How many of Judaism's stories are actually true?

[Avatar4321]

Well, you seem to know a lot.

Not.

You know, you're right. I was wrong. Women did come from men. Men are made of dirt and clay. Noah is our grandfather and he spoke Biblicah Hebrew, from which English is descended. The only people who kept the pre-Babel language were the Israelites, the entire population of whom the Egyptians supported. Obviously they escaped one night by splitting a sea in half after their war god killed a fuck ton of people right before condemning murder and commanding Moses to murder all of his Ba'al worshipping kinsmen. Obviously they arrived in this brand new country after wandering around in the desert for forty years without leaving any evidence of this and conquered it in a generation. That's how they became the major regional power they still are today.

Wait, no. Sorry. That's just retarded. My bad.

Noah spoke perfect English. And he was a white guy that looked a lot like Russell Crowe.

And the rock people are in the Bible.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

you make an interesting point----there are loan words that entered Hebrew
that are consistent with the history of Hebrews sojourning in Egypt. "RECORDS
OF THE LOCAL people" ROFLMAO when you find a diary that read "DE JOOOS WEREN'T HERE......let me know. Osnat or ASNAT---is an Egyptian name-----nothing at all to do with Hebrew------it was the Egyptian name of the
woman who became the wife of Joseph----I have a relative in Israel named ASNAT. It remained a name used traditionally by Sephardic jews. The lack
of physical evidence of an event that took place more than 3000 years ago is not
"proof" that it did not happen. I am no linguist----but there are several other "loan words" from Egyptian to Hebrew-----that show up in old and current usage. There is more evidence that jews were in Egypt than there is that Jesus existed.
But I am confident that he did-----just as I am confident that you sorta exist

So what you're telling me is that you accept sparse linguistic evidence but not physical evidence, because the odd loan word or common name between two nearby and related cultures with closely related languages and close contact* with each other of each other means that the entirety of one of those cultures was enslaved in the lands of the other despite leaving no physical traces?

*Diplomatic ties, trade, war, and probably the occasional immigrant. Israel was even conquered and absorbed into the greater Egyptian empire for a while.

 

[irosie91]

you make an interesting point----there are loan words that entered Hebrew
that are consistent with the history of Hebrews sojourning in Egypt. "RECORDS
OF THE LOCAL people" ROFLMAO when you find a diary that read "DE JOOOS WEREN'T HERE......let me know. Osnat or ASNAT---is an Egyptian name-----nothing at all to do with Hebrew------it was the Egyptian name of the
woman who became the wife of Joseph----I have a relative in Israel named ASNAT. It remained a name used traditionally by Sephardic jews. The lack
of physical evidence of an event that took place more than 3000 years ago is not
"proof" that it did not happen. I am no linguist----but there are several other "loan words" from Egyptian to Hebrew-----that show up in old and current usage. There is more evidence that jews were in Egypt than there is that Jesus existed.
But I am confident that he did-----just as I am confident that you sorta exist

So what you're telling me is that you accept sparse linguistic evidence but not physical evidence, because the odd loan word or common name between two nearby and related cultures with closely related languages and close contact* with each other of each other means that the entirety of one of those cultures was enslaved in the lands of the other despite leaving no physical traces?

*Diplomatic ties, trade, war, and probably the occasional immigrant. Israel was even conquered and absorbed into the greater Egyptian empire for a while.

try again-----what "entirety"? the nascent Hebrew community consisted of a family of 12 brothers and its retainers, You are getting tangled in your own stupidity ---taking as HISTORY, "realities" not provable except by conjecture and rumor and
rejecting a written narrative. Even your statement that Hebrew and the Egyptian language are SIMILAR is utter BULLSHIT-----the Egyptian language was not a particularly semitic language----it was more cushite. It's ok with me----if you wish to discount all of ancient writings of the world as bullshit-----unless they can be proven with DNA and fingerprints------ok with me. Most of history goes down the drain. I consider ALL ancient scriptural writings to be important. I am even willing to concede that a personality "muhummad" really existed despite the absolute absence of physical evidence

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Devil Himself will tell you that the best lies are mostly truth.

A Jewish king named 'David'? Probably.

Was he appointed by The Creator to a starring role in some grand scheme? Not likely.

Look at the way current events and even history are successfully spun to foment various political agendas today with all the fact-checking access to information that we have.

The ancient stories claiming to be the word of God either are, or they are not. They are either 'Holy', or they are the brain-droppings of mere Monkeys just like you and me with no more claim to the Divine than the words you just read. There is no middle ground.

Anything's possible... what seems plausible?​

 

[BluePhantom]

The Devil Himself will tell you that the best lies are mostly truth.

A Jewish king named 'David'? Probably.

Was he appointed by The Creator to a starring role in some grand scheme? Not likely.

Look at the way current events and even history are successfully spun to foment various political agendas today with all the fact-checking access to information that we have.

The ancient stories claiming to be the word of God either are, or they are not. They are either 'Holy', or they are the brain-droppings of mere Monkeys just like you and me with no more claim to the Divine than the words you just read. There is no middle ground.

Anything's possible... what seems plausible?​

Actually I respectfully disagree, Joe. I think there is a middle ground. I think one can read these stories and look for the greater lesson that the story attempts to convey. At that point they have the right and ability to determine if that lesson has application in their lives. If it does, take it. If not, move on and find something else that does. Good advice doesn't always have to come from God to have value in our lives and in society.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well sure... but then what you're using it for is no different than using an internet post or a Stephen King novel for a 'teaching moment' - useful brain droppings of mere Monkeys, just like you and me.

My point being, if one believes that one of the ancient stories is The Word of God, one is forced to accept every word and every story as absolute, inerrant truth. In that, there is no middle ground.

In my humble opinion, the guy who claims that The Torah came to us from the hand of God, but uses phrases like "To God, a day is like 1,000 years" to reconcile the mounting evidence of an earth that is way older than 10,000 years is the worst kind of self-denying hypocrite.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well sure... but then what you're using it for is no different than using an internet post or a Stephen King novel for a 'teaching moment' - useful brain droppings of mere Monkeys, just like you and me.

My point being, if one believes that one of the ancient stories is The Word of God, one is forced to accept every word and every story as absolute, inerrant truth. In that, there is no middle ground.

In my humble opinion, the guy who claims that The Torah came to us from the hand of God, but uses phrases like "To God, a day is like 1,000 years" to reconcile the mounting evidence of an earth that is way older than 10,000 years is the worst kind of self-denying hypocrite.

Well there's certainly an argument to be made about the hoops and turnstiles some theists go through in an attempt to explain away contradictions in the Bible. Some of them are fucking hilarious. For example, according to Matthew Judas hanged himself and according to Acts he fell off a cliff. Instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Acts says that and we don't really know" I have heard some explanations that Judas hanged himself from a tree that was overhanging a cliff. Then the earthquake hit right after Jesus died and that shook the noose around Judas' neck loose which caused him to fall over the cliff.

SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? THAT'S the bullshit story someone creates to avoid having to simply say 'the Bible says two different things. We don't know which, if either, is accurate'. So I get your point and don't disagree

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yeah, it's pretty amazing the compromises people are willing to make to justify a position they've already staked out.

 

[CynthiaZ]

I love Sumerian "literature" ^_^

My fav is Inanna's Descent, Enûma Eliš, and Nergal & Ereshkigal

​

I actually love how much of the Book of Genesis was lifted from Gilgamesh

 

[BluePhantom]

Yeah, it's pretty amazing the compromises people are willing to make to justify a position they've already staked out.

I am not making that up. That was seriously someone's explanation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't doubt it... I've heard them and used them myself.

Human is as human does...​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I love Sumerian "literature" ^_^

My fav is Inanna's Descent, Enûma Eliš, and Nergal & Ereshkigal

​

I actually love how much of the Book of Genesis was lifted from Gilgamesh

Interesting... I wasn't aware.

 

[irosie91]

I love Sumerian "literature" ^_^

My fav is Inanna's Descent, Enûma Eliš, and Nergal & Ereshkigal

​

I actually love how much of the Book of Genesis was lifted from Gilgamesh

Interesting... I wasn't aware.

that's because it isn't. Genesis has virtually nothing to do with the epic of Gilgamesh -----and there is no evidence that one preceded the other. In a court
of law----the charge would fail If one studies the epic stories or poems of the ancient world----it is easy to find similarities here and there-------real idiots like to make an issue of it.

 

[September]

I love Sumerian "literature" ^_^

My fav is Inanna's Descent, Enûma Eliš, and Nergal & Ereshkigal

​

I actually love how much of the Book of Genesis was lifted from Gilgamesh

Actually The Epic of Giliganesh is nothing like Genesis.

Gilgamesh was on a quest for immortality. And he was a badass. He was so badass he turned down sex with the Goddess Ishtar! lol. He also liked to fight. He fought some crazy ass giant demon thing in the woods with his homeboy at his side, and a Celestial Bull God thing... he was kinda more like Hercules if you ask me.

So yeah. Genesis is about the creation of the World and the creation of Man, and some of the struggles faced by the first generations of humanity on Earth, especially in regards to their relationship with God. The main character of Genesis is actually God... not some mortal or demigod. The Epic of Gilgamesh was about Gilgercules.

​

 

[September]

Gilgamesh and Enkidu about to go kick some ass

​

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

try again-----what "entirety"? the nascent Hebrew community consisted of a family of 12 brothers and its retainers, You are getting tangled in your own stupidity ---taking as HISTORY, "realities" not provable except by conjecture and rumor and
rejecting a written narrative.

Please tell the class what is written in Exodus 1:5-7. I will be more than happy to do so should the task prove too difficult for you.

Even your statement that Hebrew and the Egyptian language are SIMILAR is utter BULLSHIT-----the Egyptian language was not a particularly semitic language----it was more cushite.

Understanding what I've said so far requires an educational foundation I thought you would already have. You have my apologies for the assumption. The first thing you should know about is where languages come from. The easiest way I've found to explain this is to imagine a small tribe of people living in a valley. They have one homogenous language and culture. As they multiply their population expands outwards. Soon they occupy two more valleys as well. The branches of the tribe remain in contact but begin to become different as time goes on. Their cultures slowly diverge in the details. They begin speaking their shared language in a slightly different way. Those differences become more recognizable as distinct dialects. The tribe continues to grow and expand geographically. Eventually you have a situation where the people of the central valleys speak mutually intelligible but distinct dialects and the people on the relatively isolated frontiers have a hard time understanding the people in the middle and probably can't understand the people on the other side of the country at all. It's obviously a really simplified explanation but hopefully it's enlightening enough for our purpose. The original language became the archaic mother of a language family with several descendants, each with their own dialectal variations.

One of the primary language families is one called Afro-Asiatic. It's made up of the Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic, and Semitic families. These families are all considered to be Afro-Asiatic because they are all related by common descent back to a proto-Afro-Asiatic language. Basically, you're right that Egyptian and Chadic are related. You're wrong in saying that Egyptian and Semitic aren't related. They are all related to each other. It's like saying that English isn't related to Spanish or Hindi because it comes from proto-Germanic.

It's ok with me----if you wish to discount all of ancient writings of the world as bullshit-----unless they can be proven with DNA and fingerprints------ok with me. Most of history goes down the drain. I consider ALL ancient scriptural writings to be important. I am even willing to concede that a personality "muhummad" really existed despite the absolute absence of physical evidence

There are ancient writings I do accept, at least partially. The thing is, it's very important when reading literature of that age and nature that much of it was written by people who had no access to modern information or methods and quite possibly no education unrelated to their profession whatsoever for an audience much the same. That's not to say that they weren't intelligent. It's just that they often believed some pretty stupid shit because they didn't know better and had no way to know better. It's a fair guess that the sun is driven across the sky by a chariot if youn don't know what it is or anything about the solar system. The idea that the flight of birds or the shape of a sheep's stomach when you pull it out communicates the will of the gods makes sas much sense as any other divination technique. At least then it's something everyone can see rather than the priests going behind a curtain and coming up with some bullshit to keep the people feeding and taking orders from them.

that's because it isn't. Genesis has virtually nothing to do with the epic of Gilgamesh -----and there is no evidence that one preceded the other. In a court
of law----the charge would fail If one studies the epic stories or poems of the ancient world----it is easy to find similarities here and there-------real idiots like to make an issue of it.

There are similarities. There are good reasons for that. One is cultural drift, where a culture fragments like we discussed above and the new cultures retain their shared heritage. One of those is direct derivation, as with the myth of Noah's flood being taken from Utnapishtim's. Another is indirect influence exerted from local or influential cultures/stories. Even stories originating from cultures not in contact share commonalities just by virtue of being stories. There are only so many tropes one can use. There are only so many variations you can make on one theme.

 

[Muhammed]

We know the creation of woman from man and man from dirt 6,000 years ago didn't actually happen. We know there wasn't a global flood that wiped out all life that wasn't put on a boat. We know that Hebrew isn't the mother of all other languages on the planet. We know the entire population of the Hebrew tribes weren't enslaved by the Egyptians to bake bricks. Assuming that there was an enslaved Hebrew population, or at least a population that escaped slavery and converted to their religion, we have better explanations for how they would have reached Canaan than parting a sea with a staff and a magic word. We know Canaan wasn't conquered by the Hebrews as a foreign invading force, partially because they were native to the region to begin with. We're pretty sure Judea/Israel was never more than a minor kingdom that answered to whichever was the dominant empire of the time. I'm unaware of any key story that may have actually happened, at least as recorded in the Bible. Even the clearly metaphorical fiction is surpassed by the Sumerian originals.

You have some really weird, irgnorant and idiotic interpetations.

People who interpret the OT that way are idiots.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

We know the creation of woman from man and man from dirt 6,000 years ago didn't actually happen. We know there wasn't a global flood that wiped out all life that wasn't put on a boat. We know that Hebrew isn't the mother of all other languages on the planet. We know the entire population of the Hebrew tribes weren't enslaved by the Egyptians to bake bricks. Assuming that there was an enslaved Hebrew population, or at least a population that escaped slavery and converted to their religion, we have better explanations for how they would have reached Canaan than parting a sea with a staff and a magic word. We know Canaan wasn't conquered by the Hebrews as a foreign invading force, partially because they were native to the region to begin with. We're pretty sure Judea/Israel was never more than a minor kingdom that answered to whichever was the dominant empire of the time. I'm unaware of any key story that may have actually happened, at least as recorded in the Bible. Even the clearly metaphorical fiction is surpassed by the Sumerian originals.

You have some really weird, irgnorant and idiotic interpetations.

People who interpret the OT that way are idiots.

What is the correct way to interpret it if it doesn't mean exactly what it clearly portrays as historical fact?

 

[Muhammed]

We know the creation of woman from man and man from dirt 6,000 years ago didn't actually happen. We know there wasn't a global flood that wiped out all life that wasn't put on a boat. We know that Hebrew isn't the mother of all other languages on the planet. We know the entire population of the Hebrew tribes weren't enslaved by the Egyptians to bake bricks. Assuming that there was an enslaved Hebrew population, or at least a population that escaped slavery and converted to their religion, we have better explanations for how they would have reached Canaan than parting a sea with a staff and a magic word. We know Canaan wasn't conquered by the Hebrews as a foreign invading force, partially because they were native to the region to begin with. We're pretty sure Judea/Israel was never more than a minor kingdom that answered to whichever was the dominant empire of the time. I'm unaware of any key story that may have actually happened, at least as recorded in the Bible. Even the clearly metaphorical fiction is surpassed by the Sumerian originals.

You have some really weird, irgnorant and idiotic interpetations.

People who interpret the OT that way are idiots.

What is the correct way to interpret it if it doesn't mean exactly what it clearly portrays as historical fact?

What you dejected ex-Christians always do is consider the bible to be a religious text and then interpret it in the most absurd and illogical way possible.

It's fucking pathetic.

 

[chikenwing]

We know the creation of woman from man and man from dirt 6,000 years ago didn't actually happen. We know there wasn't a global flood that wiped out all life that wasn't put on a boat. We know that Hebrew isn't the mother of all other languages on the planet. We know the entire population of the Hebrew tribes weren't enslaved by the Egyptians to bake bricks. Assuming that there was an enslaved Hebrew population, or at least a population that escaped slavery and converted to their religion, we have better explanations for how they would have reached Canaan than parting a sea with a staff and a magic word. We know Canaan wasn't conquered by the Hebrews as a foreign invading force, partially because they were native to the region to begin with. We're pretty sure Judea/Israel was never more than a minor kingdom that answered to whichever was the dominant empire of the time. I'm unaware of any key story that may have actually happened, at least as recorded in the Bible. Even the clearly metaphorical fiction is surpassed by the Sumerian originals.

Another bigot,trying to pass his opinions as fact.