The mythical Jesus

[Amanda]

I can't separate the teachings of Jesus from the rest of the New Testament.  The idea of hell is repulsive to me.  The thought of sending a person to hell because they do not believe in Jesus is quite disturbing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bob, it is basically my belief that hell is just a state of mind. It is the torment we go through, regardless of our labels, in regards to the repercussions of our detrimental actions... usually based out of disrespect for our self, someone else, or life in general. Not so much against Jesus, but the ways of Jesus... might put one in hell. I think the war between heaven and hell is within us. The side that wins is the side we feed the most.

 

Of course, as many here already know, I believe ALL will eventually end in 'heaven', a place of peace and joy... with no one receiving any more or any less. (I know, I know... many of you don't want to go to heaven... I understand )

All they did to me was point out my many inadequacies.  I was not a happy believer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bob, FWIW, God, nor Jesus are imputing our sins or inadequacies against us IMO... they see us perfect just the way we are!!! We are far from poor ol' sinners, we are in likeness and image of God!

 

2Co 5:19

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

[Amanda]

Religion is nothing but a political/sociological tool.  It has NOTHING to do with "god".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mr Grinch, I don't like religion either, nor do I think it has anything to do with God... but opposes God in many ways! It is a connection with spirituality that seems to be the stream of content and peaceful solutions.

[Amanda]

How many young idealists are blowing themselves up and justifying killing innocent people for their religious faiths today in what they believe is a holy war for God?  Does this make what they believe true, because they're willing to die or kill for it?  Of course not.  The only thing that reveals is the power of fanatical beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antlerman, I agree it doesn't mean that it is true, and I agree it shows the power of fanatical beliefs. Additionally, I don't believe that what they are fighting and killing for is the truthful teachings of the one they claim!

[Amanda]

Okay, I'm breaking my non-debating.  LOL...  I'm surprised to have made it this long. 

 

Amanda, if God saw us as perfect then why would there be a need for jesus in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, glad to see you back!!! Not really, just kidding... I am really glad to see you.

 

As I've said, we are perfectly imperfect. How would it be if your child came into the world and did everything perfect without the help of anyone... to walk, everything! Your child didn't even need you! If ALL people were like this, wouldn't we be missing things like lessons of compassion, empathy, attachment in relying on each other through trials in our life, and much more? Our imperfections make us perfect, IMHO. We receive pardons for these perceived faults through grace.

 

Why did God send Jesus? Shall we just start with Jesus came to show us the way (a role model)... to bring us into what he perceived as the truth (what's sacred)... such as, but not limited to... that there was no truth to the cast system and EVERYONE was equal, how to develop an internal locus of control in regards to change the way one thinks instead of trying to change the world, to do what's right regardless of what the other person does/did, to judge people unto victory and never unto condemnation, to evaluate who you are by what your values are instead of what monetary possessions you have, to seek real peace instead of complacency, to forgive everyone and self through grace... yet keeping all accountable and responsible for their own actions, to stop the divisive self elitist strategies and begin the reconciling process to bring all together as one and the process of manifesting heaven here on earth through us. IMO.

 

I understand that you have said that Jesus is not the originator of all these ideas. OK, I can concede for now with you on this, yet he is the one that put these all together and presented them in this manner, and did so for the sake of others... not popularity or notoriety for himself.

[zfunkman]

Thankful, glad to see you back!!!    Not really, just kidding... I am really glad to see you.   

 

As I've said, we are perfectly imperfect. How would it be if your child came into the world and did everything perfect without the help of anyone... to walk, everything! Your child didn't even need you! If ALL people were like this, wouldn't we be missing things like lessons of compassion, empathy, attachment in relying on each other through trials in our life, and much more? Our imperfections make us perfect, IMHO. We receive pardons for these perceived faults through grace.

 

Why did God send Jesus? Shall we just start with Jesus came to show us the way (a role model)... to bring us into what he perceived as the truth (what's sacred)... such as, but not limited to... that there was no truth to the cast system and EVERYONE was equal, how to develop an internal locus of control in regards to change the way one thinks instead of trying to change the world, to do what's right regardless of what the other person does/did, to judge people unto victory and never unto condemnation, to evaluate who you are by what your values are instead of what monetary possessions you have, to seek real peace instead of complacency, to forgive everyone and self through grace... yet keeping all accountable and responsible for their own actions, to stop the divisive self elitist strategies and begin the reconciling process to bring all together as one and the process of manifesting heaven here on earth through us. IMO.

 

I understand that you have said that Jesus is not the originator of all these ideas. OK, I can concede for now with you on this, yet he is the one that put these all together and presented them in this manner, and did so for the sake of others... not popularity or notoriety for himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

blah blah, blah blah blah blahlbah. Blah blah. blah blah blah.blahblah

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I agree it doesn't mean that it is true, and I agree it shows the power of fanatical beliefs. Additionally, I don't believe that what they are fighting and killing for is the truthful teachings of the one they claim!

It is their interpretation of the writings - a dangerous and widely shunned interpretation; however it is how they are choosing to interpret it. The "true" meaning of any text, especially an ancient one is largely subjective. You yourself in reading the sayings of Jesus or the Bible extract a meaning that is not what other Christians do. I respect that (and also appreciate that you don't read it as condoning holy wars )

 

But the point is, there is no single "truth" that was taught. I feel fairly confident that the sayings of Jesus were a collection of sayings from various people that were later attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Please understand that I think that many of the sayings are beautiful and are spiritually uplifting, but they are not from a deity - they are from us.

 

I see humanity as not debase in need of some helping god, but rather only held back by such notions of ourselves. The people who had the insights to put those things into words that were attributed to Jesus, were those who could see past those limits and inequalities. This wasn't divine; this is our potential as humans. Nothing mystical going on. Why attribute this to a god? Do we think humans aren't capable of bettering themselves without some magic being to help?

[bob]

Bob, it is basically my belief that hell is just a state of mind. It is the torment we go through, regardless of our labels, in regards to the repercussions of our detrimental actions... usually based out of disrespect for our self, someone else, or life in general. Not so much against Jesus, but the ways of Jesus... might put one in hell. I think the war between heaven and hell is within us. The side that wins is the side we feed the most.

Amanda, I love you. I mean that. You are my kind of believer. You kind of make it up as you go. I don't say that sarcastically. You kind of interpret the bible for yourself, not taking the word of some fundy preacher. I appreciate that. If something in the bible does not sit well with you, you give it an interpretation that does. If I was to ever believe again, which would truly take a miracle, I would want to be like you. From what I have seen of you, you are pleasant, open minded, and non confrontational. All wonderful qualities, in my opinion.

If you would, answer me this, do you go to church? If so, what kind (denomination)?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Amanda, I love you.  I mean that.  You are my kind of believer.  You kind of make it up as you go.  I don't say that sarcastically.  You kind of interpret the bible for yourself, not taking the word of some fundy preacher.  I appreciate that.  If something in the bible does not sit well with you, you give it an interpretation that does.  If I was to ever believe again, which would truly take a miracle, I would want to be like you.  From what I have seen of you, you are pleasant, open minded, and non confrontational.  All wonderful qualities, in my opinion.

If you would, answer me this, do you go to church?  If so, what kind (denomination)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amanda my be frustratingly silly, but she really isn't silly..if ya know what I mean.

I admire her motives, even though I hate parts of the bible.

 

I bet she's some kind of quaker. Quakers are lovable but are really silly. My girlfried is a lot like Amanda. I'm in the dog house a lot with my giirlfriend. heh.

[white_raven23]

Amanda,

 

Maybe this is listed elsewhere, maybe not.

 

Important question.

 

Do you call yourself a Christian?

 

If you do, then I have a major bone to pick with you about how you've conveniently warped your beliefs so that the negative aspects of the religion as a whole don't apply to you. I don't have a single problem with customizing one's faith.....as long as you don't try to safely hide under the banner of a mainstream religion. If you're going to call yourself a christian....then I'm sorry, the Christian Shit has to stick to you.

 

So far, you've made it seem that the shit don't stick whenever we point out the shit to you. You just "happen" to dodge and evade whatever less-than-rosy christian belief we apply. So either you are a Christian swapping major loads of bullshit without getting any on you (riiiiiight).....or your personal belief system is a custom blend (New Age/Christiany or something).

 

So which is it?

[Amanda]

I see humanity as not debase in need of some helping god, but rather only held back by such notions of ourselves.  The people who had the insights to put those things into words that were attributed to Jesus, were those who could see past those limits and inequalities.  This wasn't divine; this is our potential as humans.  Nothing mystical going on.  Why attribute this to a god?  Do we think humans aren't capable of bettering themselves without some magic being to help?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antlerman, I think we AGREE far more than disagree! I believe that God is in us! All we need to know is already within (instead of outside of us). I think you're in agreement with my beliefs in... 'heaven' is to manifest here on earth through us, individually and collectively.

 

The 'book' is all about creating overcomers, not codependent weaklings. Jesus didn't say to look to the sky and have your answers fall in your lap! He said to pick up our cross (burdens) and follow him... as he will show those the way, to do it themselves, who need it. Yes, we too are gods! IMHO

 

What I really think is that we need to be enjoying life now, in a respectful manner. I think God is in us, experiencing life through each one of us... and I think we should enjoy every minute of it in the most positively, respectfully fulfilling way... don't you?

[Amanda]

If you would, answer me this, do you go to church?  If so, what kind (denomination)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bob, may I say I deeply appreciate in a very humble way your compliments.

 

As far as what church do I attend? Haven't you all figured it out yet... you ALL are my church! I've said before... one knows them by their fruits, their actions. I see more Christlike people here, as I perceive him to be, than in any other institution I could attend.

 

I can just see you all now... Please accept that as a compliment... as I remember it took me awhile to realize what a wonderful compliment it was to be called a heretic. Never, before I came here, did I ever think that would be a satisfying label.

 

Bob, I did go to seminary for 3+ years. There I had a fantastic teacher, who encouraged people on their own path, after he helped us tear down everything we believed before we came there.

[Amanda]

Amanda,

 

Maybe this is listed elsewhere, maybe not.

 

Important question.

 

Do you call yourself a Christian?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

White Raven... I understand your frustration. I have only studied the Bible, not a denominational interpretation of it. I use to refer to myself as a Christian, yet after being on this site... I realized that the 'traditional' Christian label doesn't really represent what I believe, and people do get the wrong assessment of me from it. It's interesting that you bring that up, as I even refer to myself outside of these forums now as a Follower of Jesus Christ. Of course I get some perplexed expressions, yet so far not asked to elaborate further. Most of my close friends, as diverse as on here, already know how my beliefs are... yet when I first told them I was a 'Christian', I got a little of the 'shun' treatment. It turned out good for me that they tolerated me and we're all a happy family now!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am against the bible being used as "Truth". I am against any endorsement what so ever of that book outside of treating it simply as mythology. But you are different, Amanda. Your motives are different. We may be adversaries, yet I do respect you. You are a good person in my honest opinion. I think you do your best to do good and love people. I find the bible immoral, distasteful and disagreable, but I find you to be moral, tasteful, and very agreable person. I'm glad your here, because the debates you have with us is still interesting.

 

I see you as a heretic Amanda, cut and dry. hehe.

[Amanda]

I see you as a heretic Amanda, cut and dry. hehe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks DC!

 

I really think you're a great guy too, and have for awhile. It never ceases to amaze me that someone, especially at your age, could be so intellectual, and seems to be home on the computer a lot... not running around with all your friends like I did when I was your age, and even dating a spiritual girlfriend. Excuse the saying but, everyone around you must think you're an 'angel'!

 

As for your lucky girlfriend, I do hope you're a little less critical of her than you are me. :wink:

[dogmatically_challenged]

I feel I can learn from you in a lot of ways even if I disagree.

[Amanda]

I feel I can learn from you in a lot of ways even if I disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, DC... I know that this may be a bit off topic... but I saw this documentary of a gentleman named David Rohl. He specialized in the archeology of Egypt, and stumbled onto some information that seems to make the OT Bible in direct agreement with Egyptian history... and other sources, that date all the way back to the Garden of Eden! I know that many here think that the OT is just a myth also, yet IF there is corroborating evidence to the contrary... I'm curious to know if that would change your mind any to the validity of Jesus being a historically real person? (Notice how I brought the subject into topic?)

 

Hey, I don't mean to stir any flames here... but if anyone could give this guy a critique... I feel you all are the ones. :wink: Most of you have probably already heard about him and dismissed him!

 

There seems to be some discovery in what has been a misunderstood chronological history of Egypt, and with this new insight... gives credence and an alliance to the validity of the historical facts of the OT! I saw this on a documentary, considered the info for this site, wrote down the name of the archeologist, David Rohl... who also has books on this... and I found a couple of sites... the first one seems to advocate that David Rohl has no religous affiliations, doesn't believe anything outside the historical facts. They define D. Rohl in a manner, to me, to assure all that this is no evidence to support religion or spirituality... just history facts.

 

You might want to start with these sites I've found, yet did not research them... they appear to be objective...

 

This relates the Egyptian History to the OT, and seems to be objectively done...

http://www.northforest.org/classic/archaeology/rohl.html

 

Another site you might be interested...

Garden of Eden

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Archaeology/eden.htm

[dogmatically_challenged]

Amanda

I'm curious to know if that would change your mind any to the validity of Jesus being a historically real person? (Notice how I brought the subject into topic?)

 

 

I'll look into it, but I'll tell you right now, I WANT A HISTORICAL JESUS!

 

The reason why is that if we can find real hard evidence of jesus's teachings and not what was invented by others, then I strongly believe we will find a jesus who was very different than what the gospels gives us. I think his teachings would be very different. I would have a complete woody if we found out he was proficient with a sword! I know, I know...I'm a little bastard. hehe.

 

I can check the link out and do some more digging into your man, D. Rohl.

 

I have my own biases. Beware.

 

thankful

Amanda, Zwai Hawass is a well known major Egyptian Archeologist. He and others have evidence against the Egyptians ever owning slaves. However, even if history of Israelites could be proven; it doesn't prove their god real anymore than Egyptian history proves their gods real.

 

That is because even if the stories in the O.T. were all true history, the N.T. is irrelevant. We can see that the N.T. was imperfectly built on to the O.T.

 

The N.T. is an invention.....even if there is a historical jesus hiding some were to be found.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Never mind. This guy tries to show evidence of abraham and moses. I don't even want to waste my time on such a nutter or a decietful xer or uncle tom, book peddler, what ever the case may be. I won't waste my time on this guy. Sorry my mind is completely closed to this man who panders to xers with so very, very little to go on just to sell what people want to hear. There is no evidence of abraham or moses what so ever outside of a mythology book.

 

 

The birth of Moses coincided with the coming to the throne of Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV and it was in his reign that Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt. (pg 255)

 

A Jewish historian named Artapanus researched and compiled the material for his history of the Israelite nation in Egypt during the late third century BC and probably had access to ancient records which were housed in the great Egyptian temples and perhaps in the famous library at Alexandria. Although his work has not survived to our day we have extracts paraphrased in Eusebius' writings and a partial summary in Clement's writings. Artapanus refers to Pharaoh Khenephres who had a daughter who adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to become Prince Mousos. (pg 252)

 

Artapanus' Greek name Khenephres represents the Egyptian royal name Khaneferre. There is only one Pharaoh in the whole of Egyptian history with this name. (pg 255)

 

I have zero respect for tradtions that are not corroborated by traditions out side of the hebrews or..... from much later " paraphrased extracts and summeries" from xers.

I don't care what anyone says...I do not trust anything given us by the early church fathers.

[Christopher Carrion]

The raw facts of the matter come down to this:

 

There is no verifiable evidence for the physical existence of Jesus Christ outside of the many (and often contradictory) stories of the character recorded in the New Testament. There is no archaeological evidence that he ever existed, there are no documents, there are no objective records. The many startling inconcistencies in the timeline of his existence one can derive from reading the gospels demonstrates quite clearly that even if the figure was inspired by a physically existing person, he was later deified and re-written by adherents of the ideas he promoted as a shaman-like figure by co-mingling historical possibilities with various mythological ideas prominent in their culture of origin.

 

Then of course one must consider what we know about the period from analyasis of verifiable data:

 

-the bible records that Mary and Joseph were heading to Bethlehem to take part in a Census. At the time, Census were conducted by measure of property rather than the counting of heads, therefore there would have been no reason for them to journey to Bethlehem in the first place, therefore Jesus would never have been born.

 

-During this period of time in this part of the world, the name Jesus was as common as the name John is now. There were lots of people named Jesus crucified. Which one inspired the myth, I wonder?

 

-There is compelling recent evidence that people were not crucified on crosses in Jerusalem; they were either nailed to trees or stuck on spikes.

 

-the bible records that following Jesus' crucifiction there was an earthquake and a lunar eclipse. We know by measuring the moon's current position, motions and velocity that not such eclipse occured at this time, that outside of the bible there was no recording of such an eclipse, and that there was also no earthquake.

 

-There are no records of many of the more prominent of Jesus's activities outside of the bible, despite the fact that within the context of the story they are sources of political upheavel. Examples include his trashing of the temple which, in his own words has become "...a den of thieves."

 

....then of course there is the raw fact that sacrificed and resurrected Messiahs were a mythological fad at the time; they were quite literally ten a penny.

 

And so on, and so forth.

[spamandham]

-There is compelling recent evidence that people were not crucified on crosses in Jerusalem; they were either nailed to trees or stuck on spikes.

 

....then of course there is the raw fact that sacrificed and resurrected Messiahs were a mythological fad at the time; they were quite literally ten a penny.

 

Do you have a reference for these two points?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey, DC... I know that this may be a bit off topic... but I saw this documentary of a gentleman named David Rohl. He specialized in the archeology of Egypt, and stumbled onto some information that seems to make the OT Bible in direct agreement with Egyptian history... and other sources, that date all the way back to the Garden of Eden!  ...

 

 

The following is not, I think, a direct contradiction to what you believe, Amanda, but against those who hold to the traditional Hebraic dating of the earth as 6000+ years, the immense age of the Egyptian civilization, as it started to come to light after Napoleon's expedition, was one of the things that started scholars to realize that human history is much older.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I think we AGREE far more than disagree! I believe that God is in us! All we need to know is already within (instead of outside of us). I think you're in agreement with my beliefs in... 'heaven' is to manifest here on earth through us, individually and collectively.

 

The 'book' is all about creating overcomers, not codependent weaklings. Jesus didn't say to look to the sky and have your answers fall in your lap! He said to pick up our cross (burdens) and follow him... as he will show those the way, to do it themselves, who need it. Yes, we too are gods!  IMHO

 

What I really think is that we need to be enjoying life now, in a respectful manner. I think God is in us, experiencing life through each one of us... and I think we should enjoy every minute of it in the most positively, respectfully fulfilling way... don't you?

I agree with much of the conclusions you come to, as far as the end result is humanity bettering its experience of life for itself and for the reset of the human community. Where the difference is, is that I cannot use mythology as the dangling carrot before me. I cannot view its stories outside of a context of *real* history and therefore cannot defend it intellectually to myself. Since reason is such an integral part of who I am, I cannot leap outside of reason and not cause a great schism within myself that would destroy my spirit.

 

Note: This is not to say that those who can are somehow defective. They are simply wired differently, so to speak. My problem lies with those who try to make leaps of logic, logical! I don't think you are doing that and you have my respect for that.

 

Let me restate it this way: I see you using as using mythology to give a face to elevated concepts, and to draw you out of yourself towards a higher ideal. This is the power of symbolism. For instance, you seem to view the Bible as a transcendent book preserved by a supernatural being beyond ourselves as a gift to help us along our way. It gives it a special inspiration to you to see a god involved in its existence that goes beyond understanding it is purely a product of man, and man alone. It motivates you to embrace it believing a benevolent caring God is looking out for you personally.

 

This is great, but others can find human potential equally as inspiring without putting the face of God on it. In fact the idea of God only gets in the way for some. For myself, I see some of the writings of the Bible as having come from men like any one of us who embraced a higher sense of ideals. In fact, for me it gives *more* hope that men have this potential within themselves, without needing to try to find some elusive, unknowable, deity. The energy wasted trying to find, understand, and please this deity, is hugely better spent looking for answers in ourselves and real reality surrounding us.

 

For yourself, belief in God could be an intermediate step towards a different realization, or it is something you will continue to embrace, not needing it to be logically, scientifically, or historically defensible. In either case, I like what I hear in your spirit.

[Saviourmachine]

Hey, DC... I know that this may be a bit off topic... but I saw this documentary of a gentleman named David Rohl.

I guess that he is religious if he's talking about the garden of Eden. He's only not a literalist. Don't you think so? However to try to match the history of the Jews and the Egyptians is very valuable IMHO. I found online texts from the El Amarna tablets, but I couldn't find online (translated) versions of the Ebla tablets. Traced by this synopsis of Rohl's New Chronology: "A Test of Time". Can you help me with that?

 

Did you found perhaps somewhere a balanced discussion?

[Amanda]

I guess that he is religious if he's talking about the garden of Eden. He's only not a literalist. Don't you think so? However to try to match the history of the Jews and the Egyptians is very valuable IMHO. I found online texts from the El Amarna tablets, but I couldn't find online (translated) versions of the Ebla tablets. Traced by this synopsis of Rohl's New Chronology: "A Test of Time". Can you help me with that?

 

Did you found perhaps somewhere a balanced discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess that he is religious if he's talking about the garden of Eden. He's only not a literalist. Don't you think so? However to try to match the history of the Jews and the Egyptians is very valuable IMHO. I found online texts from the El Amarna tablets, but I couldn't find online (translated) versions of the Ebla tablets. Traced by this synopsis of Rohl's New Chronology: "A Test of Time". Can you help me with that?

 

Did you found perhaps somewhere a balanced discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Saviourmachine, hope you had a great time in Spain! Did you do any running with the bulls?

 

David Rohl seems to be emphatic about separating himself from any affiliation to any religious aspects, especially the Bible! Your site said this in the conclusion,

“To quote David Rohl, who is an agnostic, at the end of his book:-

"Without initially starting out to discover the historical Bible, I have come to the conclusion that much of the Old Testament contains real history." “

 

I saw it on a documentary, and it seems that we date our BCE calendar chronologically based primarily by the sequential rein of each Pharaoh’s dynasty at some point back. There seems to be evidence already linking Egyptian history to the Israelite history, till the end of the bronze age and the beginning of the iron age. It seems Rohl has uncovered evidence that this method of using Pharaoh’s and their dynasties shows great inaccuracies, as one aspect is that it seems that there were co-dynasties that overlapped, instead of the expected sequential rein. As I remember, the 22nd rein back in time died and was buried before the 21st rein back in time! The post reining Pharaoh died before the preceding one! This, among other things, puts the dated history of time off by about 200 years.

 

Other aspects, after reading the site with which you wanted me to help you, is that there are many other presumptions that anxious scholars need to change in their correlation to the old chronology of these Egyptian historical events, and these new insights solve many mysteries and make it more historically cohesive, changing the Biblical perspective to more historical than mythical as many were becoming to conclude.

 

Some of these new insights, from the site you presented, to these Biblical historical accounts... associating and confirming these two, are finding Ramses was often the Pharaoh associated with the Exodus, and now scholars find that not so… and this new chronology is more "appropriate" for these two historical account as well.

 

According to your posted site:

“It is remarkable that to identify the pharaoh of the oppression with Ramesses II, the period of the Judges must be reduced by 200 years, which is directly opposed to the biblical narrative. In Judges 11:26, Jephthah (one of the last of the Judges) states that the timespan from the first settlement in Transjordan during the Conquest to his own time, is 300 years. Also in I Kings 6:1, the time from the Exodus to the building of the temple by Solomon in 966 BC is recorded as 480 years, complementing the Judges date. These both place the Exodus around 1450 BC but Ramesses II reigned in the 13th Century (1279 - 1213 BC) under the conventional chronology. Genesis 47:11 also states that Jacob and the Patriarchs settled in the region of Ramesses'. This, however, is centuries before there was a pharaoh named Ramesses, let alone one who built a great city named after him. These early Egyptologists overlooked or ignored the biblical evidence in favour of equating Ramesses II with the pharaoh of the oppression.”

 

Another example of misinterpretations to the Egyptian history from your site based on Solomon:

“The first evidence of this is in the subsequent relocation of the Solomonic period to the Late Bronze Age. This was an age of wealth and prosperity in the Levant, reflecting the biblical narrative of the wealth of Solomon's reign. Previously, Solomon was placed in a period of general impoverishment - the Early Iron Age. The contemporaries of Solomon in Egypt are now shown to have been Haremheb and Seti I. Excavations at Megiddo for this period, which I Kings 9:15 records as being built up by Solomon, revealed a Late Bronze Age palace 50 metres long with two-metre thick walls, a royal treasure-room with a magnificent hoard of treasures and the richest collection of Canaanite carved ivory yet discovered' in Palestine (Yigael Yadin of the University of Jerusalem). One of these ivory pieces depicts a king on his throne flanked by two sphinxes with his queen before him. The queen is presenting the king with lotus flowers, a typical Egyptian scene. --------------Furthermore, it is stated in I Kings 7:8 and II Chronicles 8:11 that Solomon built a palace for his Egyptian wife in Jerusalem. The only Egyptian architectural remains ever to be found in Jerusalem now date in the new chronology to the Late Bronze Age II A/B. Previously, it was considered a mystery as to where they had come from and who had been responsible for them.”

 

Here is another account from your site that place historical significance to Saul and the Amarna Tablets:

“In 1887, 380 clay tablets were discovered in Egypt at a place called Tell el-Amarna and have come to be known as the Amarna tablets. These tablets were letters from foreign rulers, mainly of city-states but also of the more powerful northern kingdoms of present-day Syria, Turkey and Cyprus, as well as what was once Babylonia and Assyria. They were written to the Egyptian pharaoh of the day; this was Amenhotep IV who soon changed his name to the famous Akhenaten.

Under the old chronology these tablets contained little to interest Bible scholars; however, under the new chronology they are dated to the late 10th century of Saul and David, providing an amazing confirmation and even expansion of the biblical narrative. The tablets were carried to Egypt, transcribed onto papyrus from the original Akkadian/Cuneiform script into heiroglyphs for the pharaoh to read and then the original tablets stored at Amarna to be discovered some 3000 years later.”

 

There’s more on your site you presented if you care to read it, and I only posted SMALL portions of them.

 

David Rohl, with only intentions of corroborating evidence to validate his new findings, accidentally found what he was looking for in the OT of the Bible! It put his new chronological dating right in line with that of the OT! These two now corroborate and validate each other! I only had included the Garden of Eden site because there wasn't only corroboration from the OT, David Rohl's findings in the Egyptian's written historical events, but also in the Dead Sea Scrolls!

 

I've include the site again. Scroll down past the part to sell his book, and the FIRST thing you will find is that David Rohl doesn't believe in the Bible as a book from God and has no regards in supporting any religious standings by his discovery. He is clearly only interested in using the historical accounts in the OT to corroborate and validate his historical Egyptian findings. I get the impression he is NOT happy it is the Bible that does this, but it does seem to make everything fit together... and seems to bring it all into a more cohesive perspective.

 

http://www.northforest.org/classic/archaeology/rohl.html

 

The Garden of Eden site:

 

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Archaeology/eden.htm

[Saviourmachine]

Saviourmachine, hope you had a great time in Spain! Did you do any running with the bulls? 

No estoy estúpido. Y no soy rojo tampoco.

 

David Rohl seems to be emphatic about separating himself from any affiliation to any religious aspects, especially the Bible!

Okay. You won.

 

Some of these new insights, from the site you presented, to these Biblical historical accounts... associating and confirming these two, are finding Ramses was often the Pharaoh associated with the Exodus, and now scholars find that not so… and this new chronology is more "appropriate" for these two historical account as well.

Yes, that's all Rohl's stuff. I've read the whole site before I posted the link. I spent also this day to read about the Nuzi, Qatna, Ugarit, Mari, Ebla and El Amarna tablets. I couldn't find many of them online. Only the latter, El Amarna or [2]. If you find electronic texts, I'd like you to link them. If you don't mind.

 

Some hypotheses I encountered (not all of them of Rohl):

• Ramesses II = Shishak'
  
• Lab'aya = Saul
  
• Habiru = David & his centenaries
  
• Dadua = David
  
• Aziru = Hadadezer
  
• Mutbaal = Ishboseth
  
• Drowned Pharao = Dudimose
   
  
• Jobab = Job [David Gibson]
   
  
• Hyksos = Edomites [David Gibson]
   
  
• Abram = Abramu [AskWhy.co.uk (skeptics* - Magee)]
  

I'm a quick reader, but I need more time to make up my mind. About the Ebla I found the Ared project (Spanish). I sent them an email to ask if they did achieve anything until now. About the Qatna tablets I found this Universität Tübingen - 63 Keilschrifttafeln (German). Not anything online yet.

 

See you later.

 

*not very scientific IMHO