Re: OT: Bible question.

On Oct 22, 9:25 pm, George Graves <gmgrav...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:00:13 -0700, jojo wrote
(in article <1193043613.934902.158...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):



On Oct 22, 6:48 am, George Graves <gmgrav...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:27:56 -0700, jojo wrote
(in article <1192944476.492223.170...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Turns of phrase etc... are no definitive proofs but only elements that
point to a direction.
Anyway, there is no discussion about the fact that at least an
important part of the Torah material is very old, much older than 600
BC. Furthermore, the usual consensus is not that the Torah was written
after the Babylonian deportation but during the time of King Hezekiah,
before 700 BC.

Were that true, then we couldn't use pottery styles to date habitation
layers
in tells either. But we know pretty specifically the way the written Hebrew
language and the Hebrew "alphabet" have changed over time. This tells us
absolutely when something was written within 50 or so years,, anyway

Really, really not. We can tell, more or less, within a few centuries,
not 50 years (and even that is still, not 100% sure of course).

My reading on the subject tells me otherwise.





Since nothing (pertaining to religious matters) written predating the
return
to the Holy land by the Jews at the end of the Diaspora has been found,
it's
pretty safe to say that the OT was first written down there.

This is no proof, if you had any idea. We have not found and excavated
0.1% of what existed back then. And written materials were not only
few but very perishable. Anyway the oldest Torah material we have is
from the Dead Sea scrolls, written only some 2000 years ago, and found
by pure chance. And then, the second oldest is 1200 years ago. It does
not mean there were no Torah for 800 years. Finding or not finding is
no definitive proof of anything in that matter. Archeologists find
sometimes items or structures that contradict what they thought
before. So you better understand that all that you think you know is
just a bunch of hypothesis and theories.

True, but none of this stuff can likely ever be proved for sure. OTOH, these
theories are the ones that best fit the evidence TODAY in spite of your
attempt to cast aspersions on them.

Thanks to agree with me - these are theories not facts. And not the
main theories, by the way. I don't say you are wrong that that WE
DON'T FUCKING KNOW. So you can't say "that's a fact, and that's how it
was".

OK, What's your point? That the Bible is real history? That all of the
Biblical stories are absolutely true as written? If that's the case, there's
no point talking about this further.


The Bible is primary material for most archeological and historical
schools (but the ones called minimalists). It does not mean that the
Bible is exact and true, but that it has the same value as other texts
and materials from the same time. We need to be precise here. "The
Bible" is a very large piece written over centuries. Almost everybody
agree that the events that happen after 900 BC are historical, maybe
not in all the details, but basically all he kings, what they did, the
wars etc... did happen and was confirmed by other sources. The
question is about what happened before, meaning the slavery in Egypt,
and the following centuries up to David and Salomon.
Were the Israelites slaves in Egypt ? We have no clues. Around the
same time (before or after or during according to when you put the
Hebrews in Egypt) Egypt was dominated by the Hyksos, many of them
having semitic names including a king called Yosef or something close.
Were the Hyksos linked to the Hebrews or Hebrews themselves ? This is
hotly discussed. A popular theory lately is that the Israelites were
in fact a Caananite faction from the beginning and were never in
Egypt. But no other people in history ever described its origins as a
group of slaves, so many believe it can only be true. What about David
and Salomon ? It seems difficult to believe they were such great kings
ruling over an empire when we have no traces of it. But that's no
final proof. For example the first mention of the House of David, from
the 9th century BC was only discovered in the 90s. So now we know that
David was an historical figure when a few years ago some historians
claimed he never existed.


I don't remember them either, but a well known example is Jericho. According
to Biblical archaeologists such as Magnus Magnusson*, Jericho wasn't even
inhabited a the time of the Exodus.

* "Archaeology of the Bible" - Simon & Schuster. 1977

Yes I know, but it was not inhabited at the time that most historians
put the Exodus - some historians put it earlier (so does the Jewish
tradition). And anyway, it has nothing to do with the fact that the
Hebrew Bible was written in 600 BC and not 700 BC.

Huh? I don't get what your argument actually is. You are arguing over 100
years more or less?
--

No. I am arguing about the fact that you present theories as fact and
act in total disrespect and contradiction to science and historical
research. You seem to behave like a religious fanatic, in your case an
anti-religious fanatic, but it is exactly the same.

.

Loading