Saturday, December 21, 2019

Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History


Debate with Paul Myers · Paulogia also doesn't get what is reasonable evidence for 1st C events · Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History with HolyKoolaid Tries to Back Up his Attack Against Exodus · Paulogia took on the Tower

You know, I hope, the procedure, here is the video:

Nothing Fails Like Bible History
Holy Koolaid | 19.XII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iep4gnmJeRE


Here are my comments, in this case with some dialogue:

I
0:40 Egyptians were meticulous record keepers?

No, not really - unless by "were" you mean their records are lost. But even then. The preserved king lists (Turin, Abydos) are in conflict.

0:55 Oh wait - statues and temple hierolyphs ... is that your view of "meticulous" record keeping?

unkindestcut
Hans-Georg Lundahl So are the two genealogical accounts given for Jesus. [In conflict, like Turin / Abydos, I presume, HGL]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@unkindestcut Not quite no, since they give two different lines of descent from King David.

St. Joseph's father in St. Matthew's Gospel is his father, his father in St. Luke's is his father in law.

There are earlier crossings of this type once or twice between King David and the parents in the Holy Family, and no one pretended Nathan (ancestor of the Blessed Virgin according to St. Luke) was in office as King after King David.

Being King of a country is a unique office, there is usually one at a time. Being someone's grandfather or greatgrandfather isn't, you usually have 2 grandfathers and 4 greatgrandfathers, and the only quirk which confuses this somewhat is that Hebrews mentioned husbands instead of the women concerned.

Citing the Haydock comment:

Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ.

To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. — "S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."

Whatever the difficulties attending the genealogies may be, it is evident that they arise from our imperfect knowledge of the laws, usages, and idiom of the Jews, from our ignorance of the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, or from some corruptions that in process of time may possibly have crept into the text. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messias, nor any right to the Jewish throne. We may confidently then assert, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed at a time when alone it could have been done so successfully; and by those persons who were so deeply interested in falsifying the first Christian authorities.

Source : Haydock Commentary, Luke chapter 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment51.shtml


II
"Papyri dating back 4500 years"?

You presumably mean they carbon date that way. They do not give a continuous historic narrative adding up to that.

"Genealogies" while showing not Egyptian but Cuneiform tablets?

Holy Koolaid
Actually, at 1:08, when I mention genealogies, I show a wall of hieroglyphics. That's the king's list in Abydos which lists the names of 76 pharaohs. Perhaps you should do your research before you criticize mine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Holy Koolaid The subtitles at least came when you showed cuneiform tablets.

Abydos Kinglist and Turin Kinglist show discrepancies between them. Also, a kinglist is not necessarily a genealogy, I don't know how many years and how many so and so was son of so and so either kinglist mentions.

You have one examplar for each, you don't know their Sitz im Leben, you don't know why they differ, you don't know why Manetho differs from both ...

@Holy Koolaid OK, I get it, the wall of hieroglyphics is the Abydos Kinglist and the cuneiform tablets you very quickly switch to are the diplomatic correspondence - with Mesopotamian powers.

Would all of that be Amarna correspondence?

III
1:57 We would expect to find ... very little after so much time.

Egyptian remain may be overwhelming, but they are very little of what was. Nearly all is gone.

How much remains of Roman war elephants?

"At least one elephantine skeleton with flint weapons that has been found in England was initially misidentified as these elephants, but later dating proved it to be a mammoth skeleton from the stone age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_war_elephants

2:58 "that's just an excuse for they haven't found anything"

As, if so, with most of ancient history.

Holy Koolaid
"Nearly all is gone?" I literally mentioned 907,000 artifacts at just 50 museums, millions of mummies, towns, temples, palaces, etc. And that's your comeback? 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Holy Koolaid Look, with 907,000 artefacts left, from such a long period in such a big country, that means nearly all is gone.

Do some maths!

IV
2:50 You are quoting partial sources - unbelievers who want to keep up their unbelief.

Israeli archaeologists would be the last to admit an evidence for the OT.

Doc Reasonable
WHY?? The OT is the JEWISH TORAH you slobbering idiot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Because Israeli archaeologists are not believing Haredi Jews.

Expecting them to believe the Torah is like expecting Anglican liberal theologians to believe the miracles of the NT.

Doc Reasonable
@Hans-Georg Lundahl If they found convincing evidence, they'd believe it. But it's not going to happen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Like Bishop Robertson for resurrection of Christ, Israeli archaeologists are very definitely not looking for convincing evidence.

Such guys are unbelievers and they bias their research, perhaps consciously, much of the time perhaps by unconscious habit, so as not to find the evidence there is.

Doc Reasonable
@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's pretty obvious that nothing in the Bible is true. If anything ever turns up to prove any of it, it will not just be dismissed out of hand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's pretty obvious that nothing in the Bible is true."

That's your bias about the Bible.

"If anything ever turns up to prove any of it, it will not just be dismissed out of hand."

That's your bias about unbelievers of slightly Jewish or slightly Christian tradition, or your bias about the guys who get research funds. Plus, by people like you, it will.

Either way, it's your bias from your atheist religion, and I have a Christian religion with opposite bias, plus I have taken a close look at that kind of unbelievers (part of why I left Swedish state Church, even if the ones I met perhaps weren't as bad as Bishop Robertson I had known from CSL's description).

V
3:26 Egyptian conquest of Canaan ...

1460 BC to 1125 BC. Carbon dates, I presume?

Now, if the carbon dates are off, this mean that this could well be from the time of the Judges, during which era Israel had to fight and reconquer independence time after time.

In Roman martyrology, Exodus is 1510 BC. That means Moses was born 1590 BC. But Moses could have been born lose to the death of the pharao Sesostris III, whose coffin is carbon dated to c. 1839 BC. 250 years discrepancy.

While going up to times of King David, the discrepancy evens out, as carbon 14 rises to modern level.

Why from Egypt to other Egypt, 3:38?

Perhaps because Holy Land hadn't been Egyptianised yet and perhaps because effective control of Holy Land was going to be an armwrestle between Israelites and neighbours and very little left for Egyptians claiming suzerainty over these neighbours.

Plus, the Bible doesn't actually present it as fleeing ...

Except of course for the brief episode of an Egyptian army which drowned, presumably just before Hyksos conquest.

Yes, 3:50, you have fortresses which can have been manned Egyptian style but by Canaaneans and you have stelae precisely bragging which Orientals sometimes do with not much substance (like you accuse authors of Exodus of doing).

4:14 And Battle of Kadesh would have been during the Judges period, and this is why Israelites were not involved as major participants.

Unless, like King David was involved on either side of Kadesh in I Chronicles 19:

http://drbo.org/chapter/13019.htm

Speaking of which battle:

"As a result of discovery of multiple Kadesh inscriptions and the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty, it is the best documented battle in all of ancient history."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh

  • 1) so, the best documented battle from then lacks chariots lying around for archaeology?

    Should tell you sth about your insistance on finding archaeological confirmation before believing historiographic narrative!

  • 2) If I Chron 19 is involved, King David's time should carbon date to c. 200 years earlier than real time.

    In fact, one acquaintance of mine has the invasion in King Solomon's time, by "Shishak" = by Ramses II. Look up Damien Mackey, he'll be happy to give you details.


In the case of Amarna correspondence, David Rohl considers "Labeya" = King Saul ...

Jason Steinway
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Keep it simple. Where ARE the 2 million skeletons of the Israelites and their animals that were NEVER found, despite excavations since the 1800's and the use of ground penetrating radar ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Keep it simple : where are your similar requests for any other people that area?

With 99 % missing or more - ditch that request.

VI
7:05 On mt. Sinai, God delivered to Moses the essentials of Genesis chapter 1 - the rest from 2 verse 5 on, Moses had from tradition which, inspired by God, he considered as reliable.

7:23 So, Moses wrote about himself in third person .... Julius Caesar imitated the procedure.

7:32 If "humble" simply translates as "bad self confidence" and therefore "socially handicapped", yes, a person who was humble in that sense would write it about himself.

Never mind that Jews later discovered this is a virtue ...

7:39 Last chapter of Deuteronomy was written by Joshua and last chapter of Joshua was written by a scribe who was starting the recording of Judges as well. Judges being, like 2 books of Samuel and 2 books of kings and like parallel work 2 books of chronicles, cumulative work, much like Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

8:05 Moses can have given heirs of Aaron the right to update place names.

This could also explain why Exodus features "Phithom and Ramesses" of which at least the latter could be a name from later times.

Or Dan could have been a parallel name older than Laish.

Paul Gross
Do you have any substantive evidence for your claims ... ?

I will wait patiently ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) "claims" - most of what I said was possibilities countering HolyKoolaid's claims.
  • 2) substansive evidence for Moses seeing precisely creation days on Mt Sinai is tradition.

    And that's as substansive as it gets for most of ancient history.


Paul Gross
Hans-Georg Lundahl - then you are not just wrong, but very dishonest too.

Until now, you have never called your claims mere 'possibilities', and you must explain exactly that if you are discussing mere possibilities. Not to qualify your claims as mere possibilities is dishonest.

And, of course, unlike the claims about Moses, much of ancient history is backed up by archeological discoveries, and this substantive evidence far exceeds the zero archeological evidence for Moses - so you are plainly wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Moses can have given heirs of Aaron the right to update place names."

Note the word "can"?

"unlike the claims about Moses, much of ancient history is backed up by archeological discoveries"

No, it is not if by history you mean the sequence of events.

If you mean existence of such and such a culture, at such and such a time in such and such an area, yes, much is backed up, but much is lost. But when it comes to single events or men living, nearly all is lost.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
after some more thought
In the case of updates of place names, I mentioned this as a possibility, since if so it was done too discretely to leave traces in Hebrew tradition. I also mentioned another possibility.

But in the case of Moses writing in third person (like Caesar), using "humble" as we would use "socially awkward", last chapter of Deuteronomy (like last book of Caesar's Gallic Wars) being by someone else despite general rule of Moses being the author, while I don't take them for mere possibilities, to my opponents, these are possibilities they need to exclude before using the arguments Holy Koolaid just used against Moses being (with exception for updates in geographic terminology or last chapter) the author of all of the Torah. In the case of Genesis, final compiler.

Paul Gross
Hans-Georg Lundahl - you wrote: "Last chapter of Deuteronomy was written by Joshua ...".

Note the word 'was', because you are being dishonest.

And regardless of whatever is lost of ancient history, there is still plenty of archeological evidence as backup, so when compared to the zero for Mouses, is necessarily ahead. ... so, again, you are wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As I just mentioned, I am giving the response from my perspective as a fact, however, the point is, even the possibility is enough to dismiss HolyKoolaid's argument.

"regardless of whatever is lost of ancient history, there is still plenty of archeological evidence as backup"

No, not for most events, not for most known persons, unless they had faces on coins or statues, not for even very important events and very important persons.

You can back up Caesar by statues - but you can't back up Vercingetorix that way, nor that he was beaten by Caesar, nor that he came to Rome as a prisoner, was led in triumph, was strangled. Same for Baodicaea. Same for Orgetorix and Ambiorix. Every opponent of Caesar is gone. Except for his texts.

Conjuration of Catiline? Find me archaeological back up for that one, and I'll be impressed. Sextus Calvinus conquering Provence and founding Aix? You do get first Roman remnants at Aix at the right period, but that's it. Equally, if you can archaeologically prove Alexander the Great was born in Pella in Macedon ... have your go.

These are the kind of things that actually make up history in the usual sense of the word. You know, like not just knowing 20th C. commodities, but knowing who Hitler, Churchill and Stalin were. For 20th C. AD you can back up those things archaeologically, for 20th C. BC, you usually can't.

The one who's wrong is you.

Paul Gross
@Hans-Georg Lundahl - a 'response from your perspective' is not an established fact - and you know this as well as anyone else.

So you have just added stupidity to your dishonesty. Well done!

And both Vercingetorix and Caesar are better attested than both Moses and Joshua - because at least Vercingetorix had a well-attested contemporary - Caesar - who wrote about him.

No purported contemporary of either Joshua or Moses ever wrote a word about them.

Which only emphasizes how wrong you are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Gross Moses wrote about himself and Joshua wrote about his death.

We know this because of tradition.

We know tradition because people remembering a book was written jesterday won't jump and conclude it was written hundreds of years ago.

And people recalling a book was written by Moses won't recall it was written by Aaron.

Exactly the same way we know Caesar wrote Bellum Gallicum.

Sorry to have to schoolmaster you about ancient history, but that's part of my subject at university - Latin.

In case you say we have no manuscripts of Moses from his time, neither do we have any of Caesar from his time. Tradition, not surviving contemporary manuscripts, is the key to establishing authorship in ancient texts.

"a 'response from your perspective' is not an established fact"

It is an established fact in my school of thought if not in yours.

"So you have just added stupidity to your dishonesty."

And it so happens, if we were working at the same place, I'd consider quitting it or suing you over harrassment.

How about learning to use some manners in debate?

VII
9:06 Yeah, misinformation and pseudo-science ... that's what I face when watching this.

Holy Koolaid
Says the guy who was accusing me if showing cuneiform writing when I showed the hieroglyphic Kings list at Abydos. 😆😆

Jason Steinway
When you find the 2 million skeletons of the Israelites AND their animals that were NEVER found, despite excavations since the 1800's, and the use of ground penetrating radar, I might believe you.

All major Universities and the Israeli gov't gave up looking many decades ago.

Jewish theologians no longer accept the Exodus as fact

https://medium.com/@mattsamberg/what-if-we-weren-t-slaves-8f92dd6eac01

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, there are lots more than just 2 million Egyptians missing.

In Egypt you have found over one million animal mummies, most of which were cats.

The human mummies are lots less numerous in finding, despite an estimate 70 millions were mummified. Not to speak of the rest of Egyptians who weren't.

The criterium is flawed. Most of Ancient history is found only in texts. Battle of Kadesh is found in more than one text, from the time, but not in battle field archaeology - and it's more recent than the Exodus.

"Jewish theologians"

Jewish apostate "theologians" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
added (to video)
9:18 "Promoting science and critical thinking."

Biassed science and one sided criticism ... a little earlier you mentioned "regligious dogma" : in fact you are promoting an anti-religious dogma to counter tradition universal among Jews, Samarians and Christians (and to some extent Muslims).

It's anti-religious dogma [that] traditions of a religious type need to be challenged on historic claims.

It's biassed science to exact more archaeological evidence for Exodus than you would for nearly any other event in Ancient History.

No comments: