reply to post by Revolution9
I wanted to simply reply instead of posting a long quote. I have studied ancient religions for a long time. People should invest time in Comparative
Religions objectively because that's how you learn. So many people study them because they have a slanted view against Christianity first, then
Islam, then Judaism, but it's Christianity that gets picked on first. So yes, even atheists and agnostics are taking a subjective view before they
even research anything, because they are trying to find errors.
I have come to the conclusion that all ancient people at one time worshiped the same God in the beginning and took with them the stories of creation
and the flood with them when they migrated across the planet. I accept also that El was from Canaan and that Yaweh was mentioned in the Ugarit texts.
That is without doubt.
Even the ancient Turkic peoples, what we called Anatolia at one time, what the Bible mentions at Hittites, was Hurrian and they worshiped the Sky God
Tengri. For a long time people did not accept the Hittites were real until it was discovered by archeologist. If we were to dismiss any archeological
evidence because it was in the ancient world, then Heinrich Schliemann didn't really discover Troy because that was just the stuff of legend. But he
did and people accept that.
The funny thing about the ancient Hebrews is that they recorded their history in writing on papyrus or skins of animals, they didn't write their
history on stone columns or steles, like others did. And because they didn't, it was easy to pass over. I want to know what qualifies something as
legitimate because it is on a stele? How do we know those Egyptians weren't just writing epic stories of their pharaohs? How do we know it wasn't
some monolithic comic series? But we have been taught to accept their history as it was real.
We have to ask then, why is the history of Israel so passed over, when their history is written on paper? Right now, American history is written on
paper and three thousand years from now, what will they say about Americans? Will they even read the paper or just look at the statues of George
Washington and others? Will they derive some other meaning from those statues if they don't read what is written?
The story of creation is very old and very consistent across the ancient world. The Rig Vedas mention it and the monotheism of Brahman. Even the
Ugaritic text follows the same story, with just a few embellished elements.
I believe Joseph was Imhotep. What we know about Joseph was written by the Hebrews, but we don't have an Egyptian source that calls him
Zaphthathanea. But we know what he did from the Hebrew text, and it is exactly what Imhotep did. So why are people so dismissive about the Hebrew
Bible? Because it mentions one God and the laws created by that God and a God who entered into a covenant relationship with His people.
That is what sets the Hebrew Bible apart from any religious text. It was so unique in that it not only gives character to God, but that God interact
with people on an individual level. There is no other religious text that presents that, what most ancient religions were concerned about was the
fighting between the gods, the sexual relationships of the gods, the gods who never interacted with humanity as a whole or individuals. The closest
one comes is the Avestas of Zoroaster.
The Behustan Inscription gives the same story found in Daniel about Belshazzar losing the kingdom and describes it with the same people and what
It was not that Palestine existed before the Romans, Hadrian was responsible for that. Before, it was called Samaria, and well-known to be the
descendents of those who remained after the Babylonian captivity and the local Canaanites.
In fact, the Bible mentions specifically where the Hebrews came from. They were not called Israelites before Abraham, but after Moses. When
considering the 12 tribes, the mothers were from Syria after Jacob ran away to it. Lot's daughters gave birth to Moab and Ammon, Ruth was from Moab
also. Ezekiel says that the nativity of Jerusalem was Hittite and Canaanite.
But the people became Israel and settled there after Moses. And it is only this group of people who entered into a covenant with Yaweh but you won't
find steles, because that's not how they did things, they chose to write their history on sheep skin. Can we fault them for that? No, certainly not.
But the neighboring countries wrote about Israel, because that's what they did.
So, little archeological evidence does not disprove Israel, it merely proves the Bible more correct when each year archeologist find new things. But
until someone proves to me outside of what was written by the Greeks, I am not obliged to accept Troy was found, Heinrich Schliemann only found a
city. There was nothing written on the city gates or even a signpost that said "Welcome to Troy". He only went on what Homer wrote in the Iliad. So
let me ask this..if we know the Iliad was just an epic story, why believe it carries any more weight than the Bible?
Skeptics, answer that one. Why do you embrace the epic story of the Iliad, which was just a story, but dismiss the Bible's place in history?