The Genesis Fraud Part 1

[connermt]

Again, genre is key. If you know the genre, you can see whether or not it was meant to be general or not.

Looking at the historical context, the genre, and general context, you can know. However, you have to actually take the time to try to learn about this.

And what genre would this be?
Looking at historical context, we know more about it now than they did in 1512-ish, yes? When you speak about understanding and learning, that means taking into account all findings. We have discovered more about biblical days in recent history than hundreds of years ago. Thus, it make sense to say we know/understand more than they did back then. Why do you think this is game playing?

 

[connermt]

Levite answered it for you: You need the Oral Torah in order to understand the Written Torah!

That does not answer the question.

 

[fallingblood]

And what genre would this be?
Looking at historical context, we know more about it now than they did in 1512-ish, yes? When you speak about understanding and learning, that means taking into account all findings. We have discovered more about biblical days in recent history than hundreds of years ago. Thus, it make sense to say we know/understand more than they did back then. Why do you think this is game playing?

The genre is myth. Or at least in places is myth. There are actually a number of genres in Genesis, but myth seems to be the key one here.

And yes, we do know more than we did in 1512ish. The reason I thought you were playing a game is because I assumed (maybe unfairly), that you would then say that we will know more in the future, and thus dismiss what we know now. Or use that as an argument against what I was saying. It has happened before, which makes me a little less willing to get sucked into a possible trick. If that was not your intention, then I apologize.

 

[Trimijopulos]

That does not answer the question.

The question was:

Where does it say that it's not suppose to be taken literally?

Therefore the existence of the Oral Torah answers the question.

If you do not mind, I would like to comment on the following:

And what genre would this be?

Looking at historical context, we know more about it now than they did in 1512-ish, yes? When you speak about understanding and learning, that means taking into account all findings. We have discovered more about biblical days in recent history than hundreds of years ago. Thus, it make sense to say we know/understand more than they did back then. Why do you think this is game playing?

As regards the past, the ancients knew more than we do. We only now commence to realize this fact.

According to the Torah the human kind dispersed after the incident of the tower of Babel. The famous Diaspora! Humans left the Near East and populated the entire earth. We all come from the Near East. That is where we were “made.”
This fact has been verified scientifically (BBC News - Neanderthal genes 'survive in us'). What else is there that we do not know about? Time will tell!

We are not allowed to say “we know/understand more than they did back then” because we do not.
Here follows a passage from H.A.Guerber’s book “Myths of the Norsemen”

The giants were almost invariably worsted in their encounters with the gods, for they were heavy and slow-witted, and had nothing but stone weapons to oppose the Aesir’s bronze. In spite of this inequality, however, they were sometimes greatly envied by the gods, for they were thoroughly conversant with all knowledge relating to the past. Even Odin was envious of this attribute, and no sooner had he secured it by a draught from Mimir’s spring than he hastened to Jotun-heim to measure himself against Vafthrudnir, the most learned of the giant brood.

As you see, the ancients recognized that those before them (the gods came after the Giants, or Titans) knew more about the past.
We should not think so highly of our selves.

 

[connermt]

The genre is myth. Or at least in places is myth. There are actually a number of genres in Genesis, but myth seems to be the key one here.

And yes, we do know more than we did in 1512ish. The reason I thought you were playing a game is because I assumed (maybe unfairly), that you would then say that we will know more in the future, and thus dismiss what we know now. Or use that as an argument against what I was saying. It has happened before, which makes me a little less willing to get sucked into a possible trick. If that was not your intention, then I apologize.

I did say that. And that would also be true, would it not?

 

[connermt]

The question was:

Therefore the existence of the Oral Torah answers the question.

If you do not mind, I would like to comment on the following:

As regards the past, the ancients knew more than we do. We only now commence to realize this fact.

According to the Torah the human kind dispersed after the incident of the tower of Babel. The famous Diaspora! Humans left the Near East and populated the entire earth. We all come from the Near East. That is where we were “made.”
This fact has been verified scientifically (BBC News - Neanderthal genes 'survive in us'). What else is there that we do not know about? Time will tell!

We are not allowed to say “we know/understand more than they did back then” because we do not.
Here follows a passage from H.A.Guerber’s book “Myths of the Norsemen”

The giants were almost invariably worsted in their encounters with the gods, for they were heavy and slow-witted, and had nothing but stone weapons to oppose the Aesir’s bronze. In spite of this inequality, however, they were sometimes greatly envied by the gods, for they were thoroughly conversant with all knowledge relating to the past. Even Odin was envious of this attribute, and no sooner had he secured it by a draught from Mimir’s spring than he hastened to Jotun-heim to measure himself against Vafthrudnir, the most learned of the giant brood.

As you see, the ancients recognized that those before them (the gods came after the Giants, or Titans) knew more about the past.
We should not think so highly of our selves.

I apologize. I should have prefaced with the thought that the bible (any part of it) proving itself true isn't valid as fact (does that only work with the bible? I mean, could Moby Dick prove itself to be true simply because it says it is? Not likely). Besdies, why wouldn't the bible prove itself true? That's the way it was edited. It would be a poor excuse for a fairy tale if it didn't.
It could be argued that "the ancients" (your words) did know more about certain aspects of their time than we do now - they lived it afterall.
But the discoveries that have been made since then changes our current view of them. That's a distinct difference.
What many of these "ancients" (again, your words) thought was demon possession we now know is medically related. Bacteria. Viruses. Genetic defects. Etc.
Thus, we do know more about the truth of some of their experiences than they did.

 

[fallingblood]

I did say that. And that would also be true, would it not?

Not necessarily. We may end up knowing more. However, that will not necessarily negate what we know today.

 

[Quagmire]

Addressed to whose satisfaction? prof. of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University Ze'ev Herzog, Prof. Israel Finkelstein, Joseph Silberman, whose?

To anyone with more than a superficial understanding of what the Bible is and where it came from, IMO.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Besdies, why wouldn't the bible prove itself true? That's the way it was edited. It would be a poor excuse for a fairy tale if it didn't.

What counts in the Bible are only topics found also in the traditions of other peoples.
A… fairy tale ceases being a fairy tale if it is told by various people who had no contact between them.
The Bible (I am referring to OT only) describes a mean, wicked, murderous God, as every other tradition does, and that doesn’t look to me as a fairy tale. Rather as a nightmare.

It could be argued that "the ancients" (your words) did know more about certain aspects of their time than we do now - they lived it afterall.

Exactly! No one said they had better antibiotics that we do but ignoring their past we are unable to understand them and we by force misunderstand them.

“If you know these words you’ll live; I you don’t you’ll die”!

What words are these?
So easy to answer the above question when one ignores completely the past of the person making the statement: “words of magic,” nonsense!

Can you imagine a social structure in which the above statement would have described an aspect of every day life? One knows those words and they let him live; one does not know the words and they kill him (you also did not comment on the issue of the Diaspora, which was proved to be no fairy tale at all).

 

[michaelsherlock]

To anyone with more than a superficial understanding of what the Bible is and where it came from, IMO.

You mean those whose minds have been infected by belief to the point that they are compelled to see things in a manner condusive to thier beliefs! There have been many social psychological and neuropsychological tests done on such perception biases and if you like, I can share some of them with you.

There is no greater thing to understand, than the self!

 

[fallingblood]

You mean those whose minds have been infected by belief to the point that they are compelled to see things in a manner condusive to thier beliefs! There have been many social psychological and neuropsychological tests done on such perception biases and if you like, I can share some of them with you.

There is no greater thing to understand, than the self!

No, people who simply are more informed. Belief does not have, and many times doesn't, have a place in this. For instance, my response to your OP was not compelled by my beliefs. It was compelled by quite a bit of research.

 

[arcanum]

Well, there are many ways that our tradition has understood the stories, depending on the context of what is being taught.

The general trend of Rabbinic thought on Genesis has been that the accuracy of the details is less important than the lesson, which is that God is the creator of the universe.

I personally stand with those Jewish authorities who have said that the entire account of creation is allegorical, and not literal at all. That the lessons of God's creatorship, the human condition, life and death, etc., are all being taught in Genesis using metaphor and the language of story, since that is what the earliest Israelites would best have been able to understand and learn from.

Well I'm with you there and have almost always took it as allegorical. It is a bit strange that this allegorical story has been taken literally by so many.

 

[Quagmire]

You mean those whose minds have been infected by belief to the point that they are compelled to see things in a manner condusive to thier beliefs!

I'm not a Christian, and I still think you're argument is ridiculously shallow and near-sighted.

There have been many social psychological and neuropsychological tests done on such perception biases and if you like, I can share some of them with you.

No thanks, all you've been doing throughout this whole thread is sharing your perception biases.

There is no greater thing to understand, than the self!

You should copy that line down, stand in front of a mirror, and read it out loud to yourself a few hundred times.

 

[connermt]

Not necessarily. We may end up knowing more. However, that will not necessarily negate what we know today.

But it could, yes?

 

[fallingblood]

But it could, yes?

It could; however, does it matter? The entire idea of evolution could be reworked in a 1000 years from now. That doesn't take away from what we know now.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I'm not a Christian, and I still think you're argument is ridiculously shallow and near-sighted.



No thanks, all you've been doing throughout this whole thread is sharing your perception biases.



You should copy that line down, stand in front of a mirror, and read it out loud to yourself a few hundred times.

From the tone of your response you seem to be upset. What have I said that has upset you?

In what way is the post shallow? And how am I using perception bias? Please enlighten me.

I am offering you information regarding social psychological and neuroscientific studies that support what I am saying, not they represent the absolute truth, but just that they confrom to what I am saying, and as yet there are no tests which have shown opposite results, so if you do not want to even look at the evidence, that tells me a great deal about the source of your frustration. Think about it!

I do look in the mirror and think about the self or myself quite often and I am still baffled!

 

[michaelsherlock]

Firstly, allow me to apologize for my late reply.

1. “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.”

I assumed, wrongly it seems, that most people would be familiar with the tradition that claimed Moses as the author of the book of Genesis, which was believed to have been written after the alleged Israelite Exodus from Egypt. Although the date of the Exodus has been shuffled around quite a bit, the popular consensus has been for a long time now, that this occurred sometime during the 2nd millennium (approx.1500-1200 BCE).


I mistakenly thought that this tradition was widely known, but as you have pointed out, neither you, nor anyone you know (relatively small sample group), have heard of it, in the future I will be more careful with such assumptions. But anyway, there you go! As hard as it is to believe, and it is hard to believe, many Christians have believed for a long time now, that Moses wrote the book of Genesis during the 2nd millennium BCE.
Further, we need to distinguish between “Christian tradition” and “Christian scholarly tradition,” for the two are not synonymous. In life, in particular with regards to religions and belief systems, there are certain traditions which involve a minimum of scholarly input, like the popular “Christmas story,” for example, and those traditions which are based on a little more research that we may call, for lack of a better word, “scholarly!” Also, we must acknowledge that belief induced schisms exist within the Christian scholarly community as well.

2. “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.”

I am familiar with the Wellhausen ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ and I do canvass it in the second volume of my ‘I Am Christ’ series, however, the point which I attempted to establish was that parts of the book of Genesis were likely written sometime during or after the exilic period, in a bid to demonstrate the possible reason for some of the similarities between the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian myths, with those myths that appear in Genesis. We can assume (speculate) that certain Hebrew oral traditions span further back time, but if we find a story which is nearly identical like the flood myth or the tower of Babel one for example, and these myths pre-existed their later Hebrew renderings, amongst a more ancient and “civilized” peoples, namely the Babylonians, then isn’t it reasonable to suggest that the later myths were copied from the earlier ones? To suggest otherwise seems illogical to me, but that is just me!

Again, we keep bumping into the 10th century BCE as a possible starting point for the traditions related in Hebrew mythology, as you suggested from the work of “some scholars!”

If you read the works of Israel Finkelstein, Joseph Silberman, and Ze’ev Herzog for example, you will see that these scholars date the traditions to around the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, and other conservatives who, in opposition, show evidence, as out-dated and Albrightian as it might be, for a much earlier date. To me however, at this stage of my research, it does appear that the traditions were likely copied from the more advanced and influential neighbours (Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Persians) by the more primitive Israelites and Judahites around 6th century BCE.

 

[michaelsherlock]

3. Near identical myths? Not really.

I use the words, ‘near identical’ with their natural meaning in mind! Identical refers to something which is between 98-100% match in identity! The myths of the more ancient Babylonians are not 98-100% similar, in other words, they are not identical. They are close to, or near to that degree of similarity, especially if you investigate the parallels that exist with regards to the motifs, symbols, archetypes and main aspects of the mythological plots.
If one takes out the obvious cultural adaptations, like place and character names, minor plot details, you are left with a core structure that is identical, thus, I used the term “near identical.”

I think the best way to describe the situation with regards to the similarities and differences between these two brands of mythology would be to compare it to another situation. The 1960’s movie ‘My Fair Lady’ was based on a play which was written in 1912 by Irish Playwright, George Bernard Shaw, called; ‘Pygmalion: A Romance in Five Acts’. This play was based on earlier versions of the story and finds its origin within the Greek Cypriot Pygmalion myth.

Pygmalion is a legendary figure of Cyprus. Though Pygmalion is the Greek version of the Phoenician royal name ‘Pumayyaton’, he is most familiar from Ovid's ‘Metamorphoses, X’, in which Pygmalion was a sculptor who fell in love with a statue he had carved. In Ovid's narrative, Pygmalion was a Cypriot sculptor who carved a woman out of ivory. According to Ovid, after seeing the Propoetides prostituting themselves (more accurately, they denied the divinity of Aphrodite and she thus ‘reduced’ them to prostitution), he was 'not interested in women', but his statue was so fair and realistic that he fell in love with it. In the Vertex, Venus’ (Aphrodite’s) festival day came. For the festival, Pygmalion made offerings to Venus and made a wish. "I sincerely wished the ivory sculpture will be changed to a real woman." However, he couldn’t bring himself to express it. When he returned home, Cupid sent by Venus kissed the ivory sculpture on the hand. At which time, it changed into a beautiful woman. A ring was put on her finger. In the end, Venus granted Pygmalion’s wish and the sculpture he worked so hard on, became his one true love. In comparison, the plot of the movie ‘My Fair Lady’ centres around a professor of phonetics, Henry Higgins who makes a bet that he can train a rough, lower-class Cockney flower girl, to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech. Following this he succeeds in passing her off as a duchess and subsequently falls in love with his creation.

One could view these two stories as being completely different. However, if one is trained in spotting symbols, motifs and recognizing narrative patterns, the ancient origin of the movie becomes strikingly apparent.

This is also the case when we compare the ancient Sumero-Babylonian myths with the later Hebrew ones.


The Flood

Berosus, an ancient Chaldean historian living in the time of Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C.E, relayed to the Greeks the antiquity of his people’s deluge myth in the following words:

“After the death of Ardates, his son Xisuthrus reigned eighteen sari. In his time happened a great deluge; the history of which is thus described. The deity Cronos appeared to him in a vision, and warned him that upon the fifteenth day of the month Daesius there would be a flood, by which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to write a history of the beginning, procedure, and conclusion of all things, and to bury it in the city of the Sun at Sippara; and to build a vessel, and take with him into it his friends and relations; and to convey on board everything necessary to sustain life, together with all the different animals, both birds and quadrupeds, and trust himself fearlessly to the deep. Having asked the Deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, To the Gods; upon which he offered up a prayer for the good of mankind. He then obeyed the divine admonition and built a vessel five stadia in length, and two in breadth. Into this he put everything which he had prepared, and last of all conveyed into it his wife, his children, and his friends. After the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time abated, Xisuthrus sent out birds from the vessel; which not finding any food, nor any place whereupon they might rest their feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some days, he sent them forth a second time; and they now returned with their feet tinged with mud. He made a trial a third time with these birds; but they returned to him no more: from whence he judged that the surface of the earth had appeared above the waters. He therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon looking out found that it was stranded upon the side of some mountain; upon which he immediately quitted it with his wife, his daughter, and the pilot. Xisuthrus then paid his adoration to the earth: and, having constructed an altar, offered sacrifices to the gods… (George Smith. The Chaldean Account of Genesis. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington. (1876) Pg. 42-44.)

1. God sends a great flood to destroy humanity.
2. He chooses a righteous man and his family (and friends) to survive the deluge.
3. He instructs the man to build an ark and provides measurements for that Ark.
4. The man is also instructed to bring on board the Ark the necessities to sustain life including many kinds of animals.
5. The man sends out birds to check for dry land two times, upon the second time the bird finds dry land.
6. The man immediately builds an alter to God upon leaving the ark.

This is what you call “near identical,” as explained above.

This was the earliest evidence we had for the ancient Babylonian flood myth prior to Layard and Rawlinson’s discoveries in the 19th century in modern day Iraq. Although the tablets discovered by these Assyriologists at the British Museum do contain some discrepancies regarding minor details of the myths they are essentially similar, “nearly identical!”


Other similarities exist outside of the Babylonian flood myth, that are nonetheless related to it.

In his famous work entitled, Babel and Bible, Friedrich Delitzsch, the renowned Assyriologist and expert in both ancient and modern Semitic languages, said:

“The Babylonians divided their history into two great periods: that before the Flood and that after the Flood….The ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood have also been accepted in the Bible as the ten antediluvian (pre-flood) patriarchs, and the agreement is perfect in all details.” (Friedrich Delitzsch. Babel and Bible. The Open Court Publishing Company (1906). Pg. 38/41.)

 

[michaelsherlock]

1. 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.


If you take modern archaeological evidence (Finkelstein and Herzog in particular) and add to that the similarities between the ancient Babylonian myths of which I have pointed out only one, the facts seem to indicate that it is possible and even probable that the Hebrew myths were copied from the more ancient Babylonian ones. (further compare this situation to the ‘Cola Wars’ and by way of such an analogy you may see what I am saying)

As far as I am aware, the Gezer Calender, discovered by R.A.S Macalister in Gezer in 1908, is possibly Phoenician in origin. It may or may not be a form of Paleo-Hebraic the matter is still up in the air as far as scholarship on the matter is concerned. Even if it turned out to be Paleo-Hebraic, it wouldn’t take Hebrew much further back than the 10th Century BCE. Further, if you examine both the Hebrew scripts extant today, you come across another interesting curiosity. The ‘Ketav Ivri’ is said to be derived from the Phoenician language and the Ketav Ashuri is said to be derived from Assyrian, thus, both forms of Hebrew are derived from foreign lands whose peoples were not chosen by the Jewish God YHWH/ELOHIM/ELOAH/EL-SHADAY, but rather the ancient Israelites, being a primitive nation with a seemingly illiterate tribal god/gods, were given no choice but to adopt the languages of the more advanced and influential nations surrounding them, nations whose gods bestowed upon them the gifts of literature, agriculture, music, and all of the other hallmarks of “Civilization” well in advance of “the chosen.” Doesn’t it seem possible and even probable that in adopting the language of the surrounding nations, they also inherited/adopted the culture as well? This culture included the religious beliefs (myths) and practices of their superior neighbours.

“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.”

So then you are saying that the “retrojections” are essentially anachronisms (untruths)? When the stories of Genesis were redacted, they had camels so they made up stories with camels in them, in which the camels were used to convey certain theological meanings and lessons, even though they were not historical events. It does happen all of the time, you are right, and usually when it does and is not honestly referred as mythology but rather history, it is called dishonest!
I addressed Skwim’s concerns re: Macdonald’s finds in Arabia and they are irrelevant to the issue regarding the lack of domesticated Camels in Egypt during the 2nd Millennium BCE. According to both the positive and negative evidences, the Mesopotamians domesticated camels long before the Egyptians, and the Egyptians did not domesticate camels until at least 10th century BCE. This evidence (non-domestication of camels) is not Proof, it is simply evidence and evidence can be interpreted in various ways, for various reasons. There was a while back an Archaeologist called Albright, who claimed to have discovered ancient Egyptian pottery shards in Egypt with pictures of domesticated Camels on them, and without cited his evidence asserted that they were now in the Museum of Cairo. I contacted the Museum in Cairo and also checked with the Louvre and the British Museum and no one has heard of these pre-10th century “camel pottery” artefacts. The reason I tell you this is that I would prefer to erase an erroneous argument from my arsenal than to have a false piece of evidence, if it is wrong, it is wrong and I move on, no big deal! Thus far, I have yet to find evidence to disqualify the camel issue, but when I do, it will not only disappear from my book, but also from my mind!

We need to be at least able to separate belief from our investigations and if not, there is no point investigating for our beliefs will only lead us to interpret what we find in a manner conducive to our pre-established beliefs.

For my part I am happy to be proven wrong, for I have very little pride, my mind is fertile! I do not believe in god, nor disbelieve, he, she or they may exist, I do not know! He she or they may be all-powerful, limited or even as Nietzsche suggested, dead! We do not know! So if we do not know, what is the point of clinging to beliefs? There is no point!

I will leave you now with both an apology for my tardy response (very busy) and a quote from the Head Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Ze’ev Herzog:

“This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.”

 

[outhouse]

hey bud, you know a bunch of this has been common knowledge dont you???


And what isnt common knowledge you are butchering through ignorance on the subject.

Israelites/hebrews go back to 1200 BC, before that they were a semi nomadic people that Egypt conquered in what 1209 BC, these tribal people were the foundation to modern Israeli's.

yes they started writing in 1000 BC ish, yes they had influeneces from previous religions as the area was a melting pot for semetic speaking people. Canaanites, Mesopotamians and Egyptians [in order] contributed to the early legends.



here get half a real education on the subject, read all 5 pages and if you want to debate something do it in a better format.

The Legends of Genesis: V. Jahvist, Elohist, Jehovist, the Later Collections