Proff Stories In The Bible Are Wrong

[Boyd]

Nonsense.

Abraham has no historicity.


Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC and that is stated as fact by Israel Finkelstein, backed with archeology and not contested by a single historian.


Your a fish out of water here.

Finkelstein does not actually state that. What he states is that is as far back as we can trace them, for the reason that is the earliest attestation to them.

However, one must assume that the group existed before the earliest attestation. The only reason Egypt mentioned the Hebrews is because they were a group large enough worth mentioning. At that time, they had clearly formed a unit that was sizable enough.

This means we can assume that the Israelites did in fact exist prior to 1200 B.C.E. How much earlier, we can't say for sure.

Now, if we are looking at this story as an ancestral story, we would not be looking at Israelites, but proto-Israelites.

To play the devils advocate here, if we assume that an Abrahamic figure existed, and camel domestication is older as stated in the work, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (a decent set, but outdated), then there can be an argument that what we have is some sort of remembered history.

As with any epic (the ancestral narrative is not mythology. It contains some mythology, but it is more accurately defined as epic), there is historical remembrances. Those historical "facts" are placed into a narrative, but at the same time changed to fit a goal. In the case of the ancestral narrative, the final goal appears to be to create a national epic, to unify the area. There is historical facts in there, but it would be difficult to really pick those out.

As a side note, many people in the ancient past have little or no historical attestation. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[jtartar]

It seems that researchers in Israel have determined that stories in the Bible that reference camels are incorrect.

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

esmith,
There seems to be about every kind of critic known to man that critique the Holy Scriptures, and they seem to find something that they want to be inaccurate, so then they feel they do not have to obey what the Bible says.
The problem is; no one has ever found anything recorded in the Bibliotheca Divina that was in error, except a few names, and numbers. These discrepancies can, more that likely be because many people had several different names in ancient times, and numbers also meant names.
There is no doubt that the Bible today is accurate in it's message, and anyone who tries to say that God's word is wrong, will face their maker, because God, Himself promised to keep His word accurate from all generations, Ps 12:6,7.
Instead of trying to find an error in God's word people must read and learn what god's will is, Rom 12:2, and obey what it says, James 1:22, 25.
There have been many Improbations, because someone thought he had found a mistake, only later to be proven to be wrong, and remember there and many false teachers and prophets that do not want you to believe God's word, they are like Satan, who knows that he has a short time to live and wants to take as many with him into the Lake of Fire, The Second Death!!!

 

[metis]

When one reads Torah/Tanakh, what they are reading are books written generally much later than the time periods they cover-- usually by centuries, and sometimes many of them. Because of this, certain features present at the time of the writings are reflected back to the events that are rather subjectively covered.

How do we know this? Because of glottochronology (the evolution of languages) being applied to the writings. None of Torah appears to have been written much prior to 900 or so b.c.e., and that's probably being overly generous.

 

[esmith]

esmith,
There seems to be about every kind of critic known to man that critique the Holy Scriptures, and they seem to find something that they want to be inaccurate, so then they feel they do not have to obey what the Bible says.
The problem is; no one has ever found anything recorded in the Bibliotheca Divina that was in error, except a few names, and numbers. These discrepancies can, more that likely be because many people had several different names in ancient times, and numbers also meant names.
There is no doubt that the Bible today is accurate in it's message, and anyone who tries to say that God's word is wrong, will face their maker, because God, Himself promised to keep His word accurate from all generations, Ps 12:6,7.
Instead of trying to find an error in God's word people must read and learn what god's will is, Rom 12:2, and obey what it says, James 1:22, 25.
There have been many Improbations, because someone thought he had found a mistake, only later to be proven to be wrong, and remember there and many false teachers and prophets that do not want you to believe God's word, they are like Satan, who knows that he has a short time to live and wants to take as many with him into the Lake of Fire, The Second Death!!!

I usually abhor post that go off topic, but since I am the original poster I think I can and should respond to the above post.
Why are you preaching at me? I, not unlike you and others made no claim that the validity of what was reported was true or not true. I used to be what was considered to be of the Christian faith until what I call the "literalist" gained predominance and the idea that unless you took Jesus to be your lord and savior you would be forever damned became the predominate mantra of many churches. I am 71 years old and have traveled to many countries and interacted with many cultures; I was not the "Ugly American". As far as I know there are only two religious sects that advocate that it is either their way or no way; and I do not want to associate with either of them. Do I believe that there is a God? The answer is yes. Will I ever know who is right, maybe maybe not. What I do know is that if you and others are still living when I no longer exist as a biological entity you will not get an answer from me and still have to take you beliefs for what they are; beliefs. So, I ask you and other that lash out at others because they may not agree with you to reign it in and stop being what I call the "Ugly Christian"

 

[RabbiO]

esmith,
There is no doubt that the Bible today is accurate in it's message, and anyone who tries to say that God's word is wrong, will face their maker, because God, Himself promised to keep His word accurate from all generations, Ps 12:6,7.

And you think that it is what it says because???

Peter

 

[outhouse]

it must be true... your favorite reference tool says so:

Biblical Hebrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its states almost verbatim what I told you.

] The Northwest Semitic languages, including Hebrew, differentiated noticeably during the Iron Age (1200–540 BCE), although in its earliest stages Biblical Hebrew was not highly differentiated from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite.[5]

 

[outhouse]

When one reads Torah/Tanakh, what they are reading are books written generally much later than the time periods they cover-- usually by centuries, and sometimes many of them. Because of this, certain features present at the time of the writings are reflected back to the events that are rather subjectively covered.

How do we know this? Because of glottochronology (the evolution of languages) being applied to the writings. None of Torah appears to have been written much prior to 900 or so b.c.e., and that's probably being overly generous.

So true.

Collections, of collections, redacted and compiled over many centuries before a monotheistic redaction that ended up canonized a few hundreds years later

 

[nazz]

it must be true... your favorite reference tool says so:

Biblical Hebrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, it must be false because your favorite reference tool says so:

Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nazz]

'Living with the bible' by Moshe Dayan.

Do you even know who Moshe Dayan was?

 

[outhouse]

Finkelstein does not actually state that. What he states is that is as far back as we can trace them, for the reason that is the earliest attestation to them.




To play the devils advocate here, if we assume that an Abrahamic figure existed, and camel domestication is older as stated in the work, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (a decent set, but outdated), then there can be an argument that what we have is some sort of remembered history.

As with any epic (the ancestral narrative is not mythology. It contains some mythology, but it is more accurately defined as epic), there is historical remembrances. Those historical "facts" are placed into a narrative, but at the same time changed to fit a goal. In the case of the ancestral narrative, the final goal appears to be to create a national epic, to unify the area. There is historical facts in there, but it would be difficult to really pick those out.

As a side note, many people in the ancient past have little or no historical attestation. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Doesnt matter, scholars look at Abraham as a literary creation, refracted memory that could be handed down for hundreds of years throuh cross cultural oral tradition, plays no part in his written mythology/legends.

It is still epic mythology because they are creating a past that never existed even in memory. The biblical accounts are lucky in many places to even contain refracted memory. In many places we see massive amounts of literary creation possible to please their Babylonain captures by uniting the multi cultural beliefs in existance.

If oral traditions played a part, then the books might reflect the actual history we see, instead of one that never existed. Not one part of their written history ressembles or reflects what actually happened.

Most of it reflects wants needs and desires from 600 BC era.

Now, if we are looking at this story as an ancestral story, we would not be looking at Israelites, but proto-Israelites.


However, one must assume that the group existed before the earliest attestation. The only reason Egypt mentioned the Hebrews is because they were a group large enough worth mentioning. At that time, they had clearly formed a unit that was sizable enough.

Before 1200 BC they were proto Israelites, it is safe to say they were proto Israelites too 1000 BC. They were semi nomadic "people", not large or powerful enough to have settled any one area at this period. They were no threat to Egyptians who laid their seed to waist. barely even mentioned.

This means we can assume that the Israelites did in fact exist prior to 1200 B.C.E. How much earlier, we can't say for sure.

The bronze age collapse was still going on, the Canaanites had just disbanded a few decades prior.

It is safe to say that Proto Israelites had just formed when Egyptians mowed them over. We dont know if these particular people were completely wiped off the planet.


Because. What we do see is is a gradual increase in "SEMITIC" people over a 200 year period settling in the highlands of Israel after 1200 BC. NOT these proto Israelites that were possibly wiped out.

The migration was factually gradual, not one dramatic exodus from a tribe of people.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems that researchers in Israel have determined that stories in the Bible that reference camels are incorrect.

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

No reason to take any part of the Bible prior to around 900BC as factual. Little enough reason to take much of the rest of it as factual either.

Whatever one wants to take as factual in the Bible is kind of a crap shoot. Maybe some of it is factual, maybe not. People want to take it on faith as a historical document, good for them. Has no weight as a historical document as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Pegg]

No reason to take any part of the Bible prior to around 900BC as factual. Little enough reason to take much of the rest of it as factual either.

Whatever one wants to take as factual in the Bible is kind of a crap shoot. Maybe some of it is factual, maybe not. People want to take it on faith as a historical document, good for them. Has no weight as a historical document as far as I'm concerned.

Do you visit history museums?

 

[Pegg]

Its states almost verbatim what I told you.

] The Northwest Semitic languages, including Hebrew, differentiated noticeably during the Iron Age (1200–540 BCE), although in its earliest stages Biblical Hebrew was not highly differentiated from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite.[5]

how old are the semitic languages ??

 

[outhouse]

how old are the semitic languages ??

That has nothing to do with Isarelites. Canaanites used it.


Semitic is a language shared by many cultures that existed long before Israelites ever existed.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you visit history museums?

Sure, but then I can take a, lets say a granite stone with a person name engraved on it. Write a story about that person. Add to a document which claims to be 3000 years old but having no other previous document available, who's to say my story was or was not part of the original document. 2000 years from someone reads the now "5000" year old document. Shows the granite stone to others to "prove" the story I wrote is true.

Going past maybe 4 century B.C. any dated documents are pretty if'y with regards to the Bible. Prior to that anything could have been changed, exaggerated, made up etc.... Not saying it was, just no good reason to trust that it wasn't.

 

[Pegg]

That has nothing to do with Isarelites. Canaanites used it.


Semitic is a language shared by many cultures that existed long before Israelites ever existed.

do you know why the language is called 'semitic' ??

 

[Pegg]

Sure, but then I can take a, lets say a granite stone with a person name engraved on it. Write a story about that person. Add to a document which claims to be 3000 years old but having no other previous document available, who's to say my story was or was not part of the original document. 2000 years from someone reads the now "5000" year old document. Shows the granite stone to others to "prove" the story I wrote is true.

Going past maybe 4 century B.C. any dated documents are pretty if'y with regards to the Bible. Prior to that anything could have been changed, exaggerated, made up etc.... Not saying it was, just no good reason to trust that it wasn't.

when archeologists dig up things from the past, those things have been in the ground for a very long time, undisturbed.

The things written on ancient monuments, ie people, places,events have been corroborated in the historical accounts of the bible. If the bible is not historically accurate, why are these ancient discoveries mentioned in the bible?

Archaeology proves that the bible is indeed an accurate account of history.

 

[McBell]

when archeologists dig up things from the past, those things have been in the ground for a very long time, undisturbed.

The things written on ancient monuments, ie people, places,events have been corroborated in the historical accounts of the bible. If the bible is not historically accurate, why are these ancient discoveries mentioned in the bible?

Archaeology proves that the bible is indeed an accurate account of history.

Wishful thinking.

 

[outhouse]

do you know why the language is called 'semitic' ??

Yes

And I have a feeling you don't know anything at all about the language.

Semitic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Semitic languages are a language family originating in the Near East whose living representatives are spoken by more than 470 million people across much of Western Asia, North Africa and the Horn of Africa. They constitute a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. The most widely spoken Semitic languages today are Arabic[1] (206 million native speakers),[2] Amharic (27 million),[3][4] Hebrew (9 million),[5][6][7] Tigrinya (6.7 million),[8] and Aramaic (about 2.2 million).[citation needed]

Semitic languages are attested in written form from a very early date, with Akkadian and Eblaite texts (written in a script adapted from Sumerian cuneiform) appearing from around the middle of the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant respectively. However, most scripts used to write Semitic languages are abjads — a type of alphabetic script that omits some or all of the vowels, which is feasible for these languages because the consonants in the Semitic languages are the primary carriers of meaning. Among them are the Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and South Arabian alphabets. The Ge'ez alphabet, used for writing the Semitic languages of Ethiopia and Eritrea, is technically an abugida — a modified abjad in which vowels are notated using diacritic marks added to the consonants. Maltese is the only Semitic language written in the Latin script and the only official Semitic language of the European Union.

The Semitic languages are well known for their nonconcatenative morphology. That is, word roots are not themselves syllables or words, but instead are isolated sets of consonants (usually three, making a so-called triliteral root). Words are composed out of roots not so much by adding prefixes or suffixes, but rather by filling in the vowels between the root consonants (although prefixes and suffixes are often added as well). For example, in Arabic, the root meaning "write" has the form k-t-b. From this root, words are formed by filling in the vowels, e.g. kitāb "book", kutub "books", kātib "writer", kuttāb "writers", kataba "he wrote", yaktubu "he writes", etc.

 

[McBell]

Yes

And I have a feeling you don't know anything at all about the language.

Semitic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Semitic languages are a language family originating in the Near East whose living representatives are spoken by more than 470 million people across much of Western Asia, North Africa and the Horn of Africa. They constitute a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. The most widely spoken Semitic languages today are Arabic[1] (206 million native speakers),[2] Amharic (27 million),[3][4] Hebrew (9 million),[5][6][7] Tigrinya (6.7 million),[8] and Aramaic (about 2.2 million).[citation needed]

Semitic languages are attested in written form from a very early date, with Akkadian and Eblaite texts (written in a script adapted from Sumerian cuneiform) appearing from around the middle of the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant respectively. However, most scripts used to write Semitic languages are abjads — a type of alphabetic script that omits some or all of the vowels, which is feasible for these languages because the consonants in the Semitic languages are the primary carriers of meaning. Among them are the Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and South Arabian alphabets. The Ge'ez alphabet, used for writing the Semitic languages of Ethiopia and Eritrea, is technically an abugida — a modified abjad in which vowels are notated using diacritic marks added to the consonants. Maltese is the only Semitic language written in the Latin script and the only official Semitic language of the European Union.

The Semitic languages are well known for their nonconcatenative morphology. That is, word roots are not themselves syllables or words, but instead are isolated sets of consonants (usually three, making a so-called triliteral root). Words are composed out of roots not so much by adding prefixes or suffixes, but rather by filling in the vowels between the root consonants (although prefixes and suffixes are often added as well). For example, in Arabic, the root meaning "write" has the form k-t-b. From this root, words are formed by filling in the vowels, e.g. kitāb "book", kutub "books", kātib "writer", kuttāb "writers", kataba "he wrote", yaktubu "he writes", etc.

I suspect she is going to go the Genesis 10:21–31 route....