1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Genesis Fraud Part 1

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by michaelsherlock, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    According to Christian tradition the book of Genesis was written somewhere between 1513-1440BCE, at around the time of the Israelite’s alleged exodus from Egypt. However, according to the overwhelming amount of archeological, textual and extra-biblical evidence, the book of Genesis was more than likely written some time during the 6th to the 5th centuries B.C.E, whilst the Israelites were exiled in Babylon or even after they had returned, also known as the exilic and post exilic periods. Such a fact may appear to be insignificant but it is important, especially within the context of the archeologically proven fact that the Chaldeans, Sumerians and Babylonians, all had near identical myths from the creation of heaven and earth, the fall of man, the great flood, the tower of Babel, the Ten Commandments and even a Garden of Eden, to name a few. All of these ancient Babylonian myths pre-dated the Hebrew Scriptures by over a thousand years or more.


    The ‘Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies’ has the following to say regarding biblical archeology and the Babylonian origin of the myths contained within the book of Genesis:

    These (anthropological responses) took various forms: cultural, religious, and historical. The cultural responses were based upon the discovery of Assyrian and Babylonian texts which resembled the biblical accounts of creation and flood and the laws of Exodus 21–4. They illuminated the cultural context of ancient Israel and disclosed the history, religion, and culture of ancient Mesopotamia as never before. One conclusion that was drawn from these discoveries was that everything that was thought to be unique to the Old Testament was, in fact, derived from Babylon (Delitzsch 1901–2).

    There are a number of reasons to consider the probability that the book of Genesis was written well after the traditional date and even more reasons to suggest that it was composed in post exilic times (after the Jewish exile to Babylon).


    The Hebrew Language

    The first and foremost reason for considering a much later date for the composition for the book of Genesis than is held by the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the fact that the Hebrew language was not yet in existence during the period in which the book was allegedly written. There are two major forms of script in Hebrew, the ‘Ketav Ivri’, which is derived from the Phoenician (ancient Lebanese) language and the ‘Ketav Ashuri’, rooted in the Acadian or Babylonian language. Neither Hebraic Scripts originate with the actual Hebrews themselves they are borrowed languages from people who worshiped other gods. Whether the original manuscripts of Genesis were penned in the Babylonian Hebrew or the Phoenician Hebrew, one thing is almost certain and that is, the earliest possible date that the book of Genesis could have been written is no earlier than 1000 B.C.E.

    With regards to the relatively late development of the Hebrew language the ‘Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages’ relates that:

    No extant inscription that can be identified specifically as Hebrew antedates the tenth century BC, and Hebrew inscriptions in significant numbers do not begin to appear before the early eighth century BC.

    Camels

    The next reason for questioning the traditional date of composition for the book of Genesis is the presence of camels in the narrative. According to Zoological Archeologists at Tel Aviv University, camels were not domesticated until after 1000BC. There is no evidence whatsoever of domesticated camels prior to this time and following this period there is a wealth of archeological evidence regarding the domestication of camels. So why is this important?

    In Genesis 12:16 Abram is rewarded by the Pharaoh of Egypt for giving the Pharaoh his “sister,” who was actually his wife/half-sister. For this gift of prostitution, the Pharaoh rewarded Abram with sheep, *****, slaves, and a camel. However, as mentioned above camels were not domesticated until after 1000BC and this story is traditionally said to have taken place before 2000BC. Therefore, the author was living in a time when camels were domesticated, which according to the archeological evidence must have been some time after 1000BC. This pushes both the story of Abraham and the book of Genesis to after 1000BC at least.

    The ‘Harper Collins Bible Dictionary’ corroborates the above point, whilst disagreeing only slightly on the date of the introduction of the Camel to Canaan and Egypt. It states:

    There is however no archaeological corroboration for the camel being known in Palestine or Egypt at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., as the seventeen references to the camel in Genesis might suggest, and those references are therefore considered anachronisms.

    In addition 2 Jewish Rabbis, Messod and Roger Sabbah, discuss this point in their bestseller, ‘Secrets of the Exodus: The Egyptian Origins of the Hebrew People’, arguing that the appearance of camels within the narratives found in the Book of Genesis are telltale signs that the book was composed much later than previously believed:

    Biblical researchers believed that the presence of camels in the story of the patriarchs was an error of the scribes. However, the scribes went into great detail, as if they wanted to pass on a message. "He caused the camels to kneel ..." (Genesis 24:11). "Rebecca looked up and alighted from the camel ..." (Genesis24:64). Presenting Biblical characters alighting from camels' backs is an anachronism that the scribes apparently wished to present.
    By the sixth century BC, the camel, a symbol of wealth and power, had already been domesticated in Babylonia.
    Had they forgotten that camels did not exist in ancient Egypt?
    Couldn't they have presented and described Abraham's power and wealth without camels? The camels give a Mesopotamian twist to the story, which would have been pleasing to their captors.

    Chaldea

    Further, the book of Genesis describes Abraham’s birthplace as being in Ur in Chaldea, which as previously mentioned, is more popularly known today as Babylon. At Genesis 11:28, 31 and 15:7, the Hebrew word ‘Kasdim’ (Eng. Chaldee) is used to describe the ancient region of Babylonia. The problem with the use of the word ‘Kasdim’ is that it was not used to describe ancient Babylonia until the 6th century BCE, which is known as the Neo-Babylonian Period. Before this it was known as ‘Sumeria’, yet the account given in Genesis refers to this region as Chaldea. This fact provides further evidence that the book of Genesis was more than likely written sometime during or after the 6th century BCE. According to Messod and Roger Sabbah, the story of Abraham was a 6th century composition constructed to pander to the Jew’s Babylonian captors and masters. They say:

    Although the city of Ur existed in Sumeria, the name "Chaldea" (Chaldees) does not appear until sometime around the sixth century BC. Chaldea has never yielded any archeological proof of the existence of the great patriarch, Abraham. In order to survive and for their traditions to survive as well, the Yahuds introduced anachronisms into the history of the Patriarchs. They made the story compatible with sixth-century Babylon. They recast a large part of their history at that time, probably under considerable restrictions. The new text of the story had no historical reality at all.

    Moreover, the ‘Harper Collins Bible Dictionary’ informs us that:

    “In the OT, Ur is mentioned four times (Gen. 11:28, 31; 15:7; Neh. 9:7), in each instance as the home of the patriarch Abraham before his migration to Harran and Canaan, and in each instance the Hebrew phrase “Ur Kasdim” is used. Kasdim here almost certainly indicates the "Chaldeans" (cf. already the Septuagint), which suggests that the phrase as a whole refers to the southern Mesopotamia!! Ur of the period of the Neo-Babylonian/Chaldean Empire. To be sure, this period is much too late for Abraham…”

    It appears that the accounts of Abraham’s birth and travels were created no earlier than the 6th century B.C.E, which seems to indicate that the writer was either in Babylon during the exile or had already returned to Israel. Either way, one thing is almost certain, and that is that the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures had ample opportunity to copy and re-script the mythologies of the ancient Babylonians to suit their own social and theological needs.


    Any thoughts?
     
  2. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,243
    Ratings:
    +8,797
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Only that you should be aware that plagiarism isn't allowed here on RF.
     
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,699
    Ratings:
    +10,011
    Religion:
    Judaism
    ... and blatantly obvious plagiarism is more than a little repugnant. There is, however, a certain irony in a plagiarist attacking a text, any text, as fraudulent.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    I have not plagiarized anything!! It is my work and will be in the 2nd volume of a 3 volume series I have written called; I AM CHRIST!

    Check your facts!
    Who and where did this come from? Investigate, seek the truth!
     
  5. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    THis is my work! I suggest to those that claim this is a plagiarized article, to check on Carm forum, see that this is the source of the article and check the author's name, Coincidentally it happens to be Michael SHerlock, Yes, that is right! Me! I will leave plagiarism for the religionists, in particular the Abrahamic ones!
     
  6. waitasec

    waitasec Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    21,038
    Ratings:
    +475
    to be fair, since you can't prove who you say you are, it would be nice for you to provide a link...otherwise you come off as a pretentious troll... and i, for one, will give you the benefit of the doubt that its done unintentionally.
    capiche?
     
  7. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,243
    Ratings:
    +8,797
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    [​IMG]

    If you are indeed the true author of the piece then I suggest you use your real name to establish your copyright privileges. Otherwise anyone can copy whatever they wish and pass it off as their own.


    Be glad to check the facts, just tell me where to go. As it stands, all I find are four separate postings of the same thing, two of which I see you have attached your name to. The other two, those I've shown above, are closed, or are at least inaccessible to me.

    But hey, if you swear you're the author, I can go along with that.
    [​IMG]
     
    #7 Skwim, Feb 8, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
  8. arthra

    arthra Baha'i

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,170
    Ratings:
    +1,609
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Michael posted above:

    The Hebrew Language

    The first and foremost reason for considering a much later date for the composition for the book of Genesis than is held by the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the fact that the Hebrew language was not yet in existence during the period in which the book was allegedly written. There are two major forms of script in Hebrew, the ‘Ketav Ivri’, which is derived from the Phoenician (ancient Lebanese) language and the ‘Ketav Ashuri’, rooted in the Acadian or Babylonian language. Neither Hebraic Scripts originate with the actual Hebrews themselves they are borrowed languages from people who worshiped other gods. Whether the original manuscripts of Genesis were penned in the Babylonian Hebrew or the Phoenician Hebrew, one thing is almost certain and that is, the earliest possible date that the book of Genesis could have been written is no earlier than 1000 B.C.E.

    .....

    Michael, I think this article is probably in error as the proto Sinaitic scrip from the mid bronze age antedates the above, especially the Phonecian script!

    "Proto-Sinaitic began to emerge about 1700 BCE."

    Genesis Key: Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions

    "Inscriptions dating to 1900 BCE written in what appears to be Proto-Sinaitic were found in Upper Egypt, and nearby Egyptian texts speak of the presence of Semitic-speaking people living in Egypt."

    Ancient Scripts: Proto-Sinaitic
     
  9. Levite

    Levite Higher and Higher

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    6,610
    Ratings:
    +1,786
    Religion:
    Jewish
    *Yawn*

    Another anti-text troll. Great. Yet one more posting of a ranting screed about the Bible by someone who apparently ignores the fact that not all the text was meant to be taken literally, that the point of the text is not camels or nomenclature of places or whatnot; and, of course, ignores the fact that it is Jewish text, written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language, to be interpreted using Jewish methods of exegesis.

    To say nothing of the various and unsurprising errors concerning Hebrew language and nomenclature, and the presentation of matters still in historical or archaeological dispute as absolute facts....

    Wake me when something new or interesting happens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,243
    Ratings:
    +8,797
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    "Excavations in eastern Arabia, an area once believed to be a cultural backwater unworthy of archaeological investigation, have turned up evidence that camels were first domesticated by Semites before the time of Abraham. Much of this evidence has been examined by M. C. A. MacDonald of the Oriental Faculty at the University of Oxford and an epigraphist specializing in ancient North Arabian and Aramaic inscriptions. He wrote:
    Recent research has suggested that domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [BC]. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent (1995: 1357)."

    source
     
  11. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    The first time I ever posted this material was here: Christian Discussion Forums | Christian Forums | Christian Chat

    The second time was at Abovetopsecret.com, but they removed the thread.

    Anyway, the first place I posted was at the link provided above.

    You can also check me out at michaelsherlock.org and charles river press.

    Hope this helps!
     
  12. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    Anyone who has done an ounce of research into the whole Camels issue, already knows that Mesopotamia had domesticated camels long before the Egyptians or anyone else, yet that is not the point! The fact is that evidence clearly indicates that Camels were not domesticated in Egypt until around 1000 BCE and in the Gen, narrative we have the Pharoah giving Abram Camels in return for the prostitution of Abram's wife/sister! This according to all of the leading authorities in the field of biblical and secular Archaeology is an anachronism! In particular, see the work of prof. Finkelstien, Tel Aviv University and Prof. Ze'ev Herzog also of the Tel Aviv University. Even the Conservative Christian Biblical Archaeologist, William F. Albright came to this conclusion. This "new discovery" demonstrates nothing that has not already been known in the past, yet it does not overturn the consensus of Biblical and Achaeological Scholarship at present, which is; the reference to camels is an anachronism (fiction). When evidence comes to light which contradicts the present view, I will be the first to examine it and if it holds weight, I will say, Yes, camels were domesticated prior to the end of the 2nd millenium BCE.
     
  13. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    Above top secret is the second place I posted it and it was taken down from that site. The babylon site is somewhat of a mystery and I thank you for bringing it to my attention, but those are my own constructed words. So people can try all they like to copy me, but I have records of my first post on Carm.org and email records that go way back before any of these bablyon/tv.shut refs. So I am not particularly worried, besides my series is a rather large 3 volume set, and the posted excerpt represents a very small and insignificant portion of the second volume. Think of it as a free sample!
     
  14. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9
    I have demonstrated that this is my work, the earliest post is on Carm, how do I know because that is the first place I posted it. I have not "attached my name" to this work, I have authored it!

    So I will humbly request an apology from you and remind you to be more careful with your stones in the future!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. michaelsherlock

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +9


    I am quite familiar with the poetic view put forth by the likes of Rabbi Moses Maimonides and Origen and I do enjoy reading Origen's famous exhortation:

    "Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictions, stories of things that never actually happened, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries."
    (Phillip Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen Parts First and Second. Grand Rapids. Christian
    [1] Ibid. Pg. Origen. De Principiis.616.)


    And Maimonides':

    “Every time that you find in our books a tale the reality of which seems impossible, a story which is repugnant to both reason and common sense, then be sure that the tale contains a profound allegory veiling a deeply mysterious truth; and the greater the absurdity of the letter, the deeper the wisdom of the spirit....Whoever shall find out the true sense of the Book of Genesis ought to take care not to divulge it. This is a maxim that all our sages repeat to us, and above all respecting the work of six days. If a person should discover the true meaning of it by himself, or by the aid of another, then he ought to be silent, or if he speaks he ought to speak of it obscurely, in an enigmatical manner, as I do myself, leaving the rest to be guessed by those who can understand me."
    (Maimonides, cited in: Dupuis, Sur Tous les Cultes, Vol. III, Pg.9.)

    I think the only way these texts will survive is if they are interpreted poetically and symbolically, as their original Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies were.

    There are valuable messages in all religious scriptures, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Polynesian, Australian Aboriginal, all religious scriptures contain truth. But it is mistaking these mythologies for historical realities that causes the symbolic value to be lost to the literal absurdity.

    P.S. As I have been wrongly accused of plagiarism I have been careful to cite the sources of my quotations!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. dtango

    dtango Anti-theist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    154
    Ratings:
    +5
    How about Greek religious scriptures?
    Homer’s epics are the Greek religious scriptures!
    What is their symbolic value? Absolute zero! The same happens with all traditional religious scripts (Buddhist and Zoroastrian excluded as they are plain philosophical). What symbolic value they are supposed to have they acquired through the philosophical invention of allegorical interpretation. They contain historical realities and fiction to conceal the historical realities. I believe Maimonides is right, although the use of the term “allegory” is not appropriate.
    The stories of the OT which are “repugnant to both reason and common sense” they usually contain a lethal truth that cannot be openly told.

    The gods were initially judging people alive! That is what the story of the Sodom and Gomorra narrates and it can be reasonably explained and rationally understood up to its dramatic end with the incident of the incest. No allegories! Only things, historical realities, that cannot be told.

    What if there is fiction and the texts were written down a few centuries earlier or later? The historical echoes they carry are anchored to events older by tenths of millennia.

    If you really want to comprehend the OT and the rest of the ancient Near Eastern Texts, you have to start with the Egyptian Funerary texts.
     
  17. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +504
    What Christian tradition? The Christian scholarly tradition does no such thing. More so, most Christians who I have asked don't have the faintest idea when it was supposedly written. So I think you're working against something that only a minority holds.
    The book of Genesis may have been compiled then, but you seem to be ignoring that Genesis was composed of a variety of different texts. Some of them are dated back to around 1000 B.C.E. (by some scholars), and that the oral tradition goes back even further.
    Near identical myths? Not really. Yes, there are similarities, but in the Hebrew myths, we see some major differences. Yes, they probably borrowed from these stories, but even then, we have to assume that the Hebrew stories go back quite a bit of time anyway, as it seems most likely that they took these stories from Mesopotamia. Or in other words, the ancestors of the Hebrew people, who lived in Mesopotamia, took these stories with them. Which would push this back to an earlier time.
    Why is that almost certain? Really, nothing you said suggests that it can only go back to 1000 B.C.E.

    Add to that that the Gezer calendar dates to the 10th century (which means we can assume that the language goes back further than that) would suggest the Hebrew language may be older. Not to mention, whether or not the Hebrew language stated in 1000 B.C.E., that doesn't mean that the stories in Genesis couldn't date further back. Many stories are later translated, or simply brought into a new language.
    Retrojection. It is as easy as that. They had domesticated camels when the sources for Genesis were redacted. It happens all of the time. Not to mention that Skwim pointed out that this was not necessarily true.

    And that is also not mentioning that there is a good argument that before widespread domestication, there was small spread domestication. Really though, retrojection easily explains this.



    Chaldea

    Further, the book of Genesis describes Abraham’s birthplace as being in Ur in Chaldea, which as previously mentioned, is more popularly known today as Babylon. At Genesis 11:28, 31 and 15:7, the Hebrew word ‘Kasdim’ (Eng. Chaldee) is used to describe the ancient region of Babylonia. The problem with the use of the word ‘Kasdim’ is that it was not used to describe ancient Babylonia until the 6th century BCE, which is known as the Neo-Babylonian Period. Before this it was known as ‘Sumeria’, yet the account given in Genesis refers to this region as Chaldea. This fact provides further evidence that the book of Genesis was more than likely written sometime during or after the 6th century BCE. According to Messod and Roger Sabbah, the story of Abraham was a 6th century composition constructed to pander to the Jew’s Babylonian captors and masters. They say:
    [/quote] Again, retrojection. There isn't just one source for Genesis. There are multiple. Some are older than others. However, some also seemed to win out, as in, they get more room. When the Torah was compiled, the person editing it probably had no problem with these apparent problems. Not to mention that there are different ideas concerning Chaldea.
    You ignore a lot in order to try to make a point. Yes, there are problems in the account. However, there are also many things that suggest that the tradition is old. Such as the names of the ancestors (the patriarchs and matriarchs). According to the records we have, specifically I believe the Mari archive, suggest that these names were more predominate in an earlier time. Not to mention that many of the customs of the patriarchs don't really fit into the 6th century time period. As in, the ideas would have been foreign to the Hebrews living at that time. One such idea is God sitting down with Abraham.
     
  18. waitasec

    waitasec Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    21,038
    Ratings:
    +475
    actually, i think you should apologize, as you assumed people to take your word as a newbie in these here parts
    :yes:
     
  19. dtango

    dtango Anti-theist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    154
    Ratings:
    +5
    Or the ancestors of the Hebrew people, who lived in Mesopotamia, lent their stories to the Sumerians who were the first to write them down!!

    We are not dealing with philosophical or theological ideas here but with oral popular tradition edited and recorded by the scholars.

    There are identical mythological motifs shared by Greeks, Hebrew, Sumerians, Indians and Native Americans. Who borrowed from whom?

    The Hebrew texts are younger than the Sumerian ones. That is the only fact!

    In the Hebrew texts a male God fashions mankind alone. In the older Sumerian texts the gods call the Mother of the Land and ask her to fashion mankind. The Mother of the Land calls a number of Mother-wombs and it is them who produce mankind. If the Hebrew traditions had been recorded two thousand years earlier would, almost certainly, give a similar account.
    The OT God smells the sacrifice of Noah and is pleased while the Sumerian gods attack the meat like flies because they went hungry without men to feed them. The actual difference between the two narratives is just temporal.
     
  20. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,243
    Ratings:
    +8,797
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    And I now think you've shown this beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If you need it, okay, I apologize; however, let me point out that I wasn't calling you an outright plagiarist, but with the suspicion that you might be---more often than not posts such as yours are plagiarized---I was giving you a warning that if you were plagiarizing, which often gets the poster booted off RF, you might want to retract your post. More of a cautionary heads-up than anything else. In any case, I'm glad you are not, and look forward to joining you in future discussions.[​IMG]


    EDITED TO ADD.
    I see you list yourself as an author on various web pages, and am curious as to what you've had published.
     
    #20 Skwim, Feb 9, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
Loading...