

This entire article has not one shred of contrary evidence to put forward on any of the points it has issue with. One piece of independently verifiable evidence should do it but no such evidence has been proffered. The SOP of orthodoxy has been put into play and the only response they can offer is silence, indifference, contempt and apathy.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

OK then what are we to make of all fabulous events of the Old Testament i.e.,

Before I answer that, answer me this:

Is St Paul''s vision on the road to Damascus any different to Joseph Young's vision in the Sacred Grove?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Honestly Komori, if you want to debate the merits of Kamal Salibi's theories, I suggest opening a separate thread devoted just to that subject. If that debate is taken up here, absolutely nothing else will get discussed because no one will be able to agree on even basic premises.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Is St Paul's vision on the road to Damascus any different to Joseph Young's vision in the Sacred Grove?


I think you mean Joseph Smith.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sorry 'bout that.

Is St Paul's vision on the road to Damascus any different to Joseph Smith's vision in the Sacred Grove?
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me."

Komorikid, I'm not one for answering questions with a question, but since you are, and are quite emphatic about it, then I'll do it......just this once ; )

Yes, Paul's Damascus vision is primarily different from Joseph Smith's in that, in all of his epistles, Paul was not as presumptuous as Joseph Smith to think that anybody would literally buy an 'overtly allegorical' tale like the Damascus Vision. Especially in his own words. Paul had some self respect, whilst it seems that Joseph Smith had nothing to lose in mimicking the archetypical 'christian salvatory vision'. To me it is quite clear that Joseph Smith wanted us to understand his 'vision' literally through symbolic-colourful language, but then I am barely acquanited with Joseph Smith and the body of his writings.

Here is Joseph Smith's vision. In his own words.

So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally. "After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction--not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other 'This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am puzzled. If J Smith wants us to understand that this was a literally true experience why, when he is accosted by the two personages, does his prose suddenly lurch into archaic sixteenth century vernacular: "One of them spake unto me." Or is this like policemen giving evidence in court: "I was proceeding in a northerly direction..."
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I am puzzled. If J Smith wants us to understand that this was a literally true experience why, when he is accosted by the two personages, does his prose suddenly lurch into archaic sixteenth century vernacular: "One of them spake unto me." Or is this like policemen giving evidence in court: "I was proceeding in a northerly direction..."

The whole Book of Mormon reads exactly like that -- a pseudo-16th century dialect that fades in and out with each successive sentence.

In this specific instance, by invoking the "higher language" of the King James Bible, Smith aims to elevate his [alleged] transfigurative experience into that profound realm occupied by the holiest figures of the Old Testament. The language is a signpost to the listener or reader that reads, "Our normative, profane existence has been temporarily suspended." In short: I am no longer speaking as Joe Smith but now invoke the personage of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, whose feet, unlike those of simple Joe, have actually trod on holy ground.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Smith aims to elevate his [alleged] transfigurative experience

I think you rather miss my point. Wireloop has taught us that there is both art and artifice in the Bible. Aside from the strictly historical stuff, some of it is it would seem written with quite deliberate, if hidden, purpose while most of it is (I would say, merely) transfigurative. Now the Book of Mormon is different in being, so I understand, the work of a single person as a coherent production, unlike the Koran for instance, so we are entitled to wonder if the whole thing is a cynical exercise rather than being the true transfigurating experience of Mr Smith. If it is the latter I would not expect the language to change since the experience would be sufficiently overwhelming to discount making style points.

This is of course different from St Paul making "style points" where his purpose is presumably quite different. Though again, I suppose, one is entitled to wonder.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 5

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group