Creation

[Derek]

As slaves in Egypt, the Hebrews would have brought some of the images in Egyptian mythology into Israel with them. Along with the images would have been the broadly drawn characters such as Isis, Horus, and Osiris. While creation from my research seems to be the most commonly written about myth in ancient society, I'm going to assume that the other posters on this forum are already familiar with the Garden of Eden story.  The fact of the matter is that trees protected people from the hot sun in ancient Egypt and it was believed that the gods were sheltered by and even lived in trees. Due to the rarity of trees in ancient Egypt, trees were held in high respect. Even more interesting in regards to Genesis is that in ancient Egypt; goddesses associated with protection and nurturing were closely associated with trees much like Eve (mother of all living) was associated with the tree of knowledge.  This is not a coincidence.

"Hathor, known as the 'Mistress of the Date Palm,' is depicted in the Book of the Dead as standing in front of the Date Palm.  In funerary literature, Nut occurred as a sycamore tree goddess. Sycamores were often planted near tombs and offered shade, food, and water to the dead souls" (Oakes and Gahlin 332).  There was also the sacred ished, which was associated with the rising sun and was fruit-bearing. This tree was protected from the serpent demon Apophis by the 'great cat of Heliopolis' who sat in the tree's shade (Oakes and Gahlin 333). The serpent from the Garden of Eden is clearly and idea that was developed while the Hebrews were in Egypt from the repetition of serpent demon who was kept away from the ished.  Both contain creation stories of a serpent, demon, a powerful tree, and a female character.

I'm saving the rest of my debate for later after we get some replies. What do you all think?

[John Dibble]

Speculation. We had a discussion a while back about whether there was any conclusive evidence whether or not the Hebrews were ever enslave en masse in Egypt like the biblical account indicates. If there is evidence it isn't even close to conclusive. For this idea of yours to have weight you first must show that the Hebrews were actually there.

That said, it would not be unusual at all if the Hebrews' creation myths were influenced by other sources, Egyptian or otherwise.

[Derek]

Speculation. We had a discussion a while back about whether there was any conclusive evidence whether or not the Hebrews were ever enslave en masse in Egypt like the biblical account indicates. If there is evidence it isn't even close to conclusive. For this idea of yours to have weight you first must show that the Hebrews were actually there.

That said, it would not be unusual at all if the Hebrews' creation myths were influenced by other sources, Egyptian or otherwise.

just a coincidence in similarities? sure

[John Dibble]

Speculation. We had a discussion a while back about whether there was any conclusive evidence whether or not the Hebrews were ever enslave en masse in Egypt like the biblical account indicates. If there is evidence it isn't even close to conclusive. For this idea of yours to have weight you first must show that the Hebrews were actually there.

That said, it would not be unusual at all if the Hebrews' creation myths were influenced by other sources, Egyptian or otherwise.

just a coincidence in similarities? sure

Maybe a coincidence, maybe not. I'm not taking a stance, just noting that unless you can show evidence for the influence that the idea isn't any more than speculation. Maybe they are related in the way you suggest. Maybe it's the opposite where the Egyptian myth is influence by the Hebrew one. Maybe they just share a common origin rather than having influenced eachother, which again would not be unusual if they were in the same region for any particular amount of time. Or they could be completely independent. It's hard to tell, especially since much of the tradition was oral for a long period of time and evidence of a connection would be hard to come by.

[Derek]

Speculation. We had a discussion a while back about whether there was any conclusive evidence whether or not the Hebrews were ever enslave en masse in Egypt like the biblical account indicates. If there is evidence it isn't even close to conclusive. For this idea of yours to have weight you first must show that the Hebrews were actually there.

That said, it would not be unusual at all if the Hebrews' creation myths were influenced by other sources, Egyptian or otherwise.

just a coincidence in similarities? sure

Maybe a coincidence, maybe not. I'm not taking a stance, just noting that unless you can show evidence for the influence that the idea isn't any more than speculation. Maybe they are related in the way you suggest. Maybe it's the opposite where the Egyptian myth is influence by the Hebrew one. Maybe they just share a common origin rather than having influenced eachother, which again would not be unusual if they were in the same region for any particular amount of time. Or they could be completely independent. It's hard to tell, especially since much of the tradition was oral for a long period of time and evidence of a connection would be hard to come by.

All you ever do is talk all day about not taking a stance and bring up what ifs while contributing nothing to the conversation. I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list. It's highly unlikely anything else happened other than the SIMPLE solution that the Hebrews were influenced while they were held captive. Hell it even states in the Bible that some of the escaped under Ramses II and in 1207 BCE the Mernepta Statue in Egypt speaks of a peasant revolt in a highly negative manner which is very much how Pharaoh would have looked at the exodus. Going off of the time lines from when the two ruled it makes perfect sense. We can debate all day about the what ifs and even go as far as to doubt our physical existence but where has that ever gotten anyone?

[Derek]

Looking further into the creation stories, in ancient Egypt, a fertility god named Min was worshiped under a cypress tree.  Osiris, an Egyptian god, is also associated with trees because a willow tree was thought to shelter his dead body (Oakes and Gahlin 333). Trees in ancient Egypt were connected with the creation story in Genesis when looking at their relation to the culture's respective deities. I am not suggesting that the Hebrews copied directly from the Egyptians, but the point was more the fact that the symbolic trees in Egyptian mythology are very similar to the one in the Garden of Eden.  What I am suggesting is that the "tree of knowledge" was most likely a result of Egyptian influence, especially when some of the Hebrews used to be slaves in Egypt.  There are a few similarities between both cultures' creation stories though. While it can be the case that both the Hebrews and Egyptians had an overall view of trees being connected with deities, the fact remains that the Egyptian version was written many centuries before Genesis. The face also remains that the Hebrews were once slaves in Egypt (some of them NOT ALL).  I date the Genesis 2 story to be written between 922-722 BCE while the northern Israelis seceded from Judah under the reign of Solomon. 

[John Dibble]

All you ever do is talk all day about not taking a stance and bring up what ifs while contributing nothing to the conversation.

First off I don't talk about not taking a stance, I talk about arriving to conclusions based on evidence. If there isn't sufficient evidence to make a conclusion, I advocate not making one. You can speculate on the possibilities all you want, but without evidence you're jumping to a conclusion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go ahead. If you don't feel like listening to reason then I have no control over that - whether or not you act as a fool is your own choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because one possibility seems to be more simple than others does not mean it is correct, nor does it mean that there is any evidence for it. For instance evolution is not the most simple solution proposed to describe why we have the variety of life we do today, but all evidence points to it being the correct one.

Besides, none of my other proposed possibilities were complex - they were all quite simple, so I don't know where you would even get the idea that this argument would hold any water.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because you can wishfully link two recorded events it does not mean that the two events are actually related, or that either account is actually true to begin with. As stated there isn't even any conclusive evidence that there was a mass enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians as depicted in the Bible, so you might want to try to prove that first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not debating what ifs, I am presenting plausible alternatives.

I have no idea where you think I'd go so far as to doubt our physical existence, considering physical evidence is what I'm asking for.

[Derek]

All you ever do is talk all day about not taking a stance and bring up what ifs while contributing nothing to the conversation.

First off I don't talk about not taking a stance, I talk about arriving to conclusions based on evidence. If there isn't sufficient evidence to make a conclusion, I advocate not making one. You can speculate on the possibilities all you want, but without evidence you're jumping to a conclusion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go ahead. If you don't feel like listening to reason then I have no control over that - whether or not you act as a fool is your own choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because one possibility seems to be more simple than others does not mean it is correct, nor does it mean that there is any evidence for it. For instance evolution is not the most simple solution proposed to describe why we have the variety of life we do today, but all evidence points to it being the correct one.

Besides, none of my other proposed possibilities were complex - they were all quite simple, so I don't know where you would even get the idea that this argument would hold any water.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because you can wishfully link two recorded events it does not mean that the two events are actually related, or that either account is actually true to begin with. As stated there isn't even any conclusive evidence that there was a mass enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians as depicted in the Bible, so you might want to try to prove that first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not debating what ifs, I am presenting plausible alternatives.

I have no idea where you think I'd go so far as to doubt our physical existence, considering physical evidence is what I'm asking for.

Have you read the statue? It directly speaks of the Exodus from the Pharaoh's point of view. You suggesting that it's made up and that Exodus is made up is neither intelligent or probable. It's likely that things happened and were written about from different view points.

[John Dibble]

Have you read the statue? It directly speaks of the Exodus from the Pharaoh's point of view.

Actually, no, that's what you want it to be speaking of. And if you'd actually look it up the thing on the Statue is about this particular pharaoh having a victory against Israel in Palestine, not some peasant revolt. This would place this pharaoh's reign AFTER the supposed Exodus if it indeed did occur, so it in no way corroborates the the Exodus. At best it corroborates the existence of Israel, but the existence of Israel isn't what's in doubt. Source

Since you can't even get your evidence straight, the rest of your argument falls out the window so I won't even bother with it.

[Derek]

Have you read the statue? It directly speaks of the Exodus from the Pharaoh's point of view.

Actually, no, that's what you want it to be speaking of. And if you'd actually look it up the thing on the Statue is about this particular pharaoh having a victory against Israel in Palestine, not some peasant revolt. This would place this pharaoh's reign AFTER the supposed Exodus if it indeed did occur, so it in no way corroborates the the Exodus. At best it corroborates the existence of Israel, but the existence of Israel isn't what's in doubt. Source

Since you can't even get your evidence straight, the rest of your argument falls out the window so I won't even bother with it.

The Merneptah statue is the earliest reference in an ancient Near Eastern source of any person, entity or event mentioned in the Bible that testifies to the presence of a group called Israel in the land of Canaan toward the end of the thirteenth century BCE, and thus provides a date before which the Exodus must have occurred. According to biblical chronology it took 40 years for the Exodus to occur so the length of time between Ramses and Merneptah makes sense. Not only that but it would allow for a group called Israel to become established by the time of Merneptah so as to be mentioned in his victory hymn. His father, Rameses II who ruled from 1279-1213 BCE was the pharaoh during the Exodus and his father Seti I (1294-1279) was the one who began persecuting the Hebrews. This would also match up with the biblical view.  Of course Merneptah speaks of victory because it's what he wants his people in Egypt to think. It's not like they had 24/7 cable news media to provide a different perspective. Even if Merneptah would have sent an army to bring the escaped Hebrews back to Egypt, a loss to the Hebrews would have been spoken of in Egypt as a victory. That was not uncommon in ancient times.

The population that is spoken of in Exodus 12:37-38 of 2 million is impossibly high so it's not like the Egyptians were missing that many slaves suddenly. It took place over a generation likely. Let's not hold the 40 years to be exact or literal either. So say a generation from the mid-thirteenth century would've been roughly 1210 and the statue was formed in 1207.  Do not be thrown off by Merneptah speaking of Israel being laid waste because the Egyptians would not have known any better and it would have allowed for a victory celebration and a very high view of the pharaoh. 

It's possible the exodus took place over centuries as well. It is probable that an exodus could have occurred each year or every few years during drought season. 1 Kings 6:1 speaks of the exodus taking place 480 years before the building of the temple which was in 965 BCE but that is suspicious because the 12 tribes multiplied by a 40 is equal to 480 and 40 is the typical number for a generation in that time. That does however provide a symbolic link between Moses and the building of the Temple. Some would argue that the exodus occurred during the reign of Akhenaten the sun king who practiced monotheism and even communicated through letters with the land of Canaan. However, this does not provide for Merneptah's statue over a century later speaking of victory in Israel as if it were something new.  Had it happened that much longer ago in history, the issue would have been over with amongst the rulers. Plus, the Canaans were already in Israel before the Hebrews when it was referred to as the land of Canaan so it's entirely possible that he was communicating with the Canaanites. Again don't be surprised by the victorious language in the Merneptah statue because propaganda worked alot better back then.

[John Dibble]

Once again you're speculating. You want there to be a connection, so you're claiming there is one. All the statue shows is that there was a tribe of people in a nation called Israel and that they existed in the area of Palestine, it does not show that the Israelites or their ancestors were ever slaves to Egypt. Since the Biblical account of Exodus is by your own admission probably filled with false information, it is not a reliable source of information. Therefore we need an additional source of information to confirm that they were enslaved in any numbers. Do you have such a source or not?

[afleitch]

Even if we were to assume that the account really means that a population of some 2 million slaves (which, if correct would be extraordinarily high for the ancient world) who co-habited with a 'master' population of comparative strength (or less) moved out of Egypt in a series of waves it doesn't prove that they were there to start off with.

As arable as the Nile Delta and valley was at that time, it could not have supported as high a population as has been summised from the Bible. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that they could have survived outside such an arable land for any length of time. Consider also the amount of livestock such a large population would need to take with them. Consider the sheer explosion in population that would have occured in a rather arid Israel that again no neighbouring civilisation records. Genetic and archaelogical evidence assessed from the earliest settlements suggests a humbler local origin, in line with Caananites and other early semitic settlements. They even share the same early alphabet. There is nothing to suggest that the Israelite's arrived later.

While some movement from Egypt (perhaps after a period of enslavement) is not impossible, evidence suggests that the Hebrews were in modern day Israel since long before (if we are to accept the Biblical account) the rather wide time period in which an exodus was supposed to occur) An exodus, on balance did not occur as the bible describes and if it did could hadly be called an 'exodus', rather a group of people after being enslaved returning home to their own people.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As slaves in Egypt, the Hebrews would have brought some of the images in Egyptian mythology into Israel with them. Along with the images would have been the broadly drawn characters such as Isis, Horus, and Osiris. While creation from my research seems to be the most commonly written about myth in ancient society, I'm going to assume that the other posters on this forum are already familiar with the Garden of Eden story.  The fact of the matter is that trees protected people from the hot sun in ancient Egypt and it was believed that the gods were sheltered by and even lived in trees. Due to the rarity of trees in ancient Egypt, trees were held in high respect. Even more interesting in regards to Genesis is that in ancient Egypt; goddesses associated with protection and nurturing were closely associated with trees much like Eve (mother of all living) was associated with the tree of knowledge.  This is not a coincidence.

"Hathor, known as the 'Mistress of the Date Palm,' is depicted in the Book of the Dead as standing in front of the Date Palm.  In funerary literature, Nut occurred as a sycamore tree goddess. Sycamores were often planted near tombs and offered shade, food, and water to the dead souls" (Oakes and Gahlin 332).  There was also the sacred ished, which was associated with the rising sun and was fruit-bearing. This tree was protected from the serpent demon Apophis by the 'great cat of Heliopolis' who sat in the tree's shade (Oakes and Gahlin 333). The serpent from the Garden of Eden is clearly and idea that was developed while the Hebrews were in Egypt from the repetition of serpent demon who was kept away from the ished.  Both contain creation stories of a serpent, demon, a powerful tree, and a female character.

I'm saving the rest of my debate for later after we get some replies. What do you all think?

is this typical of what you learned in seminary, or is this the result of your own study?  in other words, is your viewpoint of scripture taught by your seminary, or were you a black sheep within the seminary?

[Derek]

Once again you're speculating. You want there to be a connection, so you're claiming there is one. All the statue shows is that there was a tribe of people in a nation called Israel and that they existed in the area of Palestine, it does not show that the Israelites or their ancestors were ever slaves to Egypt. Since the Biblical account of Exodus is by your own admission probably filled with false information, it is not a reliable source of information. Therefore we need an additional source of information to confirm that they were enslaved in any numbers. Do you have such a source or not?

It's right in front of you and simple. It is reliable if you know what they meant and how they told stories. If not then no you can't read it as a 21st century American. Yes there are exaggerations but it's not a completely made up story to tell at bed time. The point wasn't how accurate a story was told but how it was told. Yes slaves were accounted for in Egyptian writings too and when I get done with this online assessment and get up from my nap I'll be demonstrating about Adam (Adamah) and Atum.

[Derek]

As slaves in Egypt, the Hebrews would have brought some of the images in Egyptian mythology into Israel with them. Along with the images would have been the broadly drawn characters such as Isis, Horus, and Osiris. While creation from my research seems to be the most commonly written about myth in ancient society, I'm going to assume that the other posters on this forum are already familiar with the Garden of Eden story.  The fact of the matter is that trees protected people from the hot sun in ancient Egypt and it was believed that the gods were sheltered by and even lived in trees. Due to the rarity of trees in ancient Egypt, trees were held in high respect. Even more interesting in regards to Genesis is that in ancient Egypt; goddesses associated with protection and nurturing were closely associated with trees much like Eve (mother of all living) was associated with the tree of knowledge.  This is not a coincidence.

"Hathor, known as the 'Mistress of the Date Palm,' is depicted in the Book of the Dead as standing in front of the Date Palm.  In funerary literature, Nut occurred as a sycamore tree goddess. Sycamores were often planted near tombs and offered shade, food, and water to the dead souls" (Oakes and Gahlin 332).  There was also the sacred ished, which was associated with the rising sun and was fruit-bearing. This tree was protected from the serpent demon Apophis by the 'great cat of Heliopolis' who sat in the tree's shade (Oakes and Gahlin 333). The serpent from the Garden of Eden is clearly and idea that was developed while the Hebrews were in Egypt from the repetition of serpent demon who was kept away from the ished.  Both contain creation stories of a serpent, demon, a powerful tree, and a female character.

I'm saving the rest of my debate for later after we get some replies. What do you all think?

is this typical of what you learned in seminary, or is this the result of your own study?  in other words, is your viewpoint of scripture taught by your seminary, or were you a black sheep within the seminary?

This is agreed by Old Testament Scholar Michael Coogan and very typical of many seminaries. If I had lost my faith after knowing this information, then I wouldn't have been cut out for ministry now would I be? I did not lose by faith and that is not why I'm no longer in seminary. If you base your faith on the understanding of a 21st century American then you will have nothing more than blind faith. Believing because you were taught to believe and not because of reason or rationale.

[Derek]

Even if we were to assume that the account really means that a population of some 2 million slaves (which, if correct would be extraordinarily high for the ancient world) who co-habited with a 'master' population of comparative strength (or less) moved out of Egypt in a series of waves it doesn't prove that they were there to start off with.

As arable as the Nile Delta and valley was at that time, it could not have supported as high a population as has been summised from the Bible. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that they could have survived outside such an arable land for any length of time. Consider also the amount of livestock such a large population would need to take with them. Consider the sheer explosion in population that would have occured in a rather arid Israel that again no neighbouring civilisation records. Genetic and archaelogical evidence assessed from the earliest settlements suggests a humbler local origin, in line with Caananites and other early semitic settlements. They even share the same early alphabet. There is nothing to suggest that the Israelite's arrived later.

While some movement from Egypt (perhaps after a period of enslavement) is not impossible, evidence suggests that the Hebrews were in modern day Israel since long before (if we are to accept the Biblical account) the rather wide time period in which an exodus was supposed to occur) An exodus, on balance did not occur as the bible describes and if it did could hadly be called an 'exodus', rather a group of people after being enslaved returning home to their own people.

I don't think anyone believes that the number of slaves who migrated to Egypt was 2 million. Also did you know that the Red Sea in Hebrew translates to Sea of Reeds? Yes and if you read the other versions of the exodus in the Bible you'll even find that their chariots got stuck in the mud which is something common among reeds. Google to Hebrew word "Yam Suf" it is the first thing they teach you in religion departments at the undergrad level and in seminary.

[John Dibble]

Once again you're speculating. You want there to be a connection, so you're claiming there is one. All the statue shows is that there was a tribe of people in a nation called Israel and that they existed in the area of Palestine, it does not show that the Israelites or their ancestors were ever slaves to Egypt. Since the Biblical account of Exodus is by your own admission probably filled with false information, it is not a reliable source of information. Therefore we need an additional source of information to confirm that they were enslaved in any numbers. Do you have such a source or not?

It's right in front of you and simple. It is reliable if you know what they meant and how they told stories. If not then no you can't read it as a 21st century American. Yes there are exaggerations but it's not a completely made up story to tell at bed time. The point wasn't how accurate a story was told but how it was told. Yes slaves were accounted for in Egyptian writings too and when I get done with this online assessment and get up from my nap I'll be demonstrating about Adam (Adamah) and Atum.

Accuracy does matter. The more inaccurate a story is the less you can rely on it for factual information. Since the Exodus account is not accurate, not to mention quite fantastical, we can't rely on it to draw factual conclusions. We need an alternative source to corroborate it. I've asked for that, but you've yet to provide it. All you have provided is a statue that references Israel, but not the Exodus. The fact that you don't understand why that isn't corroboration shows just how poor of an understanding you have about how evidence works. It's quite apparent you just accepted the things you were taught in seminary without actually questioning them.

[Derek]

Once again you're speculating. You want there to be a connection, so you're claiming there is one. All the statue shows is that there was a tribe of people in a nation called Israel and that they existed in the area of Palestine, it does not show that the Israelites or their ancestors were ever slaves to Egypt. Since the Biblical account of Exodus is by your own admission probably filled with false information, it is not a reliable source of information. Therefore we need an additional source of information to confirm that they were enslaved in any numbers. Do you have such a source or not?

It's right in front of you and simple. It is reliable if you know what they meant and how they told stories. If not then no you can't read it as a 21st century American. Yes there are exaggerations but it's not a completely made up story to tell at bed time. The point wasn't how accurate a story was told but how it was told. Yes slaves were accounted for in Egyptian writings too and when I get done with this online assessment and get up from my nap I'll be demonstrating about Adam (Adamah) and Atum.

Accuracy does matter. The more inaccurate a story is the less you can rely on it for factual information. Since the Exodus account is not accurate, not to mention quite fantastical, we can't rely on it to draw factual conclusions. We need an alternative source to corroborate it. I've asked for that, but you've yet to provide it. All you have provided is a statue that references Israel, but not the Exodus. The fact that you don't understand why that isn't corroboration shows just how poor of an understanding you have about how evidence works. It's quite apparent you just accepted the things you were taught in seminary without actually questioning them.

The alternative sources are Egyptian records and the Merneptah statue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is agreed by Old Testament Scholar Michael Coogan and very typical of many seminaries.

Yeah, I had heard many seminaries do nothing but explain away the whole bible.  But I had never encountered such a strong example of it before.

---

If you base your faith on the understanding of a 21st century American then you will have nothing more than blind faith. Believing because you were taught to believe and not because of reason or rationale.

I was saved while alone in my apartment reading the bible in Oct 1992 and was not attending any church at the time – I was not taught what to believe.  To say that scripture cannot be understood without seminary would mean that scripture was not intended to applicable for the masses regardless of the timeframe – something I totally reject. 

Just pick up any of the NT epistles – they quote story after story from the OT written a thousand years earlier and apply it directly to the lives of the readers – and that application is done without any assumption of seminary schooling.  Why is that not obvious?   Why do people assume that scripture is not meant to be consumed by the common layity?

Consider the following passage that repeatedly quotes events that took place over a 1000 years before the epistle was written:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you not see how Paul was able to quote script and apply it directly to the lives of his listeners WITHOUT the need for extra-scriptural context?  The transferable lessons of the bible don’t require finding some lost context as if the scripture forgot to include it, rather applying scripture to your life simply requires a knowledge of scripture.  If a separate context is necessary to understand scripture, then the scripture has to play second fiddle to whatever context it lacks, so basically whatever outside context you apply to scripture will trump the scripture.  The ONLY thing seminary needs to teach you about scripture is that it is all about Jesus Christ and is therefore to be interpreted from a Chirst centered point of view, because that is the only “context” the NT uses to interpret the OT and establish NT doctrine.

I have seen “extra” context used to drain the meaning of scripture time and time again:  e.g. “the NT doesn’t intend to say all meat is clean because the letters of the NT were written to churches which were already following the clean/unclean meat guidelines.”   So, because it is possible to trump  and waterdown scripture by overlaying it with a context that is contrary to it, you have to find out what the scripture actually says by trusting the scripture.  Which is why I always advise people to read the bible WITHOUT a study guide.

The only thing required to interpret scripture is the Holy Spirit:

1John 2:27 “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”

As it is written: 

John 6:44-46 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

[Derek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is agreed by Old Testament Scholar Michael Coogan and very typical of many seminaries.

Yeah, I had heard many seminaries do nothing but explain away the whole bible.  But I had never encountered such a strong example of it before.

---

If you base your faith on the understanding of a 21st century American then you will have nothing more than blind faith. Believing because you were taught to believe and not because of reason or rationale.

I was saved while alone in my apartment reading the bible in Oct 1992 and was not attending any church at the time – I was not taught what to believe.  To say that scripture cannot be understood without seminary would mean that scripture was not intended to applicable for the masses regardless of the timeframe – something I totally reject. 

Just pick up any of the NT epistles – they quote story after story from the OT written a thousand years earlier and apply it directly to the lives of the readers – and that application is done without any assumption of seminary schooling.  Why is that not obvious?   Why do people assume that scripture is not meant to be consumed by the common layity?

Consider the following passage that repeatedly quotes events that took place over a 1000 years before the epistle was written:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you not see how Paul was able to quote script and apply it directly to the lives of his listeners WITHOUT the need for extra-scriptural context?  The transferable lessons of the bible don’t require finding some lost context as if the scripture forgot to include it, rather applying scripture to your life simply requires a knowledge of scripture.  If a separate context is necessary to understand scripture, then the scripture has to play second fiddle to whatever context it lacks, so basically whatever outside context you apply to scripture will trump the scripture.  The ONLY thing seminary needs to teach you about scripture is that it is all about Jesus Christ and is therefore to be interpreted from a Chirst centered point of view, because that is the only “context” the NT uses to interpret the OT and establish NT doctrine.

I have seen “extra” context used to drain the meaning of scripture time and time again:  e.g. “the NT doesn’t intend to say all meat is clean because the letters of the NT were written to churches which were already following the clean/unclean meat guidelines.”   So, because it is possible to trump  and waterdown scripture by overlaying it with a context that is contrary to it, you have to find out what the scripture actually says by trusting the scripture.  Which is why I always advise people to read the bible WITHOUT a study guide.

The only thing required to interpret scripture is the Holy Spirit:

1John 2:27 “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”

As it is written: 

John 6:44-46 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

That's all a good point but the topic is creation. Let me finish this assessment.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's all a good point but the topic is creation. Let me finish this assessment.

understood.  sorry I don't really have a comment to add to this "creation" debate, it's just that your views about the creation account are not in line with the writters of the NT.  you really have nothing in common with any of the writers of the bible, OT or NT

[John Dibble]

The alternative sources are Egyptian records and the Merneptah statue.

Once again, all the statue shows is that the Egyptians recognized the existence of some nation called Israel at the time and that they claim to have had a victory over them. It does not corroborate Exodus in any way, shape, or form.

As far as the "Egyptian records", which ones? You can't say something so vague and expect to be taken seriously.

[Derek]

The alternative sources are Egyptian records and the Merneptah statue.

Once again, all the statue shows is that the Egyptians recognized the existence of some nation called Israel at the time and that they claim to have had a victory over them. It does not corroborate Exodus in any way, shape, or form.

As far as the "Egyptian records", which ones? You can't say something so vague and expect to be taken seriously.

The Egyptian source IS NOT going to refer to it as an exodus. If anything they would have played it up as a victory for the sake of propaganda. It's not like they had 24/7 cable news and the internet to get their information. They knew what they were told by the rulers and that's it. Turning an embarrassing loss by the most powerful army at that time into a victory where Israel lays waste would have been the typical reaction for a ruler in such a situation.

[John Dibble]

The Egyptian source IS NOT going to refer to it as an exodus. If anything they would have played it up as a victory for the sake of propaganda. It's not like they had 24/7 cable news and the internet to get their information. They knew what they were told by the rulers and that's it. Turning an embarrassing loss by the most powerful army at that time into a victory where Israel lays waste would have been the typical reaction for a ruler in such a situation.

Seriously, how retarded do you have to be not to understand this basic fact - the statue refers to a nation of Israel which was already established in Palestine. If the account of Exodus is even remotely true, then Israel wouldn't have even existed at the time, and thusly this statue could clearly not be referring to the events of Exodus. Rather it would have to be referring to it sometime afterward. Whether the Egyptians would have referred to it as an Exodus or not isn't even remotely relevant to that.

How can I make it more clear? If the Biblical account is to even be remotely believed, then the founding of Israel comes after Exodus, not before. You are essentially insisting that the Egyptians claimed to have gone to war against a nation that didn't even exist at the time!


And don't think I didn't notice you not answering about the other Egyptian records. You're still on the hook for that - you claim they exist so put up or shut up.

[Derek]

So let us continue with our ancient friend Adam adamah  which can mean either mankind or from dirt. In Egyptian mythology, Atum is the creator god which is strikingly similar to Adam in the Hebrew creation story of Genesis 2. "Atum arose from the primordial waters of chaos known as Nun" (Oakes and Gahlin 282). It is also striking to see the similarity between NUN and NONE both of which refer to NOTHING. Atum brought the elements of chaos into being. This deity also "shown as a cat next to Re who is also shown as a cat on a stela from the nineteenth Dynasty" (Oakes and Gahlin 324). The biggest thing that stands out to me is the similarity between Atum and Adam so let us now explore the LITERAL MEANING OF THESE NAMES.

"Atum in ancient Egypt, meant 'the All or the Complete One.' By masturbating he was able to spit out the deities Shu and Tefnut." This was the first male and female pair (Oakes and Gahlin 301). Obviously I do not believe that this happened but in mythology it makes sense being that this god is bisexual. Want more? Yes, Atum, the CREATOR god, is portrayed as a SERPRENT as Satan is in Genesis 2. Therefore, Atum in Egypt can be linked to Adam and the serpent whom the Hebrews have in their mythology.

Now let's take our ancient friend Adam aside for a minute. In Hebrew his name translates to Adamah which means "from ground" or "from dirt" and does not refer to one particular person but to an entire race known as mankind. In other words, God created mankind from the ground. This is just like the Babylonian creation myth when "Marduk creates humans from the blood of the demon captain Kingu for the purpose of serving the gods" (Kessler 80). The reason I say they are similar is because, notice how in Babylon we are created out of blood to serve the gods and in Genesis 2, Yahweh creates Adam to till the garden. Both cases have a very low view of humanity and neither sound very appealing. Babylonian mythology also states that when humans were created it caused chaos. In Genesis 2, it wasn't long before humans were banned from the Garden of Eden.

If anything the Jews were influenced by the Egyptians and not the other way around. As I mentioned the stela from the nineteenth dynasty that shows Re and Atum as cats dates between 1295-1186 BCE. It WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNLIKELY in those times for a story or myth to circulate for a few centuries before it was written. I do not know of a serious scholar who dates Genesis before 1050 BCE and hardly any who date it before 950 BCE. Keep in mind that the 50 is only for the sake of round numbers. It is not the case of the telephone game either. Look with the telephone game, half the fun is seeing who is going to screw things up. In those times oral tradition was held FAR ABOVE written tradition.  If someone got a story even slightly wrong, someone else would be along to correct it. These stories were their religion and their heritage. Lastly, I know you're wondering why the Hebrews didn't keep the story that the Egyptians had in the first place. Would you keep the stories or gods that your captors once forced upon you? Besides, back then each culture had it's own separate religion as religion was more of a way of life than a faith.  The new story would have likely developed within the first generation after the first exodus or two into the Promised Land.