evolution vs. creationism

[hairston630]

Got the message. And I agree. I never knew that there was a translation problem before. Interesting.

Doug

Yes the english translations, mainly KJV, translate the land as "the earth" and it causes people to misunderstand what the original hebrew says. Another reference is Noah when he looked out into the waters...In the distance he could see higher mountains which was proof that the earth wasnt covered in water. And the most promising, imo, of all the passages is of course the creation psalm chapter 104:9. The psalmist specifically explains that the waters covered the earth one time during creation and that God set a boundry that the waters could never cross again. That says that this was only a local event and to deny this means you deny the innerancy of scripture...I dont believe anyone can argue around this whether its literal or symbolic.

In genesis 11 on the tower of babel you have the whole [kol] earth [erets] and it was referring to the people of the earth, who all lived in one specific geographic location. It wasnt until much later God then scattered the people over the face of the earth. There are alot of examples of where Kol erets is referring to people rather than the geography of the "whole earth"

Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)

Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)

And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)

Now to whole earth referring to local geography

Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9) (The "whole land" was only the land of Canaan)

And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)

Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add "nor among any of the nations" if "all the earth" referred to the entire planet.)

'

You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)

'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)

Lastly from noahs perspective

Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible

Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;

Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.

Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;

Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

We see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah (Genesis 8:5). Some 40+ days later (Genesis 8:6), Noah sent a dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:8). However, the dove was unable to land because of all the water (Genesis 8:9). Then, the text tells us that water was "on the surface of all the earth." This is obviously a bad translation of kol erets, since we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days. The context makes it clear that kol erets must refer to local geography and should be translated as the "all the land" or "all the ground." In fact, all our major English translations (NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.) make this same error. It is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible "literally" come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global. However, it is apparent that our English "translations" of the Genesis flood text are more than just "translations," but actually interpretations (and probably incorrect ones at that).

There is another indication in the text that the flood did not cover the highest mountains. Again, from Genesis 8:

So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. And the dove came to him toward evening; and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. (Genesis 8:10-11)

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet. Therefore, we know from the Bible that the ark did not come to rest on or near the top of Mount Ararat, but probably somewhere on the foothills of the mountain.

The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind.14 If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to. Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent

Heres a Source for my material.

[hairston630]

I studied the Merneptah Stele as part of my Moses Project. The problem with it is that "Israel" is spelled: ISR. There is no -el ending on it, so it could also be a reference to Asher and Assyria. There are also three older references to what might be Israel; they were written during the time of Seti I, Thutmose III and Ramses II. The Thutmose III inscription at Karnak fits very well with the 480-years-before-the-temple theory and is the oldest of the three. The Seti I inscription fits well with the idea that the Sojourn was the Amarna Period. Unfortunately, these two ideas don't fit together in time, so they can't both be about the Exodus. UNLESS: the Exodus story is a confused version of Egyptian history.

Doug

AHH gotcha

[Doug1029]

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet. Therefore, we know from the Bible that the ark did not come to rest on or near the top of Mount Ararat, but probably somewhere on the foothills of the mountain.

The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind.14 If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to. Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent

Heres a Source for my material.

Interesting material. As I noted above: no flood ever disturbed the waters of Lake Van, so Mount Ararat was not flooded, even on its lower slopes. Napoleon saw a big wooden something on Mount Ararat in 1799 and noted it in his diary. That was during the Little Ice Age when glaciers were more extensive than at present. If Napoleon's Ark were still around, it would be out where we could see it. Maybe it rotted away.

There is a proposal that Noah's Ark eventually landed on the southwest coast of the Gulf of Persia, which was probably the Sumerian Dilmun, a possible location for Eden (I know that doesn't match up with what I wrote above; there are at least three viable proposals for the location of Eden.).

Agreed. It was a local flood, but quite a respectable one.

Doug

[hairston630]

Interesting material. As I noted above: no flood ever disturbed the waters of Lake Van, so Mount Ararat was not flooded, even on its lower slopes. Napoleon saw a big wooden something on Mount Ararat in 1799 and noted it in his diary. That was during the Little Ice Age when glaciers were more extensive than at present. If Napoleon's Ark were still around, it would be out where we could see it. Maybe it rotted away.

There is a proposal that Noah's Ark eventually landed on the southwest coast of the Gulf of Persia, which was probably the Sumerian Dilmun, a possible location for Eden (I know that doesn't match up with what I wrote above; there are at least three viable proposals for the location of Eden.).

Agreed. It was a local flood, but quite a respectable one.

Doug

Most definitely. But I think what im "preaching" about this being a local flood will get me the stamp of a heretic from the conservatives and english literalists.

But one thing I very much admire about the biblical text is the fact that it requires us to analalyze these things critically and to test the scriptures for truth and that can be historically, through archeology, etc etc. That says alot to me as even many christians do not take the initiative to do that and when something comes up missing they automatically come up with a circular reasoning argument and never really get passed the "bible says it so i believe it" without even investigating the evidence. I know I probably dont sound to christian with these remarks but I strongly believe that the bible asks us to test it in all aspects to see if it is true. To revert to circular reasoning ALONE seems to be outside Gods revealed will to His people therefore not only should we have faith but we should also critically analyze the evidence and test the sources from which we gather that information. Nice arguments Doug, I appreciate the replies

Edited September 5, 2007 by hairston630

[jdlsmith]

I do dendrochronologic dating. The number of rings per year is dependent on species, site and geographic location. In the case of eastern red-cedar, which produces false rings, we can tell which ring is which by the thickness of cell walls. I don't need to know what the weather was because it is recorded in the tree's cells. The boundary between slow and fast-growing wood is different in the case of drought or severe cold than it is for normal seasonal dormancy. Tree-ring callendars for the Near East reach back to about 7500 BC. For Europe, the oak/pine chronology goes back 11,000 years, within 600 years of the Younger Dryas; in addition, there is a free-floating callendar of about 2000 years' length that seems to fit between the Younger Dryas and the warming period at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum. In North America, tree-ring callendars go back 8500 years with the possibility that a 3000-year free-floating section will be added shortly. Using tree rings we can place the beginning and ending of the Younger Dryas Cold Period to within a decade (probably about three years), which is about 30 to 100 times more accurate than carbon 14. So, in fact, we have already proven reliably that forests and trees have been around without interruption for at least 11,000 years. Dendrochronology just gives a sharper focus than does radiometry; the results are in basic agreement.

Excellent! Now, would major climate changes affect tree ring dating? For example if the area you are dating in is currently temperate, but a couple thousand years ago was more like a rainforest... would that require modification of the method? From my limited knowledge on the subject, it seems like it would have to.

I don't know what your background is, but it doesn't appear to be in natural sciences. I, too, learn a lot from these discussions.

Thanks and keep on studying,

Doug

My background is Mathematics and Comp Science, at least as far as schooling... Fortunately, I was able to enjoy learning some physics, biology, genetics, and philosophy to complete the double major. The joys of a small liberal arts school. As far as applied background, it's pretty much limited to Comp Science, specifically programming. All the rest is just picked up from various studies, articles and searches.

JS

[jdlsmith]

Most definitely. But I think what im "preaching" about this being a local flood will get me the stamp of a heretic from the conservatives and english literalists.

Not a heretic. While the accuracy of Genesis is an important doctrine, it is not anywhere near the importance of other doctrines like the bodily resurrection of Christ, or His Diety... and disagreement is necessary or there will be no reason to 'know' why we believe what we believe.

The only problem that arises is that if one rejects Genesis, it is hard to view the rest as inerrant... so that rejecting Genesis nullifies Ephesians. Believing that it is generally interpreted wrong is definately different than rejecting it, though.

JS

[DogsHead]

I'm sorry... but that's simply too funny....

As for the rest, I don't think you've got much ground to stand on. Though I'd still be interested in seeing any research you can google... or find on Talkorigins...

/shrug

Heeey, good on you fella! I was hoping that you might be drawing on some of that high powered education you keep banging on about. Buuut, no. Oh well. I'll inform the scientific community they've been wasting their time shall I?

fool.

[Llucid]

It doesn't really matter to me how big the flood was, or what it specifically covered. The point of the event was that it killed everyone except for Noah and his family.

[camlax]

Excellent! Now, would major climate changes affect tree ring dating? For example if the area you are dating in is currently temperate, but a couple thousand years ago was more like a rainforest... would that require modification of the method? From my limited knowledge on the subject, it seems like it would have to.

There is many ways carbon dating is calibrated. Also you forget that more than radiometric dating can be used in conjunction with each other. Its not uncommon for archaeologists to date primate fossils with C-14 dating, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, Stratification, Obsidian hydration, rubidium-strontium, fission track dating and Dendrochronology.

You keep saying it is extremely erroneous as well, you consider something that is dated to be say 30,000 years old +/- 500 years very erroneous?

Lets say something 3,000 years old you are talking about +/- 30 years, that is 1% error. I mean...If you have taken all these science classes and think 1% error is really unreliable then I dont know what to say to you.

Also, when you not only date bones, but sediment above and below it, around it. and you find it to be within the max/min of the sediment, you think this unreliable? You really need to study up on radiometric dating. Despite what you read on the creationists websites, it is extremely accurate. And as I said, lots of good scientists use multiple dating methods to ensure their dates are correct.

[camlax]

I'm sorry... but that's simply too funny....

As for the rest, I don't think you've got much ground to stand on. Though I'd still be interested in seeing any research you can google... or find on Talkorigins...

/shrug

Actually what is funny is your mol. gen 100 level understanding of classical Mendelian genetics that you try to pass off as your "understanding" of evolution. I mean, your very primitive comments on evolution so far are something I would expect from a 1st year, 1st or second quarter biology student, or a high school who has taken an AP biology class....

Did you read up on the thread I started on radiometric dating? It would seem so far all you have shown is a reluctance to learn.

Edited September 6, 2007 by camlax

[Doug1029]

Excellent! Now, would major climate changes affect tree ring dating? For example if the area you are dating in is currently temperate, but a couple thousand years ago was more like a rainforest... would that require modification of the method? From my limited knowledge on the subject, it seems like it would have to.

Climate change is the reason I study dendrochronology. Increasing climate stress will affect the growth of trees that are located on marginal sites. If a tree on an already-dry site is subjected to drought, it will show a stress ring in the wood. A tree growing on a more-mesic site might not show anything. The presence of a stress ring indicates a problem, but the lack of one does not indicate the lack of a problem. We build tree ring callendars by matching up wood samples from several trees. Generally, if you know the slope and aspect of the place where the tree grew, you can make a pretty good guess about which years will show stress rings. Then you check to see which rings on one tree match up with corresponding rings on other trees. For example, you wouldn't be likely to find three stress rings for a particular year in a particular tree, but only two for that same year in another tree. It's pretty straight-forward stuff.

Climate change is slow enough that site remains pretty-much constant over two or three generations of trees. No modification is needed. Width of cell walls is greater for late-season wood than it is for early-season wood, regardless of what the weather is. This is how you can tell which year is which in species that form false rings. Not all species form false rings: the oaks do not, for example.

In regions without a dormant season, tree callendars are more problematic. Also, those regions are usually very warm and humid and wood rots out readily, so usable samples are hard to find. For this reason, dendrochronoly of the tropics is lagging behind that of temperate areas.

Trees that are responding to the death of a nearby tree, or to a major injury show a characteristic growth response. Simply plot the increasing diameters on a chart and you get the classic sigmoid curve. In this case, annual ring width is telling you about competition in the stand and not about climate.

Annual ring width varies from site to site. You control this by using the ratio of a particular ring width to the width of say, the adjacent ten years' growth in the same sample; this reduces the effect of site on the number that results. This is a technique borrowed from mathematics that I use all the time.

See ya later.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Most definitely. But I think what im "preaching" about this being a local flood will get me the stamp of a heretic from the conservatives and english literalists.

But one thing I very much admire about the biblical text is the fact that it requires us to analalyze these things critically and to test the scriptures for truth and that can be historically, through archeology, etc etc. That says alot to me as even many christians do not take the initiative to do that and when something comes up missing they automatically come up with a circular reasoning argument and never really get passed the "bible says it so i believe it" without even investigating the evidence. I know I probably dont sound to christian with these remarks but I strongly believe that the bible asks us to test it in all aspects to see if it is true. To revert to circular reasoning ALONE seems to be outside Gods revealed will to His people therefore not only should we have faith but we should also critically analyze the evidence and test the sources from which we gather that information. Nice arguments Doug, I appreciate the replies

Us heretics have had a difficult time over the centuries. We have been burned at the stake in the past and with the current atmosphere in the US, who is to say it won't happen again? Nevertheless, it is the people who stand up to this that are remembered as great. If you would not be forgotten as soon as you die, you have no choice but to publish the truth as you see it.

The Bible constantly surprises me by the way in which the stories turn out to be true, but not in the ways I expected to find and definitely not in the ways I was taught in church.

We teach the Bible in church in a carefully-sanitized version that strips it of its verve and passion, distorts its history and robs it of much of its truth. We turn it into a poorly-told fairy tale instead of teaching it as the powerful tool it could be. Then we try to say that we believe this fairy tale of ours to be the truth. I am not aware of one single church that does not do this, including my own.

The Bible is too important to trust to churches. Keep digging.

Doug

[jdlsmith]

Climate change is the reason I study dendrochronology. Increasing climate stress will affect the growth of trees that are located on marginal sites. If a tree on an already-dry site is subjected to drought, it will show a stress ring in the wood. A tree growing on a more-mesic site might not show anything. The presence of a stress ring indicates a problem, but the lack of one does not indicate the lack of a problem. We build tree ring callendars by matching up wood samples from several trees. Generally, if you know the slope and aspect of the place where the tree grew, you can make a pretty good guess about which years will show stress rings. Then you check to see which rings on one tree match up with corresponding rings on other trees. For example, you wouldn't be likely to find three stress rings for a particular year in a particular tree, but only two for that same year in another tree. It's pretty straight-forward stuff.

Climate change is slow enough that site remains pretty-much constant over two or three generations of trees. No modification is needed. Width of cell walls is greater for late-season wood than it is for early-season wood, regardless of what the weather is. This is how you can tell which year is which in species that form false rings. Not all species form false rings: the oaks do not, for example.

In regions without a dormant season, tree callendars are more problematic. Also, those regions are usually very warm and humid and wood rots out readily, so usable samples are hard to find. For this reason, dendrochronoly of the tropics is lagging behind that of temperate areas.

Trees that are responding to the death of a nearby tree, or to a major injury show a characteristic growth response. Simply plot the increasing diameters on a chart and you get the classic sigmoid curve. In this case, annual ring width is telling you about competition in the stand and not about climate.

Annual ring width varies from site to site. You control this by using the ratio of a particular ring width to the width of say, the adjacent ten years' growth in the same sample; this reduces the effect of site on the number that results. This is a technique borrowed from mathematics that I use all the time.

See ya later.

Doug

I'm impressed.

The only thing I could think of is that the Young Earth crowd does believe that prior to the flood, there was no dormant period. Basically everything was tropical. It seems that you'd be able to see this kind of climate, though, in anything you pulled up from that time, right?

Also, how often is Carbon dating used to establish what general 'age' a sample is from, and where it should generally fit in the chronology?

JS

[camlax]

Also, how often is Carbon dating used to establish what general 'age' a sample is from, and where it should generally fit in the chronology?

I am not sure if you are talking about Doug's example or in a general sense. Carbon dating is used for once living organisms less than 60,000 years old. Other radiometric or absolute dating techniques are used in conjunction with C14 for very accurate dating.

[Doug1029]

Reply to Hairston630, 9/5/07:

I checked your source. One comment on the Psalm 104 sidebar: a composition so similar to Psalm 104 that many experts think it to be the source of the 104th Psalm was found on the wall of the tomb of Pharaoh Ay (1325 to 1321 BC). It was entitled "A Hymn to Aten by the King."

Ay was the successor to Tutankamen whose father was the heretic Pharaoh Akenaten. Akhenaten's wife was Nefertiti, the daughter of Ay. His mother was Queen Tiy, the daughter of Yuya, believed to have been the prototype of the biblical Joseph. Queen Tiy was also called Jochebed, meaning "Ya's Queen" or "Yhwh's Queen." Yuya, whose name, in good Egyptian tradition, is derived from "Ya" or "Yhwh", was an Asiatic. Ay was his son and Akhenaten was his grandson, so it is possible that "Joseph's" son and grandson were Pharaohs!

Akhenaten neglected the traditional gods in favor of his god, Aten. Akenaten created a system of grain store houses accross Egypt in preparation for a great famine. The famine actually arrived in the 1340s and 1330s, but Akenaten was blamed for having made the other gods angry and Aten was discreditted. Akhenaten and his sons Smenkhkare and Tutankamen hung onto the thrown for a time, but in the end, it appears that Ay and Akhenaten's general, Horemheb, had no choice but to declare the Amarna cult a heresy and return Egypt to its old religion. Nobody knows what happened to the Amarna people, but the name of their god, Aten, appears in Jerusalem as Adon/Adonai.

It looks suspiciously as though one of the gods from the Bible is none other than Akhenaten's God, Aten and that the 104th Psalm was written either by Ay or Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt!

And NOW you know why history teachers are not allowed to teach real history in the public schools.

Doug

P.S.: The Pharaoh Amenmesses had an Egyptian wife named Queen Tiye. Amenmesses is one of several Moses prototypes. Her name means "Yhwh's Queen." The plot just gets thicker and thicker.

Doug

[hairston630]

Reply to Hairston630, 9/5/07:

I checked your source. One comment on the Psalm 104 sidebar: a composition so similar to Psalm 104 that many experts think it to be the source of the 104th Psalm was found on the wall of the tomb of Pharaoh Ay (1325 to 1321 BC). It was entitled "A Hymn to Aten by the King."

Ay was the successor to Tutankamen whose father was the heretic Pharaoh Akenaten. Akhenaten's wife was Nefertiti, the daughter of Ay. His mother was Queen Tiy, the daughter of Yuya, believed to have been the prototype of the biblical Joseph. Queen Tiy was also called Jochebed, meaning "Ya's Queen" or "Yhwh's Queen." Yuya, whose name, in good Egyptian tradition, is derived from "Ya" or "Yhwh", was an Asiatic. Ay was his son and Akhenaten was his grandson, so it is possible that "Joseph's" son and grandson were Pharaohs!

Akhenaten neglected the traditional gods in favor of his god, Aten. Akenaten created a system of grain store houses accross Egypt in preparation for a great famine. The famine actually arrived in the 1340s and 1330s, but Akenaten was blamed for having made the other gods angry and Aten was discreditted. Akhenaten and his sons Smenkhkare and Tutankamen hung onto the thrown for a time, but in the end, it appears that Ay and Akhenaten's general, Horemheb, had no choice but to declare the Amarna cult a heresy and return Egypt to its old religion. Nobody knows what happened to the Amarna people, but the name of their god, Aten, appears in Jerusalem as Adon/Adonai.

It looks suspiciously as though one of the gods from the Bible is none other than Akhenaten's God, Aten and that the 104th Psalm was written either by Ay or Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt!

And NOW you know why history teachers are not allowed to teach real history in the public schools.

Doug

P.S.: The Pharaoh Amenmesses had an Egyptian wife named Queen Tiye. Amenmesses is one of several Moses prototypes. Her name means "Yhwh's Queen." The plot just gets thicker and thicker.

Doug

Very interesting Doug, and thanks for the previous reply, I appreciate that alot

[Doug1029]

I'm impressed.

The only thing I could think of is that the Young Earth crowd does believe that prior to the flood, there was no dormant period. Basically everything was tropical. It seems that you'd be able to see this kind of climate, though, in anything you pulled up from that time, right?

Also, how often is Carbon dating used to establish what general 'age' a sample is from, and where it should generally fit in the chronology?

JS

A sudden shift from tropical to temperate would stand out like a sore thumb.

I don't know about how often carbon dating is used. I've only used it twice (At $200 a throw, you have to be serious.): both times it was to confirm the age of a soil profile using charcoal recovered from below ground level. The first time I was guessing that the profile was about 3000 years old (It turned out to be about 350.) and the second time it confirmed my estimate (based on topsoil development over a stone line) that the soil was about 300 (It was 340.). Both measurements put the sample age in the early part of a major, nasty drought, so it makes sense and stone lines don't form unless conditions are extremely dry. Another researcher confirmed these figures using dendrochronology.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Anyway, no, I have no evidence for a firmament, for 'fountains of teh deep', for lower mountains, etc...

All I have is a story written down. Written by many different cultures.

The 'great flood' seems to fit very well with some of our scientific observations. It is actually a much better fit than any of the 'theories' the 'anti-God' crowd comes up with, in my opinion. The fact that people fight so hard against it, when they don't fight as hard against other similar beliefs (different religions) is also pretty compelling for how many are going by their feelings instead of by logic.

Re: "fountains of the deep." The northern end of the Persian Gulf lies in a karst region that contains many underground caverns, springs, etc. During rain storms these act as direct drainage systems that empty into the gulf below the surface, producing an upwelling of fresh water in the salty gulf. They were there 5000 years ago and they're still there today; although, flow is reduced because of the dryer climate. The ancients knew of these "fountains", but didn't know their source and so ascribed capabilities to them that they don't possess. There's the evidence: they really exist.

Re: the flood story from many cultures. Floods occur everywhere. Even in the Atacama, where it hasn't rained in 400 years: 400 years ago they had a downpour. Streams expand or contract to handle the normal flow. When flow exceeds the normal, the result is a flood. That's just stream dynamics. Every culture has experienced floods.

There are stories of dragons from nearly every culture. They are mentioned in Beowulf and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. We hear of them in Chinese stories and from Eskimoes. Yes, the Bible has them, too. Do you believe that dragons had a world-wide distribution?

There have been a few titanic floods. One occurred in the Tigris-Euphrates Basin about 2800 BC. Another occurred in Egypt about the same time. The eruption of Thera caused tsunami that are remembered in the Odyssey and a plague of darkness and a rain of fiery hail that are recounted in Exodus.

There is a factual basis behind most of the Bible's stories; but, as explained above by Hairston630, the "world-wide" part of the story is one of those mythical "add-ons" based on a poor choice of words by English-language translators. The belief persists because most people (including the clergy) do not bother to actually READ the Bible, but rely on inaccurate accounts based on foggy memories of stories they heard when they were children told by people who were doing the same thing.

Science will support the Bible if you give it half a chance. But don't expect it to support fairy tales, especially fairy tales that aren't even part of the story.

And please don't refer to people who have honest differences of opinion on what the Bible says as "the anti-god crowd." I am an agnostic and a Quaker. That doesn't make me pro- or anti- God. But I do object to the way in which the more-fundamentalist types try to shove their religion down my throat. I am objecting to the negative application of religion, not to God.

Doug

[K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ]

Without going into every small detail I've decided to cut this response down connsiderably. Your scholarly work is admirable, but it is vexed by pre-concieved notions that you want to fit to show, what you want. I don't totally disagree with you on all points, but I think there are a few serious flaws in them. We may never know the total true history concerning these events. Yours, like mine, is a reconstruction of like events. Yours guided by science (or possibly evolution), mine by the Word of God. With that being said, this is off the subject of the discussion of this thread, so I wish not to debate it anymore here.

The "People of the Sea" don't show up in Egyptian history until the reign of Ramses II (c. 1279 to 1213 BC), about 400 years after the eruption of Thera (the probable source of two of the Ten Plagues of Egypt) or about 300 years after the Hyksos expulsion. The "Pelest" (meaning "Sea People") first appear by that name in 1187 BC when they attacked Egypt. Ramses III defeated them in a brilliant naval engagement (maybe the only one in Egyptian history) and settled them in Gaza to serve the Egyptians; they've been there ever since (We call them Palestinians.). It was Ramses VI who withdrew support for the fort (about 1140 BC), effectively granting the Palestinians their

independence.

The "People of the Sea" show up in history before there trek to Egypt. The name "Pelest" (meaning "Sea People") were known by that name in before 1187 BC when they attacked Egypt. Sorry, the Philistines were just 1 of at least 8 other sea people races, more than likely more. Which included the

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm

Danuna who seem to be identified with Danaean Greeks.

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a.../www/danuna.htm

Although the Danuna are known from many different sources, they were a major part of the confederation that attacked Egypt with the other group of Sea People. The origins of the Danuna are many.

LOOK HERE ==>>> The Biblical data shows that at a certain stage of its settlement the Tribe of Dan was very close to the People of the Sea. From the historical and mythological sources, it is possible to ascertain the following facts. The tribe of the Danai originated in the east, and the introduction of the alphabet to Greece is attributed to it. Its members were outstanding seamen who had special connection with sun worship. The association with the Tribe of Dan is because their was two different tribes (the Danites and the Danai) with identical names and similar characteristics which operated in the same geographical region and period or there is a link between the tribe of Dan and the tribe of Danai, and possibly a certain measure of identity (Yadin 1968: 22).

Karkisa

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a...www/karkisa.htm

The Hittite record of the Karkisa reinforces the idea that the Hittites and Karkisa were allied at the time. In the annals of Mursilis, The geographical location of the Karkisa people is based on their relation to the land of the Lukka. Redford (1993: 249) places the Karkisa in southwest Asia Minor, and Barnett places them in the same area. Barnett mentions specifically that the Karkisa are associated with the Hittite area of Caria, which is on the south-western tip of Anatolia (Barnett 1975: 361).

Labu

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/www/labu.htm

If the Labu are from the west of Libya, then it seems strange to associate them so closely with the Sea Peoples. The Labu are characterized by a number of features when they are depicted in Egyptian reliefs, such as fair skin, red hair, and blue eyes. Some of these characteristics the Labu also shared with the Meshwesh, but unlike the Meshwesh the Labu wore kilts instead of loincloths and were uncircumcised (Gardiner 1968: 122).

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm

Lukka (perhaps the ancestors of the Lycians) who may have come from the Lycian region of Anatolia.

The Lycians had a series of kingdoms, called Arzawa lands, which were run by the Hittites (Bryce 1986:3). According to Hittite texts the Lukka were a rebellious people and easily swayed by foreign influences. These Hittite texts state that the Lukka are sea-goers. They made yearly attacks on the King of Alasiya and his lands by sea, and did so effectively, and so were considered pirates in this way.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm

Meshwesh or Ekwesh who seem to be identified with the Homeric Achaean.

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a...ww/meshwesh.htm

The Meshwesh are again found in the Classical writings of Herodotus, over a thousand years later. Herodotus describes their semi-barbaric hairstyle consisting of shaving one side of the head while leaving the other and the fact that they paint their bodies and lay claim to Trojan heritage (Selincourt 1954: 306). He goes on to talk about the land from which they came (eastern Libya), all the while making sure to guard himself by saying that he cannot vouch for any of these statements, he is merely passing along what he himself has heard.

These are the two major sources for description, both physical and cultural, for the Meshwesh. They are initially identified in Egyptian battle records as having fought alongside the Libyans and their allies, but also recognized as having risen to their own respective seat of power following these skirmishes. The fact that they are again specifically singled out by Herodotus in his Histories serves notice to the fact that they were indeed a significant socio-political entity in the Eastern Mediterranean at this time.

Shardana, Sherden or SarDANians - feared as pirates

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a...ww/shardana.htm

They are depicted both among the Sea Peoples and as allies of the Egyptians, distinguished by their horned helmets with a ball projecting from the middle, round shields, and large swords (Gardiner 1968: 196-7).According to Dr. Donald Redford, the Shardana can be equated with the Sardonians of the classical era, a people from the Ionian coast who were skilled in fighting (1992: 243). A battle between the Phocaeans and the Sardonians is recorded in Herodotus' History, book I, 165, in which we are told that the Sardonians were a formidable naval force. In the 14th-13th centuries BCE, the Shardana also had a reputation as pirates, and it is possible that their success in this occupation provided one of the motivations for the activities of other groups of Sea Peoples. However, this idea is tied to the theory

that the primary factor in the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition was massive pillaging and piracy on the part of certain groups in the Aegean (Redford 1992: 244).

Shekelesh, Shekresh, Sikeloi - Sicilians

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a...w/shekelesh.htm

the Shekelesh (and the Teresh) wear cloth headdresses and a medallion on their breasts, and carry two spears and a round shield; their place of origin has been considered to be Sagalassos in Pisidia" (Redford 1992: 252).Some scholars, such as N.K. Sandars, believe that the Shekelesh came from southeastern Sicily.In the 8th century, Greek colonists came across a group of people known as the Sikels on the island, which they believed had come from Italy after the Trojan War (Sandars 1985: 112).The Medinet Habu relief depicts a Shekelesh prince, who is shown bearded, with a thin prominent nose and a swept back turban, which some scholars believe to be (long) hair.

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sea_peoples.htm

Tjakkar (Tjekker:) Chieftain (lit. the Great One) of the foe of Thekel (TAkwrA). which were settled in Dor according to the Tale of Wenamen.

Redfords (1992: 251-52) conclusions from the reliefs at Medinet Habu also suggest a connection to the Aegean. He notes the ships identified as Tjakkkr are more in the Aegean style than any other. The Tjakkar warriors are depicted in what he calls Hoplite-like plumes on their helmets, often identified as Greek. The Tjakkar warriors fight with short, straight swords, long spears, and rounded shields, Aegean style equipment. Archeological evidence from Dor supports Wen-Amons claim of Tjakkar settlement. In addition, the excavations found cow scapulae and bone-handled iron knives similer to those found at Philistine sites. The origins of the Tjakkar people suggest they came from, or shared a culture with the people of the Aegean.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm

Teresh (Tursha or Tyrshenoi - possibly the Tyrrhenians, the Greek name for the Etruscans; or from the western Anatolian

Taruisa)

http://www.phoenician.org/sea_peoples.htm

As previously mentioned, these theories sometimes comment upon but do not look into the curious fact that the Phoenician cities were unaffected by the destruction which went on all around them at this time. First, let us verify that these cities were not destroyed during these events.

Tyre was one of the leading Phoenician cities in 1200 B.C., and we are fortunate to have an excellent archaeological study of this site which went all the way down to bedrock. Performed by Patricia Bikai in 1973, this work documented clearly the relevant layers of interest to us. They not only show there was no widespread destruction at that time but that there was great continuity from layer to layer, indicating that the local society continued to live in the same way throughout this period. The results are highly conclusive.

The most northern Phoenician city was on the island of Arwad, also known as Arvad and Arados. It had been taken from the Phoenicians prior to the coming of the Sea Peoples and was being held by the Hittites. This city was in fact destroyed by the Sea Peoples and after their incursion it was returned to the Phoenicians. This destruction, far from disproving the current assertion, adds to the view that the Phoenicians were accorded a special status in the events of this time.

Based upon the sum of this evidence, we can only conclude that observations of the Phoenician cites being undamaged during this time, and having been accorded a special status by the invaders, have been verified. That there was a relationship or partnership of some nature between the Sea Peoples and the Phoenicians is clearly in evidence. The Sea Peoples had forcefully cleared away the old powers from the Mediterranean and left freshly plowed ground. In time the Greeks and Romans would rise and they—together with the often overlooked Phoenicians would sow the seeds of Western civilization.

Jer 47:4 Because of the day that cometh to spoil all the Philistines, and to cut off from Tyrus and Zidon every helper that remaineth: for the LORD will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the country of Caphtor.

Amo 9:7 Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir (Caria)?

The Peleset (Philistines) after whom Palestine was named are not to be confused withn MODERN PALESTINIANS! And why did they withdraw after even defeating the Hittite power? Because the Kingdom was waning and used all there strength to defeat them.

Edited September 8, 2007 by K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ

[K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ]

The Tuatha de Danaan come from Irish myth/legend. The name means "People of the Legends," giving a clue as to how valid Irish bards thought the stories were (Danaan was also an Irish goddess, so the name could also be translated as "Danaan's People."). The Irish legends say they came from the Greek Isles, are descended from an Egyptian general (not Israelites) who was disgraced for refusing to pursue the Israelites (The Egyptians have no record of such a person.), and the name of the Milesian kings is the same as that of Milesia on the coast of modern Turkey. That's where the similarities end. I've tried to make that same connection and it's extremely tenuous. A better connection for the tribe of Dan is probably Homer's Dannoi. Dan is one of the tribes listed in Exodus, but when Revelation lists the twelve tribes, Dan is not among them.

Wrong, Although the Danaaans were legendary. It also means the Tribe of Dan, or the people of Danaus.

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a.../www/danuna.htm

Based on New Kingdom Egyptian text, the Danuna are considered one of the major groups of the Sea Peoples. The Danuna are known from Egyptian, Hittite, and classical sources. In the historical sources, the Danuna are known by many different names such as Denyen, Danunites, Danaoi, Danaus, Danaids, Dene, Danai, Danaian. There are several theories on where the Danuna came from: 1) Eastern Cilicia, 2) Mycenae, 3) Canaan.

1). According to Barnett (1975:10), the Danuna lives in Cilicia in the ninth century BCE, and caused alarm to their neighbors Amanus, Kalamu of Samal. Not only the Danuna of el-Amarna, but the Dnn of the Egyptian sources as well were the inhabitants of the Cilician Adana, following the fall of Troy.

2). A second theory associated with the Greek world equating the Danuna with the Danaoi from mainland Greece (Leahy 2001:257). Many scholars associate the Danuna with the Greeks because all Greeks were referred to as Danaans by Homer. The fact that Homer lends the name Danaans to the Greeks is a credible suggestion because the Danaans came from Mycenae. Greek tradition suggests that the Danaoi settled in Argos and were named after the Danaos. (Jones 1975: 60)

3). The third theory that suggest the Danuna origins come from Canaan. The Danuna and other Sea Peoples return to the Levant as a counter migration. While many of the Danuna, went to the Aegean and Mycenae and became known as the Danaans. Others went to Asia Minor and some of the Sea Peoples return to the Levant. The Danuna were accepted into the confederation of the tribes of Israel called Dan (Jones 1975: 23). The Danuna were part of a confederation in the Levant with other groups of Sea People especially the Philistines. They were part of the sea battle against the Egyptians, which is depicted on the relief at Medinet Habu (Barnett 1975: 372).

Some, of that is ceratinly true, But the similarities hardly end there. Obviously you don't know much about Revelation, discreptions of Dan in the Bible, or that he was a the (fifth) son of Jacob signifying the (number) of grace. There were many tribes at the time with the "pre or sub fix" of DAN. They obviously were a busy bunch, that probably left there mark on more than a few places. Denmark, Danube, Dnieper, Dniester, Tanis or Danis, Aton, Adon or Adonis, etc, ecetera ...

http://www.watch.pair.com/dan.html

"At that particular time Arcadia was ruled by Spartans. . . The Spartans placed a special magical significance on their long hair . . . associated with their great strength. There appears to have been a relationship between the Spartans and the Jews. In the Apocryphal we read: 'It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brethren and are of the family of Abraham.' (Maccabees I 12:21)" [Van Buren, p. 45]

Edited September 8, 2007 by K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ

[K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ]

Spain was settled by Celts long before the Romans invaded it (The Basques are of Celtic descent.). The Visigoths, in turn, took it from the Romans. I don't know your source for Solomon collecting tribute from Spain, but I understand that there is no corroborating evidence of Solomon's existence outside of biblical and closely-related sources. I am suspicious of this statement.

Celtiberians in particular. The fact that you previously quoted the Milesians from Miletus in Asia Minor points to the fact of mass migrations at this time, I could go into the king line here but I won't. The strange fact that myth assigns these events to mysterious circumstances also points to the possiblity it maybe connected with the Exodus, with great signs and wonders. As supposed to many Bible scholars, Velikovsky and more than a dozen reputable scientists, in various fields.

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

The Basques as an ethnic group or, as some view them, a nation, in contrast to other ethnic groups and the history of the Basque's can be summed up in many respects by recent genetic studies by Stephen Oppenheimer who have confirmed that about 75% of the people of the British Isles have bloodlines that can be traced to inhabitants of the Basque areas of Spain and France based on Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis. The originators of these genes are thought to have traveled up the Atlantic Coast. A similar proportion of the remaining, Romance speaking, inhabitants of the whole Iberian peninsula (both Spain and Portugal) share similar percentages of haplogroup R1b to the people of Britain and Ireland as well as very similar mtDNA ancestry.

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

According to the Bible, during Solomon's reign Israel enjoyed great commercial prosperity, with extensive traffic being carried on by land with Tyre, Egypt, and Arabia, and by sea with Tarshish (Spain), Ophir, and South India.

http://www.geocities.com/stlaasr/article-1-2003.html

The phrase translated "trading ships" (Hebrew 'oni tarshish) in older translations is rendered simple "Ships of Tarshish". The newer rendering is the consequence of the light brought from early Phoenician trading activities in the Mediterranean. Another way of rendering the phrase would be "smelting" or "refining ships", since these were the ships hauling smelted ores from the mining towns in Sardinia and Spain. Although such colonizing and commercial activity previous to the eight century BC was commonly denied the Phoenicians by writers on the history and archeology of the western Mediterranean world until relatively recently, inscriptions recovered from Nora and Bosa in Sardinia prove that as early as the ninth century BC Phoenicians were colonizing and trading in the western Mediterranean. One of these inscriptions from Nora contains the name Tarshish immediately before the name Sardinia, evidently indicating that the Phoenician name of Nora was Tarshish, meaning "the Refinery."

The name "Tarshish" also occurs in an inscription of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria in the seventh century BC and refers to a Phoenician land at the opposite end of the Mediterranean from the island of Cyprus. In the light of the archeological evidence available there is not the least reason to doubt that at the time of Hiram I of Tyre (c. 969-936 BC) Phoenician commerce was already widespread in the Mediterranean, and that Tyrian seamen were able to assist Solomon in building his fleet and in furnishing the skill to operate it.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/ancientisrael.html

A very interesting discussion of monuments found in Spain begins on page 22. In the year 1480 at Saguntum, Spain, "a Hebrew epitaph" of great antiquity was discovered. It reads, 'This is the grave of Adoniram, the servant of King Solomon, who came to collect the tribute, and died on the day... ' (page 23) This Adoniram is mentioned in both I Kings 5:14 and 4:6, "and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the tribute." From this we understand that Adoniram was sent by Solomon to the Hebrew colony in Spain, where raw materials were collected for the Temple and other building projects in Palestine. This large stone sepulchre has been called, "the stone of Solomon's collector."

[K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ]

The best fit for the Sojourn from Egyptian history is the Amarna Period. It's not an exact fit, but it is so close that you can substitute names from the Bible into Egyptian history and establish dates for various biblical events and the story works: Joseph was the "Asiatic" named Yuya (name derived from YHWH). He married a daughter of Ay (an Egyptian general who later became Pharaoh) named Jochebed (Translation: "the nobility of Ya" or "Yhwh's queen"). Jochebed wasn't just a slave and the mother of Moses: she was Queen of Egypt (Of course, commoners and slaves often named their children after royals; why does Moses' mother have an Egyptian name?). Their daughter married Akhenaten, the heretic Pharaoh and was the mother of Pharaohs Smenkhkare and Tutankamen. The "new Pharaoh" was Horemheb. This time period has dozens of similarities with the Bible stories: enough to convince me that the Pentateuch is a basically true, but garbled and conflated account of Egyptian history.

I submit that Moses' genealogy: Jacob-Israel, Levi, Kohath, Amram, is not a genealogy at all, but a Hyksos king list: the last four kings of the 16th Dynasty at Pelusium. The corresponding Pharaohs are Jacob-Baal, Yakbaam, Yoam and Amu, in that order. In one translation, Jacob-Israel means "Follower of God." So does Jacob-Baal (Both are Hebrew names, but the emphasis is on different gods.). I don't know the translations of "Levi," "Kohath," "Yakbaam" or "Yoam" so this is a weakness in my proposal, but note that each corresponds to a name on the other list. The name "Amu" means "Father." The name "Amram" also means "Father."

IF: "Moses" was the son of "Amu/Amram," then he could have been among those who escaped from Pelusium when Ahmose seized

Pelusium to cut off supplies and reenforcements from Avaris (Pelusium was surrounded by a shallow marsh, so this is a possible source of the "Red Sea Crossing" story. Unfortunately, there is no record at all of this and Goshen, Ramses, Pithom and Zoan didn't yet exist. It is pure speculation.

The biblical "Moses" was an Egyptian. First, look at a list of Hyksos kings of the 14th, 15th and 16th Dynasties. Do you see even one that resembles the name "Moses"? Now look at a list of Egyptian Pharaohs of the 17th, 18th and 19th Dynasties: there's Ahmose (Child of the Moon), Ramses I - XI (Child of Ra), Amenmeses (Child of Amun), etc. The name "Moses" means "Child" in Egyptian and fits rather well with the name "Amram/Amu" meaning "Father."

Well, I agree with you to some extant here. But Egyptian History like I said, has been proven to be less than accurate, and is suspected to vary as much as several hundred years between dynasties. And I certainly don't think Joseph "sired" Moses. The Egyptian account is more like the garbbled facts of the Torah. This is a guess a best. Plus it doesn't take into account other nations such as the Sea Peoples, Hittites, Edomites, Amalekites and other Canaanites. Who had similar Proto Sinaiatic Phoenician Semitic Names. I could go through this it'd take to long though.

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/6egypt/index.htm

Comments on dynasties 13-17

This period is by far the most dusky in Egyptian history and many attempts have been made to stow in all kings (names) known into the limited space of time available. In the dynasties 13 and 14 put together, the last 45 years are shared by 50(!) kings, making their reigns an average 10 months. This is not believable, and no theory has so far explained their quick "resignations".

http://nabataea.net/edomch5.html

Now what would the Egyptians call this mixed horde braking into and sweeping over the Delta Region? Obviously they would refer to them as:

"Arabian" They came from Northern Arabia (Ishmaelites)

"Asiatics" They had Hittite and Hebrew blood in them (Edomites) and quite likely Hittits from Canaan assisted.

"Barbarians" They were semi-nomadic

"Phoenecians" They were of mixed Canaanite and Hebrew stock

"Rulers of Countries" They already ruled over a number of other countries as we have seen.

On the border of the Delta nearest this base, Salatis founded his capital city of Avaris (Biblical Tanis or Zoan). Is this name in any way related to the city of Avith, and to the Avim or Avies nearby in south-west Palestine?

http://jessicaseigel.com/articles/exodus.shtml

Scholars note that the Book of Exodus names the city of Ramses as one site where the Israelites toiled. Excavations in the 1970s finally located that city near the city of Qantir, showing that both Ramses II and the foreign Hyksos kings before him used the site as capitals. Traditionalists believe that the expulsion of those alien rulers might have signaled the change to a new dynasty hostile to resident foreigners, like the Hebrews.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ju...y/moses_3.shtml

clue: the remains of the feet of a giant statue. An inscription on a nearby pedestal confirmed that the statue belonged to Ramses II. Eventually, archeologists unearthed traces of houses, temples, even palaces. Using new technology, the archaeologists were able to detect the foundations and they mapped out the whole city in a few months. The city they had discovered was one of the biggest cities in ancient Egypt, built around 1250BCE. 20,000 Egyptians had lived there. But was this city actually built by Hebrew slaves? There is a reference in ancient Egyptian documents to a Semitic tribe captured by Pharaoh and forced to work on the city of Ramses. A clay tablet lists groups of people who were captured by the Pharaoh and one of the groups was called Habiru. Could these be the Hebrews?

http://www.dwij.org/forum/amarna/1_exodus.html

Edited September 8, 2007 by K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ

[K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ]

The Hebrew language was first written in the late 10th century BC; it probably existed in spoken form since the reign of Ramses II. The biblical Moses could not have written the Pentateuch in Hebrew because written Hebrew hadn't been invented, yet. It might have been written in hieroglyphics or proto-Sinaitic, but not one scrap of the story written in those forms has been found. In Exodus 2:10, "Pharaoh's daughter" says "she" named him "Moses" because she "drew him from the water" (In Hebrew, Moses means "drawn from the water."). If Pharaoh's daughter named him, that means she spoke Hebrew. How likely is it that a royal would speak the language of slaves? The verse is a pun: the biblical author was making a joke (The Bible has lots of these.). The name "Moses" is derived from Coptic Egyptian and means "Child."

This is a joke, and obviously you dont know as much as you think you do about linguistic's or about figures of speech. Wheres your sources ??!?

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

Hebrew is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family. As a language, Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite group of languages. Hebrew (Israel) and Moabite (Jordan) are Southern Canaanite while Phoenician (Lebanon) is Northern Canaanite. Canaanite is closely related to Aramaic and to a lesser extent South-Central Arabic.

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

The Phoenician alphabet is a continuation of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, by convention taken to begin with a cut-off date of 1050 BCE. Many modern writing systems thought to have descended from Phoenician cover much of the world. The Aramaic alphabet, a modified form of Phoenician, was the ancestor of the modern Arabic and Hebrew scripts. With the discovery of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet, scientists discovered the missing link between Egyptian hieroglyphs and the Proto-Canaanite script. This discovery reinforced the earlier hypothesis of Phoenician's Egyptian origin. The Proto-Sinaitic script was in use from ca. 1500 BCE in the Sinai and the Levant, probably by early West Semitic speakers. In Canaan it developed into the Proto-Canaanite alphabet from ca. 1400 BCE, adapted to writing a Canaanite (Northwest Semitic) language. The Phoenician alphabet seamlessly continues the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, by convention called Phoenician from the mid 11th century. Phoenician became the widespread form of Proto-Canaanite; previously, the script had been restricted to recording only

Canaanite languages.

Yea, big deal, Moses Prince of Egypt probably knew more than one language, and I surmise that the language of Hebrew was codified by him in around the time of the Exodus. Aleph, Beth, Gimel just like the ABC's! Ah Pah Shaw Ren!

Edited September 8, 2007 by K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ

[K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ]

Second, Exodus 2:19: "And they said, an Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us and watered the flock." How did Raguel's daughters (eye-witnesses) know Moses was an Egyptian? He might have dressed like an Egyptian (After all, he was a Prince of Egypt.); he might have had an Egyptian accent, he might have had a different complexion (Egyptians had darker skins.); he might have had no beard (Egyptians plucked theirs; Hebrews didn't.). There were lots of ways to tell. So, Moses was an Egyptian or this verse is just plain flat-out wrong!

Third, Moses was not circumcized: See Exodus 6:12 and 6:30. Though less clear, Exodus 4:25-26 implies the same. Jewish men have been circumcized since before the beginning of history; it is reasonably safe to say that the practice was already in use in the 14th Century BC and possibly earlier. The only contrary evidence presented by the Bible is Acts 15:1 written by St. Paul approximately 1200 years after the fact and apparently without reading Exodus.

SO: The biblical Moses was an Egyptian.

Be glad to continue this discussion later. We might want to consider things like: who was the real Moses? and did he even exist? Was there a Crossing of the Red Sea? Where? When? and who was it that actually crossed? etc.

Like I said. he grew up in Egypt as a prince, he was all to familiar with it. Of course people fleeing from Egypt would have Egyptian characteristics and mannerisms. Just like fleeing Israelis would have enough Egyptian Gold to build a calf. Moses when he returned wasn't recognized art first, why's that? The circumcission thing your implying are things that aren't there, you really dont understand what is being said, who it is being said to, and about what is being said. Moses was a Hebrew by Race, he was circumcized just like the rest of the Hipiru, but Pharoah wasn't, GEZ!

Your generalizations are just that, and not very well thought out.

Maybe, if you played the Devil's advocate (God's advocate) a few times you would understand the other side of the question that can be so easily answered another way by common sense! Why consider now that Moses doesn't exist when you supposedly proved he does? There is no need for further discussion in this thread about it. Your linguistic work on name translations leaves much to be desired. I also don't have time to spend 5's of hours a day for a week, digging up info I already know. Just to convince a skeptic who doubts God's word anyways. And who doesn't even provide links for his sources!!??!! The Bible isn't so much as history, as a record of EVENTS that actually did happen to his Chosen people!

Edited September 8, 2007 by K¿llÇärñèýKläñsméñ

[jdlsmith]

Re: the flood story from many cultures. Floods occur everywhere. Even in the Atacama, where it hasn't rained in 400 years: 400 years ago they had a downpour. Streams expand or contract to handle the normal flow. When flow exceeds the normal, the result is a flood. That's just stream dynamics. Every culture has experienced floods.

Yes, but not every region has had a massive flood where certain people were saved by building a big boat... but yet that's not only in the Biblical story.

There are stories of dragons from nearly every culture. They are mentioned in Beowulf and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. We hear of them in Chinese stories and from Eskimoes. Yes, the Bible has them, too. Do you believe that dragons had a world-wide distribution?

Of course. I don't think anyone on here would argue that dinosaurs never existed, and the similarities are rather amazing. Give the legend a little time and some artistic drawing, and you get dragons. It would be truly silly to believe dragons only a myth...

There have been a few titanic floods. One occurred in the Tigris-Euphrates Basin about 2800 BC. Another occurred in Egypt about the same time. The eruption of Thera caused tsunami that are remembered in the Odyssey and a plague of darkness and a rain of fiery hail that are recounted in Exodus.

There is a factual basis behind most of the Bible's stories; but, as explained above by Hairston630, the "world-wide" part of the story is one of those mythical "add-ons" based on a poor choice of words by English-language translators. The belief persists because most people (including the clergy) do not bother to actually READ the Bible, but rely on inaccurate accounts based on foggy memories of stories they heard when they were children told by people who were doing the same thing.

Science will support the Bible if you give it half a chance. But don't expect it to support fairy tales, especially fairy tales that aren't even part of the story.

And please don't refer to people who have honest differences of opinion on what the Bible says as "the anti-god crowd." I am an agnostic and a Quaker. That doesn't make me pro- or anti- God. But I do object to the way in which the more-fundamentalist types try to shove their religion down my throat. I am objecting to the negative application of religion, not to God.

Doug

If the 'supernatural' in the bible is wrong, we may as well give it the same position we give fictional literature. Of course then, since it's so prevalent, it should show up in more literature classes in our school systems... But if it's wrong in one point, then you can't trust any of it.

As for the anti-God phrase, I think there's plenty of support throughout this thread for believing many of the people arguing against creation are anti-God...