The role of myth in the bible

when I use my chronology, everything works in my Jewish history, when I use my chronology all the archaeology works perfectly with my Jewish history.

I say there were x number of persian kings, it works for me.
greeks say there were y number of persian kings... it works for them.

why should I work out their problems if they dont work out my problems?

the choice academia has made is arbitrary.
its a choice, I have no reason to accept it, and you dont get to use it as evidence.

what evidence on the ground have I presented?

this is the 4th time I am writing this.

accounts of flood
ark on mt Ararat
pepi 2 pharoah of the exodus
plague papyri
fall of the old kingdom
chariots at the red sea
mt Sinai in arabia
conquest of Canaan (academia calls it hittite conquest but it matches the Israelite conquest perfectly)
evidence of Jewish settlement in Israel and biblical kings.

what do you have instead of using the fallacious arguement that some of these evidence dont match the correct dating?

dating is arbitrary... its really not counter evidence.

so your argument is that I should accept the word of Academia over my word.

what kind of argument is that?!?!

my word over their word?

I choose my word.

Oh, that pile. I thought you were speaking of evidence for your timeline. But now look, you say dating is arbitrary, yet you claim your dating is perfect and works perfectly. That doesn't make much sense when you insist that dating is arbitrary.

I meant the choice of whose dating should we use as measuring rod is arbitrary.

I choose my dating, and not academia's
my word agaisnt their word.

by their own words, their chronologies are full of problems.
it is quite idiotic to use a chronology admitted to be faulty and use it to attack a crhonology claiming to be perfect.

my word against their word.
I choose my word.

The flood? What does that prove? There are flood myths from all over the world. It doesn't prove them any more than it proves yours. Even if it happened, which is still contested as far as being a singular worldwide event at a specific time, it just proves there was a flood, not that your account is accurate and that the others are "only" myth.

Your ark bit has been debunked repeatedly. It is only found on apologetic sites and even some apologetic sites won't have anything to do with it because they know it will only cause them embarrassment. If it was the real deal, it would be trumpeted from the rooftops by every archaeological journal and it would be worldwide news that everyone knew about. It's not. There's a reason for that. But if you have something more solid than those sites, bring it forth.

the flood proves the flood, I am not claiming anything more than a flood.

the ark has not been debunked, the fact academia doesnt want to touch it only proves academia is an establishment filled with pagan agenda.

turkey made it a national tourist attraction.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 01:37 PM

So the flood proves the flood, as I said. It proves nothing else, so it is void as far as your claim for it being evidence.

Turkey made it a tourist attraction? Are you shitting me? That is great news. This means, of course, that all the sites in your land that are tourist attractions for Jesus of Nazareth are just as solid evidence, right?

But if archaeologists won't touch it, why do you trust the people who found it? Are you saying that they didn't have an agenda?

A chronology claiming to be perfect based on what? What is it measured against? How do you validate it? You can't use any other datings, since they are all wrong. You can't use any other evidence because that comes from archaeologists and scholars, and they are all devious pagans, even the ones who pretend to be Jews. I say pretend because much of the work being done is being done by Jews and they use the accepted ranges, so they can't be trusted. So you want to throw all else aside and rely wholly on a system that doesn't relate to anything else because nothing else can be trusted. So how can your system be deemed perfect?

the bible says there was a flood... and it ls corroborated by other accounts.
thats a point for the historicity of the bible. I didnf try to claim any thing else... but you have to be dishonest in your review of what I say... I know that.


now the ark prooves the bible is the corrwct and most accurate account.
you claimed it was debunked.
it wasnt debunked... the visitors center doesnt prove it was proven it proves it wasnt debunked.

alot of archaelogists did examine it and found it was amazing.
academia however is a different story.

so... the ararat ark is evidence on the ground for biblical account no matter how hard you try to downplay it.

you dont seem to get it.

again, it is your stinking problem not mine!

I claim my chronology is perfect.
evidence - it fits perfectly with Jewish history it fits perfectly with what we find on the ground (that "pile")

according to my chronology pepi 2 fall of the old kingdom plague papyri conquest of canaan should all be around the same time.
lo and behold it is.

the discrepency is when you use academia chronology to date pepi and the old kingdom and the plague papyri and the conquest of canaan to 2200 bc.

thats your fualty chronology, not mine,
your stincking problem... not mine.

I claim my chronology is perfect
academia admits theirs is faulty.

well then by all evidence, academia needs to revise their chronologies.

deal with your problem dude, stop projecting it on me.

do we have persian records showing the order of kings?
no.

so it the words of Jews vs the word of greeks...

academia chose greeks, fine... but it is arbitrary.
the words of greeks are based on mostly herodotus, acedemia admits greek chronologies are faulty and not perfect.
romans claim greek historians were frauds and liars... so yeah that says a lot about greek chronology.
so please, an admitted faulty chronology cannot be used to attack a chronology claiming to be perfect.

if one admits to be faulty, and the other claims to be perfect... well the minimum we should assume is that the one admitting to be faulty is faulty, and that the perfect one cannot be tested according to the faulty.


egyptian chronology is mostly based on the accounts of manetho a priest living in ptolemaic times, far after the events of the exodus... maybe he was wrong?!

so its the words of the Jews against the word of manetho... academia chose manetho... arbitrary choice.

academia admits egyptian chronology is faulty.
if one admits to be faulty, and the other claims to be perfect... well the minimum we should assume is that the one admitting to be faulty is faulty, and that the perfect one cannot be tested according to the faulty.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 02:39 PM

Pepi and the old kingdom do not have anything to do with your other dating dispute, the so-called missing years. Therefore, there's no justification for moving it a thousand years on a whim.

The plague documents do exist, but the ones I have seen referenced make no mention of frogs, boils, or lice. But even if they exist, it doesn't follow that it proves the story. It could easily have been one of the models for the events in the tale, just as historical fiction uses known events to fold into the fictional account to give it verisimilitude. But as for that, it sure is curious why a guy who had direct and doings with the pharaoh somehow failed to even mention his name.

Seems like you are a Ron Wyatt guy with your chariots and your sinai claims. Is there any reason to take his highly disputed findings more serious than the scholars you despise? Why side with a Christian apologist who has a distinct agenda to prove an a priori conclusion?

Oh, wait. Never mind. I guess I answered that myself. Regardless, it's interesting to watch you reject all scholarly work yet grab any outlandish claim that fits your model and then insist it's true solely because it fits your model.

But chariots in the red sea prove nothing about your story. And from what I can see about them, there aren't even actual chariots, just pictures of wheels. Needless to say, I can't find anything that is at all convincing of this claim, but if you have something, pass it on.

As to sinai, I have seen full-on bible archaeologist sites that call that claim bogus and want nothing to do with it, and it would seem that if anyone was going to embrace such a historical find, it would be by folks who dearly want to show that the tale is true as real history. Yet they claim it is filled with errors from a scriptural standpoint and does not fit the bill. Again, I don't see any support for this beyond stuff connected to Wyatt, but maybe I am missing something and you can provide the information.

pepi the old kingdom plague papyrii fits my account perfectly.
papyrii missing frogs and boils... ooh... lol thats so weak, its exactly like how you claim christians claim pagan accounts miss some christian narrative, so its not plagarazing.
a man recounted choas, his chaos fits well with plagues, we shouldnt expect him write exodus word for word.

your dating is based on manetho, and admitted faulty chronology... your stincking problem... not mine.

deal with it, stop projecting.

as I said you have nothing but the claim of academia chronology and trying to downplay actual evidence.

emotion selling
arbitrary choice of dating
reverse engineering
downplaying actual evidence

thats what you have kido... it seems to me the bible has been proven to be historically accurate.

It seems to you it has been prove to be historically accurate? Based on what? You can't back up your "actual evidence" with anything. Even the stuff you call evidence isn't really evidence of your tale. You site the flood, but then retract it as being anything but evidence for itself. You have a tourist attraction that also doesn't prove anything in your tale even if it was a real boat, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case. But say it is, for argument's sake. What of it? How does it in any way prove the details of the tale. Be specific, please.

The same with the chariots. Say they are really chariots. So what? They prove nothing else beyond that. Saying our tale has chariots, there are chariots, so it's true is like saying that the Titanic was a historically accurate movie because they found the boat at the bottom of the ocean.

You have a scroll that mentions some plagues, but leaves out others. So? Plagues happen. What does that prove as far as your tale goes? This is all so vague and spotty, yet somehow you have taken the enormous leap in illogic and say that the bible has been proven historically accurate. Yet while doing so, you dismiss out of hand any evidence that does not fit your claim solely because it doesn't fit your claim.

At bottom, the only thing you base your case on is just saying it is true because you choose it to be true. That's all well and good as far as a faith claim goes, but it doesn't constitute evidence by any acceptable standard.

ruth be told, the Egyptians were renown for engaging in historical revisionism. The oldest treaty we know of in the world is the Treaty of Kadesh (@1269 BC), which was a peace agreement, signed between Egypt and the ancient Hittite Empire. In fact, a replica1 of it can be found in the United Nations Building.

If you were to look at strictly Egyptian sources, you would think the Egyptians pulled off a spectacular victory over their Hittite foes. Egyptian accounts of the conflict are found in ancient papyri as well as in reliefs carved in temple walls (such as at Luxor). If you had only these to go by, you may not get the full story. Other ancient (and non-Egyptian) accounts have recently been uncovered that suggest the Hittites held the upper hand at the end of the engagement

why should we trust egyptians and their chronologies to completely ignore stone cold archaeological evidence supporting 100% the biblical account?
we shouldnt!! egyptians are butthurt and so is pagan academia, screw them.

flood - flood
ark - ark
chariots - red sea crossing
plagues - plagues.

bible says... and the ground gives evidence.

so... yeah as I said, all you have all you can do is downplay "ooohh it doesnt prove anything blah blah blah too vague blah blah blah"

what is acceptable standard?
lets see, the bible says there was a flood, acceptable standard should be accounts of a flood... oh boy we have those.

bible says ark rested in ararat, acceptable standard of evidence would be, finding the remains somewhere in the region of ararat... oh boy, we have that!

bible says plagues... acceptable standard would be some account from the mouth of egyptians from the time of the fall of the old kingdom... oh we have that.

sorry... as I am, you are forced into dishonesty.

Last Edited by Dr VIP 1 on 09/07/2016 03:57 PM

The Titanic movie was about a ship that sunk, there was ship that sunk. Acceptable standard says that the Titanic movie was 100% accurate.

Now how is that not the same as what you are saying?

This sounds remarkably similar to a tale I have heard. It's a completely biased account where only the one side is told, but other accounts do not agree, so it would seem to call that account into question. But no, the way it is told is said to be 100% accurate. Why this source should be trusted is a good question, and many, many people have called it into question on grounds of history, archaeology, anthropology, and textual evidence pointing to revision and redaction, as well as evidence of a much later date of origin than the one put forth in the tale.

Given all this going against it, why should anyone outside your particular community take it as the one truth for the whole world?

So the one that claims to be perfect cannot be tested in any way because every other measure is faulty. Therefore, it cannot be said to perfect by any measure except that of faith. It can also be said that anyone not sharing that faith would have no viable reason for believing in its perfection unless changing course and accepting it on faith alone.

the account says the was a ship that sunk.
the remains of the ship were found.

are you trying to say the bible is accurate just not 100% accurate?
thats different but... yes I do claim its 100% accurate.
its up to you to prove it is not 100% accurate

thread buddy... evidence on the ground.

and when we have the egyptian chrononolgies showing they are not to be trusted. it means you cant use them to attack the bible.
simple as that.
dont misrepresent my arguement.

if one claims to be faulty, you cant use it to attack one that claims it is perfect.

it is very simple...

and no, I have shown evidence, all you did is that you used faulty chronology, faulty as it may be, it still supports my account.

you are admitting to be using a faulty dating, and the only thing you can use to attack my evidence, is dates, you have nothing but that.
but hey... you just admitted your dates are faulty.

hahaha.

its fun catching you in your circular logic.

Right, it said a ship sunk and they found the ship. So the Titanic movie is 100% accurate. I knew it.

false analogy, I corrected you though

I used the word - ACCOUNT.

the bible is the account.
the 50s movie 10 commandemnts is the paralell to that account.

dont use false analogies

But it also means you can't use the bible against the egyptian accounts because it cannot be trusted by all the criteria you lay out. It works both ways. I am not misrepresenting your argument, just showing that it is not logically valid.

As history, it is unreliable because it only presents one side of the story. Attempts to verify that story disclose inconsistencies, but even if those attempts are taken off the board, all you have is a one-sided tale with no countering voices at all. It's like listening to a Hillary speech and saying that it is the truth and nothing but the truth.

no no no.. I am not using the bible agaisnt egyptian account.
I am using academia's own admission and the evidence on the ground that go far better with the biblical account to attack accepted academia DATING.


DATING not ACCOUNT.
I dont care for egyptian history... let them party all night long with their accounts.

I don't see a false analogy. You laid out what you saw as acceptable standards and I used such parameters to demonstrate the Titanic was 100% accurate. The movie is the account and it says the Titanic sunk. Well, they found the thing right where it was said to have gone down, so that makes the Titanic 100% accurate. Easy-peasy.

well if you want to believe the movie is 100% accurate, ok, have fun.