Burnedout

Professor said Moses did not exist

Recommended Posts

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

Yep, lots of them saying that.

 

There are now many studies showing that Moses did not exist, and linking the Hebrew God Yahweh to the Canaanite Pantheon.

 

Essentially Christians worship the Canaanite God El, or El-yon - God Most High.

 

This is why in the Bible it says that god sits at the council of gods as the most high. It's a direct, probably unintended reference back to their Canaanite origins.

 

 

Yahoo? :D

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logical Fallacy, what you say agrees with what my Christian OT professor taught twelve years ago. 

 

She exposed so many logical fallacies in the OT that a conservative Christian (I think he was a deacon or had some official position in the Asian church) dropped out of the program. I heard him protest in class about his superior recommending this school, yet this is what she teaches. He seemed to feel confused and betrayed by this "strange doctrine." I felt enlightened, dazzled, not sure what to make of it all but eager for more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were good video's BO. I watched several more of the Yale professors videos. I also watched a Jewish female professor, from Duke University, tell a room full of Jews at a conference at Michigan University that their traditions were created from myths. She also confirmed Moses was a mythical character & there was no Exodus from Egypt either. She confirmed they were all Canaanites at one time too. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the historicity of the bible, pretty much the period from 1,000 BCE to around 500BCE is the most reliable.

 

So for example when you read about certain Kings in the Book of Kings, and Chronicles it is reasonably accurate. I say reasonably. Here is an example:

 

I forget their names, but in sometime around 800 BCE the Assyrian King besieges Jerusalem. The Bible reports Jerusalem was besieged and the king couldn't take it blah blah and god was strong with Judah etc. The Assyrian records report that the siege kept the people from escaping and that the King of Judah paid a great ransom and declared the Assyrian King the big boss.

 

So basically what we can say is that these two kings did exist, and a siege did take place at Jerusalem.

 

My main point here is to be careful when debating knowledgeable Christians. Declaring the Bible all false with not a shred of historical accuracy is going to get egg on your face. It is the fantastical stories (I.e. ones not based in reality) that are not history. Noah's flood, exodus, conquest of Cannan, Samson etc

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Babylonian Captivity and Jeremiah are also historical to some extent, correct?

 

Likewise, I would expect to find evidence for the existence of Christian communities at some of the places referenced in the New Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, R. S. Martin said:

The Babylonian Captivity and Jeremiah are also historical to some extent, correct?

 

Likewise, I would expect to find evidence for the existence of Christian communities at some of the places referenced in the New Testament.

 

Exactly! We know the Babylonians came and smashed Judah and Israel, we know they took captives, and we know they were allowed to return some years later. It collaborated with biblical and Babylonian sources. Contrast this with the exodus story and slaves in Egypt - the only place this ever occurs and the only evidence for it is the bible. Therefore the reasonable conclusion is the exodus is just a story.  

 

Declaring EVERYTHING mythical only hurts the argument against the existence of god. We end up looking like creationists denying reality..... and they just look complete bunk!

 

Now that's not to say every case for mythical portions shouldn't be examined - example the debate on whether Jesus was mythical or not is a very interesting debate. However declaring Christianity was created by the pope in AD 400-500 is just utter bullshit. We have facts, we know what period these people were writing in. (Personally I lean towards an historical Jesus - I think the mythicist case has to stretch too far to make it work. )

 

The problem that Christians have is they say.... lets say Jericho is mentioned in the bible... ah ha! See the bible is accurate its ALL true. No, no its not all true for the same reason Sherlock Holmes is not all true.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Exactly! We know the Babylonians came and smashed Judah and Israel, we know they took captives, and we know they were allowed to return some years later. It collaborated with biblical and Babylonian sources. Contrast this with the exodus story and slaves in Egypt - the only place this ever occurs and the only evidence for it is the bible. Therefore the reasonable conclusion is the exodus is just a story.  

 

Declaring EVERYTHING mythical only hurts the argument against the existence of god. We end up looking like creationists denying reality..... and they just look complete bunk!

 

Now that's not to say every case for mythical portions shouldn't be examined - example the debate on whether Jesus was mythical or not is a very interesting debate. However declaring Christianity was created by the pope in AD 400-500 is just utter bullshit. We have facts, we know what period these people were writing in. (Personally I lean towards an historical Jesus - I think the mythicist case has to stretch too far to make it work. )

 

The problem that Christians have is they say.... lets say Jericho is mentioned in the bible... ah ha! See the bible is accurate its ALL true. No, no its not all true for the same reason Sherlock Holmes is not all true.

 

 

 

Thus, the prof who said Moses did not exist was not debunking the Old Testament and all its contents per se. I didn't watch the video but that's how it works. Profs say one specific thing and the masses run with it, claiming a prof said a whole lot more than he actually did.

 

That's the value of education--you learn how to isolate specific details based on very specific and obscure data. However, these details and data make no sense without the education to give it foundation; education is merely information, and the knowledge how to use it. Denigrating education is a harmful waste of time and energy. The person who, for whatever reason, cannot acquire a post-secondary education is better served by self-educating. However, do NOT depend on the internet for this self-education. The real knowledge is stored in books on university library shelves.

 

To the best of my knowledge, public citizens who are polite and respectful of property are welcome to use university libraries. You can't take books out, but you can sit and read in the library. Present yourself as a person seeking information on a specific topic, or by a specific author, and they will probably help you find it. Be willing to answer any security questions.

 

NOTE: You do not say, "I'm an atheist seeking to debunk religion." You say, "I'd like to read Bertrand Russel." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myth is often based on some real historical event or person that is exaggerated, embellish, and overstated. There is some evidence that King David was a real person, but Canaan was similar to modern day Afghanistan in that it wasn't ruled by a single King. Canaan was ruled by a lot of local war lords, and King David was likely just a local war lord. He probably didn't rule over a large kingdom but may have extended his rule to a large segment of Canaan and possibly beyond Canaan's borders. 

 

Solomon, on the other hand, probably did take other settlements and territory by force and his kingdom might have encompassed a sizable territory beyond Canaan's established borders, but his Kingdom was nothing like Babylon or Assyria in size, military strength, or grandeur as the Assyrians later confirmed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     To me David is like a Kind Arthur or a Theseus.  Someone of legend.  I'm well aware of the Mesha and Tel Dan stele.  They mention a House of David.  Possibly.  Depending on the reading.

 

     For example, the Mesha Stele has these two (partial) translations that people tend to use (I think there are more but these seem to be two that get used a lot):

 



And I built Beth-Gamul, and Beth-Diblathaim, and Beth Baal-Meon, and I placed there the poor people of the land. And as to Horonaim, the men of Edom dwelt therein, on the descent from old. And Chemosh said to me, Go down, make war against Horonaim, and take it. And I assaulted it, And I took it, for Chemosh restored it in my days. Wherefore I made.... ...year...and I....

 



And I have built Beth-Medeba and Beth-Diblaten and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I brought there . . . flocks of the the land. And the House of [Da]vid dwelt in Hauranen, . . . Chemosh said to me, "Go down, fight against Hauranen!" I went down . . . and Chemosh restored it in my days . . ."

 

     One has no David and the other has a David.  2 Kings offers essentially the same story.  It has the kings of Israel, Judea and Edom going to fight then consulting Elisha who only agrees to do his thing because Jehoshaphat otherwise no deal.  The Judeans get a key role in the story (which goes their way as opposed to the stele).

 

     So it seems like the Judeans are written into history.  The stele probably doesn't include them.  Israel gets lots of mentions.  YHWH even gets a mention.  Edom?  Maybe.  It's either them or the "House of David."

 

     Let's look at a map:

moabmap4.gif

     It could go either way.  Edom is right there.  They're also mentioned in the story.  But Israel is way off to the side and they're also mentioned.  Lots of places are specifically mentioned.  All except this "House of David."  Seems a little generic if you actually read the stele text.  Like you want it to fit the biblical version.  But the way they transition to Horonaim otherwise is also awkward (maybe it's the translation or because of the missing part).  If the biblical story is true is seems odd to single out a small tribe like this when they were all there.  It makes much more sense to reference the larger victory over all of them and if it's not true then it still makes sense to mention your victory over the larger, and well-known, enemy which is Edom.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now