Part 5 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Yup, Biblical scholars does question not to deny the Exodus as part of their continue research either to correlate it with earthly or spiritual facts.

 

So much anger, bitterness, trouble soul, hate and spiteful why?
God has gave life, and men have destroy it.

 

Oh how quaint. Making a public admission that there is flame baiting going on in this thread. Seemingly you are disappointed that Wanren is sufficiently equipped intellectually to recognize such prodding and is willful enough to ignore such prodding (inciting to anger).

 

I make it blatantly clear in the post I was talking to Mitt Ryan.

- - - Updated - - -

"The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

"A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness"

"No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds"

 

So what. This is a public forum and the statement was written in the public forum. Had you wanted to direct the message to Mitt Ryan outside the public forum, then you should have used the Private Messaging technology that is available.

 

How were men more evil during the time of Noah than they are now?

 

To be fair I think Mitt is replying to comments in order. He's probably a couple hundred behind by now. I recall him writing about his process some time ago. Maybe he will get to this point by June or July.

 

Quote Posted by GraspingforPeace:

You two obviously believe in a literal global flood as described in Genesis. Despite the fact that science has pretty much completely debunked this idea, this is more of a theological quandary about the story. If Noah's flood truly happened, why is the story ripped, in some parts word for word, from the Epic of Gilgamesh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science has not pretty much completely debunked the Great Flood described in Genesis. That is just a false wish by atheists and so it is not factual.

Furthermore there is no conclusive proof that Noah's flood story was ripped (copied) from the Epic of Gilgamesh. From the early days of the comparative study of these two flood accounts there is an obvious relationship.

It was thought that the Gilgamesh account was older than the assumed dating of Genesis. However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements with alterations to the original.

The most accepted theory among evangelicals is that both have one common source, predating all the Sumerian forms. The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version.

The Hebrews were known for handing down their records and tradition. The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological.

The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the benevolent guidance of God until it was finally written down by Moses.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, therefore, contains the corrupted account preserved by people who did not follow the God of the Hebrews.

 

So the God creature told Moses everything in Genesis chapter 1? Or did Moses make it up?

 

When did I say that I wanted to direct a message to Mitt outside the public forum? I directed my message to him IN the public forum. Are you trying to say I can only talk directly to people through private messages? Then what is the point of the "quoting" feature? Aren't you addressing me, right now? You're breaking your own rule, you should only be private messaging me!

This is just ridiculous. You obviously didn't read my post and you assumed I was talking to WanRen for some reason even though I addressed Mitt Ryan directly multiple times.

 

Wrong message.

- - - Updated - - -

You indicated that the message was meant for Mitt Ryan. Meaning Mitt Ryan only. My words referencing the private messaging system and outside the public forum was an advisement based on your notice that was seemingly designed to indicate that the message was for Mitt Ryan only.
"I make it blatantly clear in the post I was talking to Mitt Ryan." So, like I said before, if you want to talk to Mitt Ryan in private, then use the pm system as opposed to the public side of the forum. PS... quit taking things out of context.

 

I don't give a damn if other people read my messages to individuals. What is wrong with you?

 

Your comment was " Mitt Ryan, you aren't answering anything, you're just saying what your beliefs are and ignoring any prodding."

The subject of my posting was the admitted flame bait (prodding)(inciting to anger). Yes it was addressed to Mitt Ryan and yes I made the error of saying Wanren... Oh well... chalk up one error to me. Now about the admission of flame baiting. Nice of you to admit that there is flame baiting going on.

 

For somebody so familiar with definitions, you should know that there are other meanings for the word "prodding".

 

Well of course there are other definitions to prodding. So what. At the same time you cannot deny that one of those definitions is 'to incite' or elicit. Which goes hand in hand with this little script:
"(5) Flamebaiting.

DELIBERATELY INFLAMING OTHERS IS NOT 'RESPECTFUL DEBATE'

Threads, posts or comments that appear (in the judgment of the moderators) to have been expressed in a manner specifically designed or intended to elicit emotionally charged responses or personal attacks from others are not permitted. This applies to the topic, title, images, language and any other content, and is especially true of any extreme abusive language or slurs directed at racial, religious or other groups, or anything involving threats of violence. Members are allowed to express ANY opinion on the forum, even if others find that opinion itself 'offensive' in some way. However, comments must not be constructed deliberately just to offend or inflame, and abuse is not 'just an expression of opinion'."

Its just one of those little nuances of the English language... multiple definitions which any of them can be used as long as they meet the context of the statement where the defined term is used. Unfortunately you left the statement wide open for multiple interpretations. Learn to clarify.

 

Have you even read the Gilgamesh Epic?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

This is bunk! Sumerian civilization was around long before your christianity ever got started it is one of the oldest ones known.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/csgeg/introduction

You must have a fleet of huge dump trucks to keep hauling this garbage around.

Could not have. Sumerians were older than the Egyptians in terms of civilizations. Was Moses an eyewitness to this creation account? He could not have been. Just as he was not an eyewitness to the Exodus that he never wrote.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html

http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm

Research something before you go making claims without a shred of proof please.

 

Im not angry, hateful or spiteful at all. I simply tell it like it is. You guys know it, thats why you respond with vitriolic sardonic responses. For the record thats what humans do when they are losing the argument. The only angry hateful, troubled, spiteful people here are the ones soliciting tough questions and then refusing to answer any of them. Look at your snide answer when I had the audacity to ask you why women werent allowed to vote for the pope. You answered because its a rule, then when I said thats not an answer you said, its a rule and then basically implied I wasnt smart enough to understand your answer. Surprise you are the bitter spiteful one, go back and reread the posts they are all there. You change my posts as if I said something I didnt then mock me when I told you to stop. Surprise you are the spiteful one there. You still have yet to answer the question cogently (like an adult)

Since you talk about destroying life, so far in human history Christians have won the trophy for total number of human lives taken in the name of your god. Do you really not see a pattern with religious fanatics all over the earth? Those religious fanatics if they get enough power will try to force others to believe what they believe else be killed. Ill wager if this were the 15th century and we were having this conversation you would have accused me of being a witch by now just to shut me up. Am I right?

 

wow who picks up that mess in heaven? Is there a janitor?

 

It seems a bit pointless to name this thread Part five, when parts 1-4 answered very few hard questions whatsoever. I would spend the time to re-post the many questions that were dodged, ignored, or bypassed through obvious and rather poor attempts at misdirection....but what would be the point considering it is quite clear they would suffer the same fate.

 

The position is that continue research is still needed, what scholars are now theorising that Jews were Hyksos or that they were inhabitants of Canaan. This theory has some consequences to the present in regards to claims by many Arabs that Jews stole the lands from Palestinians and Israel is an illegal State. If the scholars are correct that Jews were Canaanite or part of the many tribe in Canaan then the argument of the right of Israel to exist will have more legitimacy.

Scholars agree that the history of Israel start with the nation of Judea and Northern Israel that continue started by Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon etc. to the conquest of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece and eventually Rome.

What scholars are now trying to determine before the Northern Kingdoms, Judea or the 12 Tribes is where did the Hebrews or Jews originated and it is believe there has been a large Hebrew ancestor people that live in Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews

Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium inscriptions mentioning the Habiru, there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews. Some scholars argue that the name "Hebrew" is related to the name of the seminomadic Habiru people, who are recorded in Egyptian inscriptions of the 13th and 12th centuries BCE as having settled in Egypt.[9][11] This is rebutted by others who propose that the Hebrews are mentioned in older texts of the 3rd Intermediate Period of Egypt (15th century BCE) as Shasu of Yhw.[16] Modern scholars conclude that the attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the Hebrew word ibri (Hebrews) are not fruitful.[17]

The Jewish historian Josephus maintains that the Hyksos were in fact the children of Jacob who joined his son Joseph in Egypt to escape a famine in the land of Canaan. The Hyksos first appeared in Egypt during the eleventh dynasty. They came out of the second intermediate period in control of Avaris and the Nile delta and ruled Lower Egypt as Semite kings (fifteenth dynasty). Kamose, the last king of the Theban 17th Dynasty, refers to the Hyksos King Apophis as a Chieftain of Retjenu (Canaan). At the end of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt, they were expelled by an ethnic Egyptian pharaoh. The term "Hyksos" derives from the Egyptian expression heka khasewet ("rulers of foreign lands"). Josephus records the false etymology that the Greek phrase Hyksos stood for the Egyptian phrase Hekw Shasu meaning the Shepherd Kings, which scholars have only recently shown means "rulers of foreign lands."[18]

Israelites are defined as the descendants of Jacob, son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham. Eber, an ancestor of Jacob (six generations removed), is a distant ancestor of many people, including the Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites and Qahtanites. Among historical scholars,[who?] there is some disagreement about the relationship between the Hebrews and Israelites.
The terms "Hebrews" and "Israelites" usually describe the same people, called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and Israelites afterwards.[11][19]

 

Which completely goes against you saying that no scholar denies that the Exodus happened. Almost all deny that the Exodus as portrayed in the BIble occurred. You were wrong.

Also: "and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".

Whatever you want to "theorize", you are admitting that the Bible is not the truth. Did the Exodus happen, as portrayed in the Bible happen? No.

Also: "However, there are numerous difficulties with the theory, and it is dismissed by scholars."

 

You keep claiming we refuse to answer you tough questions, when in fact it has been answer you just don't like it so you become more hateful. We are not here to win arguments but to share a discussion if winning is what you are looking for then you will always be bitterly angry, because at the end of the day there will be no winner.

You demand simple straight forward answer and this is a clear example you have got your answer that you don't like if I elaborate why then you get angry too, so I just answer it the way you wanted it simple and straight forward.

See you even accuse of changing your post when the site operator has said they think a bug is causing the system to mess up the quote program.

I have pointed out Christian history save the world that is why we have this modern world and you have your computer. If this were the 15th century or 19th century people like you will be rounding up all Christians and sending them to Gulag, killing fields, re-education camps.

 

A job such as that would be designated for those who refused to worship the Lord. I wonder what caliber of person that would be?

 

Oh, so you are now claiming that christians are responsible for the computer? I guess next you will tell us god is CEO of Microsoft.

 

Shows two things. One you dont know your own religion. non believers arent allowed in your heaven and two for some reason you think others should pick up after your messes. Dont worry though there are numerous catholic priests that would love that job.