It's Not Over Yet

Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning. · Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton · It's Not Over Yet

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nope, I'm not making any claims as of yet.

You claimed there was more evidence for Genesis than for early Egypt.

This whole thread is related to that.

After this reaches a conclusion, if you wish to ask me about my beliefs, and my reasoning behind them, I'll be more than happy to continue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "Nope, I'm not making any claims as of yet."

You could have fooled me ...

"You claimed there was more evidence for Genesis than for early Egypt."

No, while I think there is overall, my claim was about both more specific. And it's not about quantity but quality of the evidence. And it's limited to historic evidence, as the archaerological is beside the point. Here is my actual claim : there is better evidence - and it's a historic one - for the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 than for the succession of pharaohs.

"This whole thread is related to that."

But came into a few side issues.

"After this reaches a conclusion, if you wish to ask me about my beliefs, and my reasoning behind them, I'll be more than happy to continue."

Yeah, how about concluding by your admission that the archaeological evidence in the Karnak King lists is not directly for Sneferu, but for a story about Sneferu? And that proving Old Kingdom Egypt existed doesn't prove every pharaoh in Karnak King lists existed?

Because my initial claim was, the King Lists can't prove a chronology that excludes the Flood from being universal by the supposed conflict between time when the Flood occurred and time when pharaoh's ruled?

Btw, a new issue of our debate is out on the blog that has "assortedretorts" as most directive part of the URL ... the post is called "Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton".

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so, by your logic, since the first audience of the War Of The Worlds broadcast largely accepted it as real, it was real ... Even though there is no actual physical proof that the invasion ever happened.

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so, I am curious: where in the New Testament does Jesus (or anybody speaking with divine authority) name-drop the Catholic Church as God's chosen people? If you're going to claim that they are, please prove it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic That first audience included people who thought it real, and most of them quickly changed their minds. In other words, Mr. A doesn't qualify as "first audience" only while believing that, but equally as soon as realising it was fiction.

Plus, the qualification I give is not "real" but "historic" - some historic things are, what that evening WotW incidentally became a short while - hoaxes.

Obviously, a first audience would be right about a claim being a historic claim, even if they were wrong in it being a correct one.

Plus, at that point, the status would not even have been "history" but "fresh news" - a category which doesn't allow as much retrospect as history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic The Catholic Church is not named with that name until a few decades after the last NT books were written, St. Ignatius of Antioch being one of the first to call it so. You might know they were not even known as Christians prior to getting to Antioch.

The NT very clearly "namedrops" things like a Church Jesus founded on a rock mentioned in connexion with renaming Simon "Rock" or at worst "Rocky" and one over which the authority was given to the same "Rocky" - in Greek "Petros" in the simile or very trite metaphor of "keys".

It very clearly "name-drops" Jesus dividing disciples into categories like:

• general crowd vs 72
• 72 vs 12
• 12 vs Peter among the twelve.

To Catholics (and Orthodox, except for last item) this corresponds to:

• believers vs clergy
• priests vs bishops
• Pope over the rest of the bishops.

AND unlike Protestants, we don't invoke a lost continuity restored by 16th C. learning, but a continuity kept and never lost.

Ernest Crunkleton

[I had missed this one]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

As an aside, and to show how dishonest you are, my parents were Christian.
I grew up in the church.

So go ahead and put that with the rest of the dishonest assumptions you are making.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

How could the evidence we have of continuous rule of Pharonic Egypt not disprove the flood myth?

Ie according to your claim how do you account for the continuity we find in historical and archaeological evidence for the last 6000+ years?

Why didn't the global flood eliminate or replace humans living at that time?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We you could have fooled me..."

I'm sorry that you don't understand how honest conversations between adults should proceed.

1. A claim gets made
2. A second party rebutts that claim.
3. The first party offers its evidence in support of original claim.
4. Continue ect...

What you could state is that I have not offered sufficient evidence in my rebuttle to convince you.

I could, if you like forward/ email scores of historical and archaeological papers, links to digs, webpages of museums displaying physical evidence, however in my opnion you are not open to that.

I will continue to engage, because more engagment helps drive traffic to this page, and that's my only real goal here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "As an aside, and to show how dishonest you are, my parents were Christian."

Excuse me, are you an adult? I was assuming you lived with your parents.

"I grew up in the church."

OK, that kind of chronology of your life sounds something different from what your presentation on youtube was allowing me to assume. // Just a Midwestern boy enjoying lifes many pleasures. // + portrait of a teen or even preteen.

"So go ahead and put that with the rest of the dishonest assumptions you are making."

Nope, going to change it as soon as you give specifics on which it is ... not with the rest of the ones you call "dishonest assumptions".

"How could the evidence we have of continuous rule of Pharonic Egypt not disprove the flood myth?"

We do not have good historic evidence of Narmer being from 3000 BC.

"Ie according to your claim how do you account for the continuity we find in historical and archaeological evidence for the last 6000+ years?"

For the historic side, Egyptians inflated their chronology. That's why it's important the Karnak King List is not good historic evidence for the generally accepted chronology of Egypt.

For the archaeological side, the Carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was still rising. This means, when Amorrhaeans evacuted "Asason-Tamar" = En Geddi in the time of Genesis 14, i e 1935 BC, the reed mats they use for putting the temple treasures outside the reach of Mesopotamian invaders are now carbon dated to "3500 BC".

"Why didn't the global flood eliminate or replace humans living at that time?"

Carbon dated 4000 BC = actual 2015 BC (birth of Abraham). The Flood happened in 2957 BC, carbon dated to 40 000 BP (as per carbon dated Neanderthals and Denisovans, these being pre-Flood races).

"What you could state is that I have not offered sufficient evidence in my rebuttle to convince you."

Actually not. I am stating your rebuttal involved new claims.

"I could, if you like forward/ email ..."

I am open to a debate per email as well. Kevin R. Henke preferred that over youtube comments.
hgl@dr.com

"I will continue to engage, because more engagment helps drive traffic to this page, and that's my only real goal here."

I'm giving it even more, alas, when I make my own comments directly under the video and assemble these in one post. Because in that case, I give the link to the video I'm commenting under. I'm not into gatekeeping.

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you admit it's NOT talking about the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church arranged itself to look like it fit the categorization. Sounds like the Catholic Church took a donkey, put a lion's skin on it, and called it a lion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic I'm talking of the Catholic Church.

If you pretend it "arranged itself to look like it fit the categorisation" how did it arrange itself to look in perfect continuity over the centuries, including the first ones?

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am also referring to the Catholic Church. You have agreed with me that there is no reference in the bible to the Catholic Church being God's chosen people (maybe because Catholicism wasn't a thing when the books were written ...).

And I was referring to how the Catholic Church interprets the categorization of disciples, which you implied the Catholic Church mirrored in it's structure.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic "I am also referring to the Catholic Church."

With gross misrepresentations, yes.

"You have agreed with me that there is no reference in the bible to the Catholic Church being God's chosen people"

No, I haven't. I have agreed with you it was not called "the Catholic Church" in the Bible. It was however called "the Church". Precisely as the Christian believers didn't become known as "Christians" in the time of the Gospels, but only in Antioch, in the time of Acts, so also "the Church" became known as "the Catholic Church" right after NT times, also first reference in Antioch.

"(maybe because Catholicism wasn't a thing when the books were written ...)."

It was.

"And I was referring to how the Catholic Church interprets the categorization of disciples, which you implied the Catholic Church mirrored in it's structure."

I have never said, never admitted and never implied that the Catholic Church started with some committee deciding to "mirror" the categorisation of disciples found in the Gospels. I am saying and insisting, it continues - without one day's break - this same categorisation. One more category came along after the Gospels, see Acts 6, we continue having deacons too, up to this very day.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Allowing me to assume."

This is the problem with your entire line of argument.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will provide my list of sources for Egyptian archaeological data. However, it's conditional.

You need to either provide solid archaeological evidence for the existence of about 200 of the individuals mentioned in Genesis lineages. (To match the number of physical tombs we have found for Individual Pharoahs, thus providing physical evidence for their existence. )

Or admit that you misspoke about the amount of comparative evidence we have between those cultures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "This is the problem with your entire line of argument."

Because you posed a trap and I fell into it?

"(To match the number of physical tombs we have found for Individual Pharoahs, thus providing physical evidence for their existence. )"

I highly doubt you can provide 200 individual pharaonic tombs. But even if you can, it would still not prove the chronology that is supposed to contradict our Flood date.

In the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, there are in total sth like 22 persons. As my claim was not about "amount" of evidence, but "quality" (like non-contradiction between different versions) your type of condition actually makes me wonder whether you aren't precisely what your profile on youtube claims. And also, it's not about "between those cultures" it is between two text types - a) genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, b) King Lists.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

The continuity of occupation of Egypt throughout the supposed time of the flood (along with all the other evidence that a global flood never took place) has already disproved the flood my person.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
' I highly doubt... 200 pharonic tombs"

Over 200.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

It's already been established that Genesis was not written until 500-600 BCE.
There are only 2 sources. J and A.

And they do in fact contradict in many aspects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "The continuity of occupation of Egypt throughout the supposed time of the flood"

Cannot be established by king lists, and the carbon dates are no different from other carbon dates I can tweak.

"Over 200." [pharaonic tombs]

Funny the Karnak List has only 61 places. And Abydos 76. Turin list might get close to that number, but is very badly damaged, cfr this "Bebnum is only attested by an isolated fragment of the Turin canon, a king list redacted in the Ramesside period and which serves as the primary historical source for kings of the second intermediate period. The fact that the fragment on which Bebnum figures is not attached to the rest of the document made its chronological position difficult to ascertain."

"It's already been established that Genesis was not written until 500-600 BCE."

The words "it has been established" is gobbledigook for "learned men agree on this guess". This date is well after the division between Jewish and Samarian religions.

"There are only 2 sources. J and A."

The supposed two sources are also modern guesswork.

"And they do in fact contradict in many aspects."

But only according to the modern guesswork.

The three versions of each relevant chapter (together from creation to times of presumably early dynastic Egypt) do contradict, but far less than the Egyptian sources for king series.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Only modern guesswork"

Thats disingenuous at best.

First of all the number of sources is not "guesswork"

They are the only two that have been found.

How are you determining the validity of your claims if you think all the evidence for Genesis is just "guesswork"

You're literally owning yourself dude.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

The unbroken line of occupation and governace by the same polical system over that time period certainly does establish a continuity of occupation that puts any proposed flood in dispute.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

When have you tweaked carbon dates?

Where have you ever analyzed evidence in a lab?

Your just exposing how big a lie you are willing to tell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "Thats disingenuous at best. / First of all the number of sources is not "guesswork" / They are the only two that have been found."

They haven't been found, they have been reconstructed.

"How are you determining the validity of your claims if you think all the evidence for Genesis is just "guesswork" / You're literally owning yourself dude."

A modern reconstruction is not "all" the evidence for Genesis, it is not even any of it.

"The unbroken line of occupation and governace by the same polical system over that time period certainly does establish a continuity of occupation that puts any proposed flood in dispute."

Except that you cannot establish the "over that time period" part. We have already dealt with King lists, so now comes the next item:

"When have you tweaked carbon dates?"

Since I came across the problem.

"Where have you ever analyzed evidence in a lab?"

Irrelevant, since I take full account of what goes on when analysing evidence in a lab. You find out the remainder of C14 ratio, you assume 100 pmC is what it started out as and calculate "carbon years" from that, and since you know 100 pmC is not always what it started out as, you present the discrepancy as % adjustments of the carbon years for any given period, or tables with carbon years in the column and real years in the rows or whatever.

"Your just exposing how big a lie you are willing to tell."

Why would it be a "big lie" to conclude (based on Biblical or other historic evidence) that the original content was at times so much lower than 100 pmC that it pays to make a table for the pmC rise?

I did the first of those tables in 2015, the first one I found moderately satisfying being called "Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte" on a blog with the distinctive url part "nov9blogg9" and my latest update is, if you want the English version, on my blog "creavsevolu" and the post title is "New Tables" - from August 2020. For the "presque correcte" I was over optimistic, but soon got better. Same carbon years typically now come about 300 years later in the Biblical chronology than back that first try.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Irrelevant, since I take full account of what goes on when analysing evidence in a lab."

That's not how it works.

you don't get to say "they're not doing it right these are the real numbers" without actually running the tests and showing the data you are using to come to your conclusions.

How would you even know the numbers are wrong if you cant perform the tests to establish that in the first place?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "How would you even know the numbers are wrong if you cant perform the tests to establish that in the first place?"

The one numbers that actually are tested are the ones I'm not contesting.

It's the original 100 pmC (or thereabout) which, for the time between Flood and Fall of Troy I am disputing.

And for a very obvious reason, the original pmC can't be lab tested. The sample doesn't arrive to the lab with original pmC, but after decay.

When a lab says "we find 25 pmC remaining" I believe that (except with the Shroud, which was dated too late to pretend it was a fraud, the computers were hacked, I've read). But like 25 % (two halflives) of 100 pmC = 25 pmC, so also 50 % of 50 pmC will equal = 25 pmC.

But I very strictly believe the lab on the 25 pmC! And that's what they actually are directly testing.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's the original 100 pmC (or thereabout) which, for the time between Flood and Fall of Troy I am disputing."

This claim doesn't even make sense,

First no global flood has been established, much less a date to be compared to anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Flood, 2957 BC. Fall of Troy, 1179 or 1185 BC.

Flood by Biblical chronology, Fall of Troy by Eratosthenes' Greek chronology (reaching up close to his times).

At the Fall of Troy, if it is Troy VIa or whatever, perhaps Troy VII, the carbon date matches the historic date, i e 100 pmC.

At the Flood, the carbon date would have been 40 000 BP, since that's the date for the latest carbon dated Neanderthal and Denisovan skeleta, purebred, and I count these as pre-Flood races, this gives an extra 35 000 years immediate age or 1.4 pmC back then.

The real age is 1/8 of the carbon age, and the original pmC 1/64 of the present one, so the errors match up.

The interesting thing is, I have been able to make a consistently rising table of carbon 14 levels, of pmCs, and thus I make sense of both Göbekli Tepe (as Babel) and Exodus (just before second intermediate period).

Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton

Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning. · Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton · It's Not Over Yet

Continued from : Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's purpose was to record data

Nevertheless, reading about an army setting out to war is entertaining. The number of horses won't be all there is in the text, and if there is a discrepancy, that will make the stakes so much higher.

And you shot your own foot."

since you again evaded answering ill assume that's a "yes, never the less"

Too bad for you. Since it disproves your claim that historical documents are stories, and not the recoding of information to document the use of resources by the state.

Game over.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The evidence for these lineages is the story. "

A story is not evidence for anything,

Unless you think Spiderman comics are proof of Spiderman's existence.

You are the one who keeps claiming that "stories are proof" without any exceptions

If you can't apply the axiom you created universally then it's false.

That's basic logic my good person.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is, as soon as this intention is known by the first known audience and believed by it to be the sole rationale for the writing."

This is myopic is fuck, how are you determining intent?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "Since it disproves your claim that historical documents are stories, and not the recoding of information to document the use of resources by the state."

Between Trojan war and Homer, state structures did not survive.

States are not the only possible upholders of historic narrative and are for antiquity not the main ones, at least not unaided by authors.

For "document[ing] the use of resources by the state" you have basically tax records that tell us nothing of who the rulers were or when they fought wars. It's simply about so and so many cattle to the temple of Poseidon, in Linear B, Mycenaean Greek.

But Arrian for Alexander is also not the least a scrutiniser of that kind of documentation.

"You are the one who keeps claiming that "stories are proof" without any exceptions"

On the contrary, I have all the time stated that stories are proof, if and only if they were held as historic by the earliest audience of which we know the actual status they gave to a text. For Genesis and Homer, this means historicity. For Superman and Spiderman, the exact same criterium means fiction (though partly in historic settings, not even that for Superboy when set in 28th C.).

"If you can't apply the axiom you created universally then it's false."

I can, if you take the trouble, as I do, to heed a basic distinction. I am by the way male and not the least transgender, so feel free to say "my good man" when you like to use that expression.

"This is myopic is fuck, how are you determining intent?"

As said, by how the earliest audience, for which we know how they took it, took it. If we can't go back to author and editor (unlike Schuster and Siegel), if we can't go back to the audience that was in fact earliest, we go back to the earliest audience for which we have an indication how they took it. With Schuster and Siegel, that would be people some of whom are dead, but some of whom are still alive, and we know that we are in the same tradition of readership. With Homer, or with Moses, we may need to go centuries on .... and what we do find when we get to such indications is, their earliest known audience took it as history.

Herodotus may not have taken the Trojan War as history personally, but he referred to earlier audiences who did. Like Persians, present in Asia Minor and laying claims on Greece.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl as I said you're applying different criteria to one set of authors than another set solely due to your beliefs. If you're incapable of at least reducing your subjectivity why should I trust your opinion or any theist's opinion on history versus an atheistic historian who's going to base it on the evidence not their beliefs?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts An atheist is basing his assessment of the evidence among other things on his belief miracles don't occur, because no entities existe capable of producing them.

And you have failed to show in what way I would be applying different criteria.

For Homer, I have one set of criteria determining basic historicity, and that works for Genesis too. But for Genesis, I have over and aboce that the criterium of inerrancy. However there is a connexion, some miracles can be gotten around even with historicity and high historic accuracy - and some can't. The difference in what makes me believe Christianity is the nature of the "basically historic events".

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the ground assumption should always be that events or objects require evidence to confirm them. Otherwise you're always presupposing the conclusions.

But then that's how science works and why we have we're able to communicate across vast distances almost instantaneously to argue about it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts The ground assumption should be that, while some few things are self evident (first principles and things before your senses), other things demand some kind of evidence.

The most proper evidence for an event occurring in the past is the stories from the past about that event.

And I am applying this to all cases.

However, since those who recorded the event in a story might have a wrong world view, this does not automatically support interpretations from their world view. Even so, it supports such events as would have been visibly before peoples' eyes.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl no, the ground assumption is that nothing is self evident. That's also why scientists lay out their assumptions before doing experiments and making observations. Assumptions usually based on past experiments and observations.

You seem to be making the assumption that stories, especially religious ones, reflect actual events before you've even checked. With any story there should always be the question as to whether it happened or not. That's why witnesses of events get questioned and cross examined.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts If "nothing is self evident" nothing can be used to evidence the next less evident thing. Ergo, something is self evident (or nothing at all can be proven).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts "You seem to be making the assumption that stories, especially religious ones, reflect actual events"

First, there is no "especially religious ones" about it. I mean all except fiction.

Second, the first check is, was the story by the earliest known audience taken as reflecting events rather than as fiction.

Third, no obvious fraud should be plausible (no Joseph Smith or similar).

"That's why witnesses of events get questioned and cross examined."

The exact thing we can't do with witnesses of events in the past when it's so far back that they are dead.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl When they're dead other nonverbal evidence is required (it'd be required anyway if they alive so...). One can't just assume truth as you are doing.

Truth of something has to be demonstrated, that's what evidence is about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts Yes, and stories are evidence. Perhaps not in penal law in US Courts, but that's not the only kind of people dealing with evidence.

As I have demonstrated in response to the Geologist Kevin R. Henke, the reason we know definitely about Alexander both being from Greece and ruling in the areas of Achaemenid Empire is stories from centuries after the actual events, the ones brough up by McDaniel and Henke being Roman pagan authors, but the first actually to say so is the anonymous author of 1 Maccabees, among those remaining to us.

Coins carry way too little information to show what I just mentioned, and art work is inconclusive.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

", if and only if they were held as historic by the earliest audience "

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the act of "belief" is not sufficient proof to establish something as valid.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"and what we do find when we get to such indications is, their earliest known audience took it as history."

What indications?

You are still at square one, you have no way of knowing what you claim to know.

You are just making assumptions about these criteria being valid, when there is direct evidence to the contrary.

You have not offered one speck of evidence to support your assertions anywhere in this thread.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Between Trojan war and Homer, state structures did not survive."

But the records did, and so did lots of other physical evidence.

Why so dishonest?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the act of "belief" is not sufficient proof to establish something as valid."

The fact that a great number believe things that are totally out of human observation, proves nothing (except that it is not obviously self-refuting, and seeing some of you secularists, I begin to dount even that). But the fact that a great number believe a text is history - at this stage we are not concerned with establishing any given detail as "valid" in the sense of absolutely guaranteed factual - is evidence it was presented to them as that. And this is where my proof comes in - if up to now Superman has been presented as made up, as fiction, how does anyone proceed tomorrow to present it as actual history? Founding a big city and calling it Metropolis isn't enough, and not even if you pretend a small town near by was "nicknamed" Smallville for anonymity. This difficulty of turning around how sth is presented and whether a text produces belief or just amusement is capital to the argument.

"What indications?"

You missed my quotes from Herodotus and my citation of Eratosthenes' chronology?

"You are still at square one, you have no way of knowing what you claim to know."

Yes, I do. Herodotus wouldn't have been even on the hedge about historic actuality of Trojan War if it had in his time been uniformly believed, as nearly uniformly in today's US, to be fiction.

"You are just making assumptions about these criteria being valid, when there is direct evidence to the contrary."

What is your "direct evidence to the contrary"?

"You have not offered one speck of evidence to support your assertions anywhere in this thread."

You should perhaps reread the relevant parts. I've made a blog post and am making another one, so the first one will be linked to in a comment on your discussion.

"But the records did,"

What exact records?

"and so did lots of other physical evidence."

Much only dug up very recently.

"Why so dishonest?"

Hold a mirror to your face next time you say that!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton I feel like adding two things.

Physical evidence won't tell you who won a battle or a war, and are lacking for most battles.

State records are stored in archives held by a state. Temple records are stored in archives held by a temple. The one type of record that we have from Achaean or Mycenaean Greece are temple records, about so and so many sacrifice or equipment or gifts to the clergy of temples of Poseidon (Potei Daon in Mycenaean Greek). And by the time of Homer, no one could read Linear B.

The one type of records that Homer could build on were shorter songs of exploits he wove into the two epics, and the general explanations given about the setting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Couldn't post the link on your "about" page, so here goes:
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/03/stories-are-evidence-of-past-and.html

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I'm asking for evidence. Please understand that I am asking for evidence of your original claim regarding the historocity of Genesis.

I have maintained that your interjection of Greek literature is falacious in relationship to that.

As an aside, what claim have I misrepresented?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton My claim is: the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are in a better shape as historic sources than the king lists of the pharaos of Egypt.

We have three versions of each chapter, for 5 we have Masoretic (with Vulgate, with Protestant Bibles), Samaritan, LXX; for 11 we have LXX, LXX without second Cainan (identic to Samaritan) and Masoretic. One could also add a weak fourth on 11, the numbers learned by Josephus as he was a child, adding up to slightly less than LXX without the second Cainan.

They agree on nearly all persons involved, the exception being second Cainan, and they disagree on how old someone was when begetting the relevant son.

The Egyptian King lists have far more disagreements about who was in power, and equally disagree on how long someone was in power (like one example already given, did he rule 95 or 38 years).

The interjection of Greek litterature is not fallacious, because often enough, someone with your leanings will precisely dispute the historicity of Genesis by claiming "it's a myth like Lord of the Rings or the Iliad" and thereby show he has no clue whatsoever about ancient litterature.

Also, between Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 and Abraham or Moses (whoever first wrote the orally transmitted story down) the minimally overlapping generations would be 6 to Abraham, 12 to Moses, on the chronology of LXX without the second Cainan. That's less of the minimally overlapping inbetweens between Narmer and a Ramessic King list of the New Kingdom.

And before you tell me "you are taking for granted that a story is historic evidence" - well, yes I am, unless there is evidence that it was originally received as fiction.

The word "story" / "storia" actually is Italian for "historia" which is where you get "history" from.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton From memory, I was making a claim about King lists giving the chronology about Old and Middle Kingdoms, while you were pretending to refute that by physical evidence for the existence (and linguistics) of Old and Middle Kingdoms

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
" I was making a claim about King lists giving the chronology about Old and Middle Kingdoms, while you were pretending to refute that by physical evidence for the existence (and linguistics) of Old and Middle Kingdoms."

Lets take a little trip back in time.

A commenter made the claim

" the lineage of the Egyptian Kings/pharaohs totally debunks the flood."

You then stated erroneously

" You presume they are well documented history?

Old and Middle Kingdoms have lots worse historic documentation than Genesis."

I asked for your evidence of that claim.

Since i know that the Abydos and Karnak lists, in stone allong with the papyrus Turin kings list gave us a great deal of information regarding the dynastic progression.

I wondered what physical evidence you had of the Early Canaanites you has that would support that assertion.

Do you have any?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We have three versions of each chapter, for 5 we have Masoretic (with Vulgate, with Protestant Bibles), Samaritan, LXX; for 11 we have LXX, LXX without second Cainan (identic to Samaritan) and Masoretic. One could also add a weak fourth on 11, the numbers learned by Josephus as he was a child, adding up to slightly less than LXX without the second Cainan."

None of these are actual evidence of a Hebrew or Canaanite kingdom

They are just Biblical references.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Egyptian King lists have far more disagreements about who was in power, and equally disagree on how long someone was in power (like one example already given, did he rule 95 or 38 years)."

Does this mean the evidence doesn't exist?

Not being able to properly interrelate the physical data is just the reality we live with trying to unravel the puzzle of early history.

One you refuse to acknowledge.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton First comment:

Abydos King list - when from? I checked on good old wiki.

It actually skips straight from dynasties 11/12 to 18 and 19. Is it anywhere "complete"?

"Besides providing the order of the Old Kingdom kings, it is the sole source to date of the names of many of the kings of the Seventh and Eighth Dynasties, so the list is valued greatly for that reason."

Ah - a source not confirmed by other ones ...

"This list omits the names of many earlier pharaohs who were apparently considered illegitimate — such as the Hyksos, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, Sobekneferu, Mentuhotep I, Intef I, Intef II, Intef III, and Ay."

And also a source not confirming the other ones. I think this alone justifies comparing Egyptian pharaos negatively to the versions of Genesis 5 and 11.

Next you mention Karnak King list.

"It is not a complete list of the Egyptian pharaohs, as other kings are known from other ancient lists, but this list is valuable as it contains the names of kings of the First and Second Intermediate Periods, which are omitted in most other king lists."

Since it comes - as per this - after the Second Intermediate, it is by definition from New Kingdom.

And now I go to Turin King List:

"The papyrus is believed to date from the reign of Ramesses II, during the middle of the New Kingdom, or the 19th Dynasty. The beginning and ending of the list are now lost; there is no introduction, and the list does not continue after the 19th Dynasty. The composition may thus have occurred at any subsequent time, from the reign of Ramesses II to as late as the 20th Dynasty."

I consider you ought to take a look at the shape it is in ... and also when it is from, again, New Kingdom:

"The name Hudjefa, found twice in the papyrus, is now known to have been used by the royal scribes of the Ramesside era during the 19th Dynasty, when the scribes compiled king lists such as the Saqqara King List and the royal canon of Turin and the name of a deceased pharaoh was unreadable, damaged, or completely erased."

Appealing to any of these three king lists from the New Kingdom is like appealing to a 4th C Sinaiticus manuscript of Luke 3 to prove the existence of Abraham or Adam!

Now I'm quoting you, not wiki, and first on Genesis 5 and 11 in the diverse versions:

"None of these are actual evidence of a Hebrew or Canaanite kingdom"

Genesis 5 and 11 go from beginning of mankind to the earliest beginning of the Hebrew nation as it is known from Abraham on. It shouldn't involve any Hebrew kingdom, nor any Canaanite one (though later on in Genesis, we see Melchisedec as king of Salem).

"They are just Biblical references."

Yes, stories from the past - like Homer for Trojan war or Arrian for Alexander ... next you return to the King lists:

"Does this mean the evidence doesn't exist?"

It means the evidence from the does not properly give a historic - that is textual - sequence of chronology.

"Not being able to properly interrelate the physical data is just the reality we live with trying to unravel the puzzle of early history."

Unless of course stories are giving us better context than the remains in physical objects. Hence:

"One you refuse to acknowledge."

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

So far I have produced 3 separate sources of physicals evidence dynastic progression of Egyptian kings.

Have you perchance come up with the evidence of Genesis that you claim exists?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton You have so far missed, the three sources for Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies agree far better than the three sources for Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom and Intermediate periods pharaos.

And when the physical evidence is from, it's already New Kingdom.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

":d, the three sources for Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies

You have not provided any sources.

""And when the physical evidence is from, it's already New Kingdom."

That is irrelevant, You claimed there was more for the Genisis account.

Some is greater than none.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your claim was not about genealogies my non honest human.

""Old and Middle Kingdoms have lots worse historic documentation than Genesis."

This will go on until you:

1, withdraw your claim and admit you are just lying to promote the Christian death cult.

2. Provide Archaeological evidence for the claims made in genesis (this can include genelogies), but to "have better documentation" than Egyptian sources You will need a significate amount of physical culture and and to have 'better historical documentation." You will need to provide records of dozens of sites containing thousands of artifacts that all support the existence of the inhabitants of that region during that time. And be able to directly tie the inhabitants that wrote the bible to the physical culture you find.

3. admit that you were unclear and you really meant something more specific and there is a language barrier for you.

4. show some honesty and quit being so combative over the idea that people are not going to just accept what you say at face value without any proof.

5. I am open to a fifth option that i have not considered, but will if its reasonable and makes for an amiable solutiion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "You have not provided any sources."

I have. Masoretic text, LXX text, Samaritan text, Vulgate text, I could add Syriac and Coptic texts. Plus the name lists in Luke 3.

"That is irrelevant, You claimed there was more for the Genisis account. / Some is greater than none."

Your "physical evidence" is in fact also a text. As far removed from some of the pharaos, on your own view, as the Luke 3 of Sinaiticus is from Abraham.

"Your claim was not about genealogies my non honest human."

Well, yes, it was. They are as much evidence as king lists are, and those of Genesis 5 and 11 are in a better shape than King lists for OK and MK which are from Ramessic times.

"This will go on until you:"

Publish even more on the blog, making it an even longer next post ...

"1, withdraw your claim and admit you are just lying to promote the Christian death cult."

Won't happen. But thanks for showing your bias ... there are lots of things I'd rather call death cults, including the promotion of abortion and contraception.

"2. Provide Archaeological evidence for the claims made in genesis (this can include genelogies),"

Dead Sea scrolls (with several different versions of the chapters) are as archaeologically relevant for Abraham as - on your view - a Ramessic king list for the time when we approach the Flood.

"but to "have better documentation" than Egyptian sources You will need a significate amount of physical culture and and to have 'better historical documentation." You will need to provide records of dozens of sites containing thousands of artifacts that all support the existence of the inhabitants of that region during that time."

The pharaos are not thousands of inhabitants and neither are the one person cited per generation in purely patrilinear genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. The requirement is ridiculous in the context.

"And be able to directly tie the inhabitants that wrote the bible to the physical culture you find."

You cannot directly tie inhabitants of Turin or Palermo to the pharaos, and more importantly, you cannot tie those of Karnak and Abydos in Ramessic times to the pharaos of the Old Kingdom or Middle Kingdom or Intermediate Periods either.

"3. admit that you were unclear and you really meant something more specific and there is a language barrier for you."

The language barrier seems to be on your side.

"4. show some honesty and quit being so combative over the idea that people are not going to just accept what you say at face value without any proof."

Put a mirror before your face, when you say that.

"5. I am open to a fifth option that i have not considered, but will if its reasonable and makes for an amiable solutiion."

Yeah, how about enjoying the debate?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

It's not a debate, that would be impossible since it would require some intellectual honesty on your part.

You will never convince anyone that mythological stories about the divine origin of a "master race" are a superior form of evidence to actual physical evidence about where and when people lived.

It's madness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton " mythological stories about the divine origin of a 'master race' "

I'm sorry? What are you babbling about?

My problem is not "mythological stories" - I knew you had inconsistent views about what "mythological" and "story" before - but where did you get "divine origin of a 'master race' " from?

In Christianity, all people on earth, all races, as some call them, are of equally divine and non-divine origin, Adam being created out of the slime of the earth and by - but not "out of" - God.

"are a superior form of evidence to actual physical evidence"

Stories have physical evidence in both cases as to being stories.

"about where and when people lived."

And equally lack physical evidence about the persons mentioned in the story living at that place and time. Both have story evidence about patriarch Heber or pharao Narmer living before patriarch Sarug or pharao Djoser. The physical evidence is however only to the text being as old as Dead Sea scrolls from 2nd C BC or a papyrus or monumental wall decoration from 19th dynasty, arguably on your view as far from Djoser as Dead Sea scrolls from Moses or as far from Narmer as Dead Sea scrolls from Abraham.

"It's madness"

I'm not even crediting this with a "look into the mirror" this time. It's too bad taste.

As you began by complaining about intellectual dishonesty - is the one shown in this debate your own or your daddy's?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

" mythological stories about the divine origin of a 'master race' "

I'm sorry? What are you babbling about?"

The Bible? Have you even read it? It establishes the creation myths of Hebrews and their relationship with Yahweh including his promise to Abraham about ruling all of the known world.

Surely you knew that according to Hebrew and Christian religious tradition that Hebrews were gods chosen people?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

In Christianity, all people on earth, all races, as some call them, are of equally divine and non-divine origin, Adam being created out of the slime of the earth and by - but not "out of" - God"

This is an equivocation between the actual language used in the Hebrew text under discussion (genesis), and its modern interpretation.

the Christian religion was not invented for thousands of years after the facts in question and how modern day Christian views Genesis is not relevant in any way to the its original meaning.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Stories have physical evidence in both cases as to being stories"

Again an equivocation.

A page from a book is a form of evidence, its evidence that a person somewhere wrote something down.

What I'm differentiating, and you are failing to understand. That we are not looking for "proof that someone wrote something down"

We are looking for the physicals evidence about what was recorded to establish if it can be proven true or not.

Nobody is debating the fact the Bible is literature, that it exists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "It establishes the creation myths of Hebrews and their relationship with Yahweh including his promise to Abraham about ruling all of the known world."

The promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. There are Christians all over the area described in the promise, and they were prior to the Muslim Conquest ruling the country. In this sense Abraham's seed (see Matthew 1:1 for exact meaning) was indeed ruling all over that area.

"Surely you knew that according to Hebrew and Christian religious tradition that Hebrews were gods chosen people?"

Key word : were. Catholics are the chosen people, and membership is not racial.

"This is an equivocation between the actual language used in the Hebrew text under discussion (genesis), and its modern interpretation."

Not really, no. You are relying one one modern interpretation, namely that of Jews.

"the Christian religion was not invented for thousands of years after the facts in question and how modern day Christian views Genesis is not relevant in any way to the its original meaning."

Very much on the contrary. As Catholics, we know who the woman and her seed of Genesis 3:15 are, as opposed to Jews who won't see it.

"A page from a book is a form of evidence, its evidence that a person somewhere wrote something down."

Exactly as a wall decoration with lots of cartouches and pharaonic names is evidence someone wrote something on a wall.

"We are looking for the physicals evidence about what was recorded to establish if it can be proven true or not."

Then you are not looking for the King lists, so why did you mention them? Why not mention what you were really thinking of instead?

"Nobody is debating the fact the Bible is literature, that it exists."

And I'm not debating that the Turin papyrus exists. As literature, it is less readable and less in agreement with parallel versions, than Genesis 5 and 11. So, historic evidence is about how literature is for assessing historic facts. And as literature, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are better literary historic evidence than the literature genre Egyptian King Lists from the 19th Dynasty.

If you want archaeological evidence for pharaos, you will get that for some. King lists usually have both Narmer and Djoser (beginning respectively 1st and 3rd dynasties), but we have Djoser's tomb, but not Narmers. We also have Abraham's tomb, in Hebron.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl "Key word : were. Catholics are the chosen people, and membership is not racial."

Nowhere in the bible is this claim made.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl "This is an equivocation between the actual language used in the Hebrew text under discussion (genesis), and its modern interpretation." Not really, no. You are relying one one modern interpretation, namely that of Jews."

Nope, logic is not biased toward Judaism.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl "xactly as a wall decoration with lots of cartouches and pharaonic names is evidence someone wrote something on a wall."

Yes, but we have cities and throne rooms and Museums full of evidence that show those people in those places and times to support the written record.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@ Ernest Crunkleton "Nowhere in the bible is this claim made."

Catholic Church is the people of God of the New Covenant : behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

This doesn't make sense of the apostles individually (it's trivially true, but needless to mention in this way of them coming to Heaven and being now there with Him) but to the people they start as new "12 tribes of Israel".

And membership is not racially limited to certain nations : Going therefore, teach ye all nations; and that this refers to real membership, like the apostles had : Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: (very different from the idea some Jews have of Noachides who are only obliged to very few things, and neither obliged nor entitled to religious feasts).

"Nope, logic is not biased toward Judaism."

You have just admitted that your logic is not properly logic.

"Yes, but we have cities and throne rooms and Museums full of evidence that show those people in those places and times to support the written record."

Not for all of the pharaos, no. The Karnak King List doesn't start before IVth Dynasty, and doesn't have any Pepi or Sabtah/Nitokris ... and as it is from five pharaos after a possible Senusret IV whom some class as late 13th, others as 16th or 17th, and as even he would on your view have lived 900 years after Sneferu, the Karnak King List is to Sneferu like a Cathedral showing a statue of Abraham. Evidence of a text about a person, not evidence of this person himself, or even of his being honoured by contemporaries, apart from testimony we have from a much later text.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl 1. Catholic dogma isn't relevant to this discussion. Please engage with the topic about the evidence that you can present that shows that Genesis is more reliable than Egyptian state documents from the bronze and early Iron age.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl

2. Can you articulate what's fallacy I made?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl

3rd. It doesn't matter that we have incomplete archeological data. That is aways going to be true.

Your claim was there was more evidence for Genesis.

This requires you to produce more evidence then we already have for the early Egyptian period.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@ Ernest Crunkleton "1. Catholic dogma isn't relevant to this discussion. Please engage with the topic about the evidence that you can present that shows that Genesis is more reliable than Egyptian state documents from the bronze and early Iron age."

It's at least moderately less than fully honest to first make a deviation from that topic yourself - namely when claiming that the original intent was racist - and then when I answer within the deviation you make pretend I am deviating from the discussion.

"2. Can you articulate what's fallacy I made?"

Yes : confusing a non-OT, namely post-Christ Judaic, interpretation, with the original OT one. It would not have been a fallacy if you truly believed OT were true and Judaism were true OT, as it is not a fallacy on my part to truly believe OT is true and NT / Catholicism is true OT. But as you believe neither to be true, neither to be divine, you can have no a prioris that are legitimate about whether any present interpretation gives the actual sense of any OT text.

"3rd. It doesn't matter that we have incomplete archeological data. That is aways going to be true."

Meaning we cannot prove history from archaeology, we need to prove it from history.

"Your claim was there was more evidence for Genesis."

Very specifically more historic or rather better historic evidence for Genesis 5 and 11 than for the sequence of pharaos.

"This requires you to produce more evidence then we already have for the early Egyptian period."

Again, I was not putting any doubt on the existence of the Old Kingdom, I am only saying its sequence of pharaohs has no contemporary evidence, especially not as to absolute dates or even relative distance between two different pharaos, unless succeeding each other.

We have evidence for early Egypt in Genesis 12 or 13. If you want evidence from early Egypt, you can skip New Kingdom King Lists, which were what you brought up. This basically leaves no pharaonic sequences attested back then at all, since the Palermo Stone which some count as from then, has also been attributed to 25th dynasty.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl

All religions ingroup.
Catholics are no different.
Pointing out facts is not racist.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl

So you think it's fallacious for me to analyze a religous system that I don't personally believe in.

That's would preclude anyone from ever converting or deconverting.

What fallacy is that?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl 3. No, not meaning that.

But keep rewording things in a dishonest fashion.
It helps the other readers get a view of your character.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@ Ernest Crunkleton That Catholics to an extent ingroup does not make Catholicism racially recruited.

I was not accusing you of racism, and it's not a fact that the Bible shows racism rather than antiracism, if you take into account Mt 28.

If you don't personally believe a certain religion, you cannot use divine preservation for proving it's the same as two thousand years ago, and if you can't do that, you can't prove someone else's rligion to be different from 2000 years ago - except by the texts, which are not racist.

3 Well, you don't mean we have to prove history from history, but I do. Pointing out what I mean is hardly dishonest, just because you don't mean it, when I think it's a problem you don't mean it. You know, a problem in ToK, Epistemology, not about your character. Speaking of which, how about enjoying the debate instead of complaining that other people see implications you hadn't noticed, as if that were dishonesty ...

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans Georg Lundahl

Right but you are claiming things as factual when they are actually just mythological metaphorical teaching stories from over 2000 years ago.

And then, to add some sort of credibility to your religious claims you muddy the waters of actual science and archeology.

So in my opnion what you do is dishonest and quite disgusting.

If you ever decide to stop causing social harm by lying to recruit new members to your death cult, you might receive a better reception.

And before you start frothing, any religion where you teach members that they can live on past death, is a death cult, by definition.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@ Ernest Crunkleton "Right but you are claiming things as factual when they are actually just mythological metaphorical teaching stories from over 2000 years ago."

And you are claiming pharaoh's from 4000 years ago as factually 5000 years ago, when it may in fact be just mythological metaphorical teaching stories from little over 3000 years ago?

You claimed Karnak King List as "archaeological" evidence, not just for the pharaoh's right before Senusret IV, to which he would be like William IV to subjects of Elisabeth II or Marshal Bernadotte / Charles XIV Johan to subjects of Charles XVI Gustaf, but for pharaoh's of the Old Kingdom as well, which would be like using evidence from right now for Henry I of England or for Inge the Younger of Sweden. That's not what it means to have archaeological evidence for Henry I or Inge the Younger, and that's also not what it means to have archaeological evidence for Sneferu.

"And then, to add some sort of credibility to your religious claims you muddy the waters of actual science and archeology."

Rather, I clarify what you miss.

"So in my opnion what you do is dishonest and quite disgusting."

Because I clarify things you were taking for granted?

"If you ever decide to stop causing social harm by lying to recruit new members to your death cult, you might receive a better reception."

I think your parents are causing social harm by raising you to be the hate monger you already show yourself as being ... and before you start raging, I don't even so support social workers taking you away from them. I'm not a Soviet style totalitarian, you see.

"And before you start frothing, any religion where you teach members that they can live on past death, is a death cult, by definition."

No, a death cult is sth like where people are encouraged to kill themselves or others. Like Jim Jones' sect, Kaliism, Suttee, some versions of Buddhism (where a monk mummified himself from alive, thereby killing himself), or Aztek or Canaanean or Inka human sacrificing cults.

Any other definition would be a self serving one on part of very Antichristian Atheists.

Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning.

Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning. · Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton · It's Not Over Yet

TirarADeguello

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge pretty much ruins young earth creationism as well. There are so many many things to point to, like the Pando Aspen Grove and Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park. (You can tell I watch Aron Ra videos, LOL)

Skipping

some remarks both here and lower down, and concentrating (mostly) on my own remarks, answers to them, and what they answer. The main issue starting in the next by thread "owner":

TirarADeguello

@MaryANytowl the lineage of the Egyptian Kings/pharaohs totally debunks the flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TirarADeguello You presume they are well documented history?

Old and Middle Kingdoms have lots worse historic documentation than Genesis.

TirarADeguello

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Look up the three dates the YEC organizations put forth for the date of the flood and check them against known Egyptian Pharaohs and you won't be saying that anyone. They know who was reigning then and they know their names, sorry. You have been lied to your whole life, I'm sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TirarADeguello Let's break this down a bit. Nearly every sentence merits an answer of its own.

"Look up the three dates the YEC organizations put forth for the date of the flood"

Don't need to. I am a Catholic and go by the Roman martyrology (Christmas day) which says Christ was born 2957 after the Flood.

"and check them against known Egyptian Pharaohs"

I'll give you a few early pharaos - three from second dynasty - to give you a taste of what the documentation was like.

Lower Egypt:
Wash, Only known from the Narmer Palette

Upper Egypt:
[Stork] Most likely never existed

Predynastic:
[Crocodile], Potentially read Shendjw; identity and existence are disputed

Second dynasty:
Hotepsekhemwy, Nebtyhotep
Manetho names him Boëthos and claims that under this ruler an earthquake killed many people.
Looking him up: Hotepsekhemwy is the Horus name of an early Egyptian king who was the founder of the Second Dynasty of Egypt. The exact length of his reign is not known; the Turin canon suggests an improbable 95 years[4] while the ancient Egyptian historian Manetho reports that the reign of "Boëthôs" lasted for 38 years. Egyptologists consider both statements to be misinterpretations or exaggerations. They credit Hotepsekhemwy with either a 25- or a 29-year rule.

Senedj, Greek form: Sethenes.
Possibly the same person as Peribsen. This, however, is highly disputed.

Neferkasokar Greek form: Sesóchris.
Known only from Ramesside king lists, not archaeologically attested. Old Kingdom legends claim that this ruler saved Egypt from a long-lasting drought.

I'd identify the last one with better attested Djoser, first of IIId dynasty, and Joseph's pharao, as per the Hunger stele stating Imhotep made provisions.

"and you won't be saying that anyone. They know who was reigning then and they know their names, sorry."

Not exactly, if you look at wikipedia (so far so good).

"You have been lied to your whole life, I'm sorry."

Why are you presuming I was a lifelong strict young earth creationist and am well integrated in either the "congregation" I grew up in or a fairly similar one?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let's see if I can post links too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotepsekhemwy

After this one

TirarADeguello didn't come back to me. I missed the following one, by Mr Science. Ernest Crunkleton and Neal J Roberts, who will be coming back more than once, seem to have missed this one.

Mr Science

@Hans-Georg Lundahl There is zero historical documentation in Genesis. Genesis was written in the 4-6 century BCE by returning exiled jews of the ruling class from Babylon. The Torah was written to gain control over the region, establish laws, and give Judah a national identity. The stories were all taken from local folklore. A good measure to see the voracity of my claim, ask yourself why Pharoah was not named? Simple answer, the story involved Egypt 1000 years in the past. The people making up the story had no idea who the Pharoah was at that time.

notstayinsdowns

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ,
According to your sources.
"Concerning ancient sources, Egyptologists and historians alike call for caution in regard to the credibility, exactitude and completeness of these sources, many of which were written long after the reigns they report.[4] An additional problem is that ancient king lists are often damaged, inconsistent with one another and/or selective."
"The exact length of his reign is not known"

notstayinsdowns

@Mr Science ,
Give your source like hans-Georg did if you are going to make a claim that isn't true.

Mr Science

@notstayinsdowns "Give your source"

You first!

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Old and Middle Kingdoms have lots worse historic documentation than Genesis."

This is objectively false.

There are numerous examples of physical and linguistic data that have been compiled over the last few centuries that can confirm many of the hieroglyphic records left behind by the Egyptians.

We can even show how the language evolved over the old to middle kingdom period from a lexicon of about 800 glyphs to over 5000.

I doubt you can provide any evidence that confirms any of the mythological stories told in an oral tradition that date back to that epoch.

But if you can, as an anthropologist with a focus on the bronze to iron age period of the levant, I would love to see it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "many of the hieroglyphic records left behind by the Egyptians."

Well, how many exactly have been left behind and found by us from Old and Middle kingdoms?

Apparently not enough to make every pharao in these a certainty!

"We can even show how the language evolved over the old to middle kingdom period from a lexicon of about 800 glyphs to over 5000."

That is linguistic history, not political one.

"any evidence that confirms any of the mythological stories"

Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning. With Greek records at least it means "up to and including Trojan War, and excluding archaeology digs about previous to it" but with other "mythologies" it doesn't even imply any precise time limit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Homer's audience definitely did not agree with you, as far as earliest known reception is concerned.

When Homer attributes an event to "gods" that don't exist (unlike when like Apollon is a devil), it is misanalysis on his part. And "heros" doesn't mean superheros, it's actually more like "gods" that means that, "heros" simply means men with good courage and bad luck.

By contrast, earliest known audience of Superman or Spiderman or even other DC or Marvel is known to have believed them to be entertainment and only made up for that purpose.

Stories are as said the main evidence there is of historic events. And with ancient history, as often as not or more often, written down centuries later.

I was debating one Kevin R. Henke, geologist, and - like you - not historian who pretended we could know Alexander the Great apart from stories written down in the form we have them centuries later. I have put his essay on the subject on a blog with active part "correspondentia-ioannis-georgii", and my own answer essays (the final instalment upcoming) on another one called "creavsevolu". Feel free to check out that case study.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I think the problem here is that stories aren't meant to be totally accurate records of events so using them alone as totally accurate records has a rather obvious problem.

Look how long it took to find a city that can adequately be presumed as Illion or Troy and which still doesn't quite match the Illiad version. And see how that doesn't prove either Achilles or Athena as based on existing people.

Now show again how much of the Bible stories can be assumed to be accurate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts As far as I have heard, one dig very recently shows Troy with surroundings actually very well matches the Iliad. Especially the Greek camp surrounding it.

"stories aren't meant to be totally accurate records of events"

I don't know what you mean by "totally" accurate, they did not insert things like "here we just can't know anymore" for things that they weren't sure of, but they certainly meant to be reasonably accurate.

As to speeches and scenes, creative liberty was accorded to historians with events far more recent than that.

"And see how that doesn't prove either Achilles or Athena as based on existing people."

Achilles may well have had a magic (demonic) blessing pushing off weapons from him, except on one spot, or he may also just have been lucky on that account and got a supernatural reputation like Franco got it on the Rif, without it necessarily being true.

Athena would arguably have been Ulysses' inner voice more than half of the time. Like Hermes for a lot of other people.

I suppose you don't believe in guardian angels, while I do. If a Catholic priest tells you "my guardian angel nudged me to take another road" - would you conclude his story was fiction, or would you conclude (as I wouldn't with him, but would with Ulysses) he misanalysed what he experienced?

Ernest Crunkleton

@notstayinsdowns

"All things told are stories, so you just dismissed everything you believe."

Not true, not all speech is a long form narrative meant to entertain or teach.

Comparing physical data collected, catalogued and analyzed over generations to oral stories passed down by goat herders is disingeious at best.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Homer's audience definitely did not agree with you, as far as earliest known reception is concerned."

First your assumption about the gullibility of early Greeks is projection.

Second, It's Irrelevant to your claim that more evidence exists to support the early bible than for the early historical Egyptian epochs.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"By contrast, earliest known audience of Superman or Spiderman or even other DC or Marvel is known to have believed them to be entertainment and only made up for that purpose."

So now you are just special pleading, homer is "historical" so you can smuggle the bible in as "historical" when its a book of mythology.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Stories are as said the main evidence there is of historic events."

False, physical evidence is far superior, artifacts, historical documents, monuments,

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

". I have put his essay on the subject on a blog with active part "correspondentia-ioannis-georgii", and my own answer essays (the final instalment upcoming) on another one called "creavsevolu". Feel free to check out that case study."

Your opinions are riddled with fallacy, you can't even provide a valid reason for why you think there is more evidence for genesis than early Egypt.

One of which we have thousands of artifacts dating back over 4000 years, and the other we have a single book, of mythology.

Ernest Crunkleton

@notstayinsdowns

" calling it something more specific doesn't make it not a story. Since the Bible is the first then you analysis is flawed."

First error: Not all communication is for entertainment.

Don't believe me

Try it with a cop, or a judge.

Second error:

Bhagavad gita predates the bible by about 4000 years.

It was recorded in Sanskrit, which was a dead language prior to the bibles existence.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl any links for that alleged latest digs and how it shows it's very well match? Always willing to learn more

As for the rest of your post it doesn't really square with your previous attempts to paint the Bible as highly accurate.

And yes all sorts experiences can be misunderstood and have no root in real events. How real are your dreams for example? Can you show they are the same as your waking experiences? What about hallucinations? Etc etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts Yeah, go to the youtube channel Kings and Generals and search Trojan war.

There is a difference between reasonably accurate as to general sequence of events, as I would even if not Christian accord to Genesis, until proven otherwise, and the confidence I have as a Christian in its inerrancy.

There are so many things that can be explained as hallucinations or dreams mistaken for reality and no more.

Several hundred thousand to over a million Hebrews can't have hallucinated crossing the Red Sea on sea floor gone dry, or some years later have had a false memory of it.

A man can hardly hallucinate sth like being on board an Ark for about a year.

A man deluded into thinking he's the first man would hardly be confirmed by absence of other populations his descendants could cross.

And so on.

Genesis can't be explained like that any more than the Battle of Waterloo - or Exodus - could.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here is the link, and the dig is referred to towards the end of the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12eHJL2yRtk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Historical documents are in fact stories.

The rest would leave much less than the stories give of for instance Alexander the Great. You could not prove the Battle of Granikos by those, and the Babylonian tablets with Alexander as King of Babylon could not be conclusively tied to the son of Philip of Macedon.

Except precisely through the stories we get in Diodorus, Arrian and a few more. And these texts are from centuries after Alexander. Actually Ist book of Maccabees, in the LXX and Vulgate Bibles would be the oldest of these, and it only gives a short reference to Alexander coming from Greece and conquering the Hellenistic Empire.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here is the oldest reference proving Alexander was a conqueror from Greece overthrowing Persia and many nations:

[1] Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: [2] He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: [3] And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him. [4] And he gathered a power, and a very strong army: and his heart was exalted and lifted up. [5] And he subdued countries of nations, and princes: and they became tributaries to him.

[6] And after these things, he fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should die. [7] And he called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth: and he divided his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. [8] And Alexander reigned twelve years, and he died.

And twelve years seems to refer to his Macedonian, not his Persian, kingship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Not the least special pleading.

I am preferring the oldest known categorisation of each over the modern one.

It's easier for a text to begin with historic status and go to fictional due to scepticism than the other way round.

And both Eratosthenes and Herodotus took his account of the Trojan war as basically historic. Even Plato accusing him of "lying about the gods" did not accuse him of lying about Hector and Achilles or about Ulysses and the suitors. He was against Homer as Theologian but not as Historian.

One extreme sceptic considered the Trojan horse unlikely, because he couldn't imagine Trojans being so religious and gullible as to let it in. That's the nec plus ultra of Iliad / Odyssey scepticism in antiquity. Btw, being sceptic of Circe, Polypheme and some more doesn't count as Odyssey scepticism, since Homer put those accounts in the mouth of Ulysses, who is known to have sometimes lied.

By contrast, bungling Homer's epics together with Theogony into the single category "mythology" is a fairly recent idea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton There is no gullibility involved in believing your own historic records, and that is exactly how Greeks and Romans regarded Homer throughout.

It's not irrelevant. Both Genesis 2 - 11 (chapter 1 is revealed, not humanly recorded) and Trojan war are a fairly consistent series of events and persons, recorded in final form some six to twelve minimally overlapping generations after the earliest events.

Pharaonic king lists for Old Kingdom are usually from New Kingdom. That's worse as a record.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is again you're assuming things like the Red Sea crossing happened and happened just as described. Stories get embellished and distorted. Especially if they're designed to convey particular sentiments rather than be records of events.

Look at the whole Mandela Effect phenomenon for starters.

And the game of Chinese Whispers or Telephone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts "the problem is again you're assuming things like the Red Sea crossing happened and happened just as described."

No, I'm concluding it from the evidence given by the story. And from that story not being taken as fiction.

"Stories get embellished and distorted."

Stories get above all simplified and distorted that way. If we see how it went with Germanic legend, two battles at Ravenna got telescoped into one. And Theoderic, given as victor over the earlier actual victor, at least was victorious in the second of these. Battles remain in the scope of battles. There is no reason to believe battles would get embellished into miracles - or miracles into battles (but that's not what you are proposing).

"Especially if they're designed to convey particular sentiments rather than be records of events."

How would you distinguish such an intention? Records of events often do convey sentiments.

"Look at the whole Mandela Effect phenomenon for starters."

A less known prisoner actually died at Robben Island in the 90's, got simplified into Mandela being that one.

"And the game of Chinese Whispers or Telephone."

Is not a good model of how stories spread from a generation to the next. Is at best a good model for how rumours get distorted in geography. Which is as likely to distort a contemporary record as one centuries later.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl again you're assuming truth and accurate records of stories. Yet we know stories are not like that. They're stories not historical records.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Historical documents are in fact stories."

Some stories are historical, not all historical records are attempts to entertain. Which is the purpose of a "Story"

"[th]e rest would leave much less than the stories give of for instance Alexander the Great. You could not prove the Battle of Granikos by those, and the Babylonian tablets with Alexander as King of Babylon could not be conclusively tied to the son of Philip of Macedon."

Once again this is a fallacious distraction from your initial claim about the historical accuracy of genesis.

Can you prove that claim?

or should i just assume you are dishonest?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts You are assuming you "know" what "stories" are.

You don't. A "story" taken as historical record probably is. Even if later by some not so taken. No comparison to stories never so taken, like Superman.

Some historic records are frauds. Whether they come in the flavour of "stories" or of "statistics".

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I am preferring the oldest known categorisation of each over the modern one."

What categorization are you using? from what method? Can I get a source?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Historic records are one form of entertainment - unless presented boringly.

The fact a story entertains is no argument against its historicity. The fact it's never taken as historical is.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's easier for a text to begin with historic status and go to fictional due to scepticism than the other way round."

That depends on whether you have legitimate historical documents to go off of. Of some sort of physical evidece.

But no rational people don't start out assuming magic is real and all the various mythologies of the world are all true and work from there.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No, I'm concluding it from the evidence given by the story. And from that story not being taken as fiction."

So you've been lying this whole time. like i predicted, this is just a charade so you can equate the bible (a book of magic and mythology with no historical value) to other historical documents that have predictive value.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"How would you distinguish such an intention? Records of events often do convey sentiments."

Yes exactly, how did you determine what Homer's intent was when he wrote the Iliad. You claimed that it was a historical record and not just to entertain. (whchi seems false, why would you include tales of gods and superhumans in a historical record?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Historic records are one form of entertainment -

Did scribes record the number of horses in the army to entertain?

It's purpose was to record data

Yes or no?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that Genesis could be used as a historical document that carries more information than we can glean from artifacts found in Egypt dating to the early and middle kingdom periods?

Ernest Crunkleton

"The fact a story entertains is no argument against its historicity. "

It could be, If there is no evidence to support it it remains just a story and not historical in any way.

Once again lets look at Spiderman,

According to your logic, we should consider Spiderman a historical document.

Because the fact that its wrote purely of fantasy for entertainment is no argument against its accuracy as a historical document.

Brain dead.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"and that is exactly how Greeks and Romans regarded Homer throughout."

Since this is such an audacious assumption....
Source please.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl that's just a "no you" argument. You're claiming stories aren't stories.

Besides any story taken as history isn't true because it's taken as history. That's an argument that leads to every competing holy scripture being true. So true is essentially rendered totally useless as a reference to reality.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's not irrelevant. Both Genesis 2 - 11 (chapter 1 is revealed, not humanly recorded) and Trojan war are a fairly consistent series of events and persons, recorded in final form some six to twelve minimally overlapping generations after the earliest events."

Pharaonic king lists for Old Kingdom are usually from New Kingdom. That's worse as a record.

How is some structural similarity's between books relevant to the fact that there is zero physical evidence of any of the bible stories?

That's what you need to address to make your case.

Egypt -> lots of evidence exists

Bible-> no evidence exists.

Iliad -> not in the conversation.

(except for your attempts to equate the Illiad to the Bible then use the "we have found some evidice that supports the trojan war therefore what the bible says must be true too!!!" )

Brain Dead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "That depends on whether you have legitimate historical documents to go off of. Of some sort of physical evidece."

No, it doesn't.

Stories are the staple of historic documentation.

Especially with near exclusivity as to ancient history.

"But no rational people don't start out assuming magic is real and all the various mythologies of the world are all true and work from there."

First, you don't need much magic for Iliad and Odyssey or most other "mythological" hero stories to be real history, and even less if you accept budging on detail.

Second, what you call "rational people" are a particular sect of people, known as "secularists" or "freethinkers" or "atheists".

Third, you rationally could leave the question of magic aside until you have settled the question of historicity - and work from there.

"What categorization are you using? from what method? Can I get a source?"

It is well known that a categorisation of Superman from the start is, it's not just entertaining, but made up for entertainment. Do I need a source for that one?

Fine, it is equally well known that Apuleius The Golden Ass and Petronius Satyricon were novels, and always taken as novels.

Now, for the Trojan War, it is not just well known, but even sourceable, that it was not so with the Iliad and Odyssey. You go to Herodotus, English translation on "Lacus Curtius" and Herodotus book 1 chapter 4 goes like:

Thus far it was a matter of mere robbery on both sides. But after this (the Persians say) the Greeks were greatly to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe. "We think," say they, "that it is wrong to carry women off: but to be zealous to avenge the rape is foolish: wise men take no account of such things: for plainly the women would never have been carried away, had not they themselves wished it. We of Asia regarded the rape of our women not at all; but the Greeks, all for the sake of a Lacedaemonian woman, mustered a great host, came to Asia, and destroyed the power of Priam. Ever since then we have regard the Greeks as our enemies." The Persians claim Asia for their own, and the foreign nations that dwell in it; Europe and the Greek race they hold to be separate from them. and chapter 5 Such is the Persian account of the matter: in their opinion, it was the taking of Troy which began their feud with the Greeks. But the Phoenicians do not tell the same story about Io as the Persians. They say that they did not carry her off to Egypt by force: she had intercourse in Argos with the captain p9 of the ship: then, perceiving herself to be with child, she was ashamed that her parents should know it, and so, lest they should discover her condition, she sailed away with the Phoenicians of her own accord.

These are the stories of the Persians and the Phoenicians. For my own part, I will not say that this or that story is true, but I will name him whom I myself know to have done unprovoked wrong to the Greeks, and so go forward with my history, and speak of small and great cities alike. For many states that were once great have now become small: and those that were great in my time were small formerly. Knowing therefore that human prosperity never continues in one stay, I will make mention alike of both kinds.

Down to 7: Now the sovereign power, which belonged to p11 the descendants of Heracles, 3a fell to the family of Croesus — the Mermnadae as they were called — in the following way. Candaules, whom the Greeks call Myrsilus, was the ruler of Sardis; he was descended from Alcaeus, son of Heracles; Agron, son of Ninus, son of Belus, son of Alcaeus, was the first Heraclid king of Sardis, and Candaules, son of Myrsus, was the last. The kings of this country before Agron were descendants of Lydus, son of Atys, from whom all this Lydian district took its name; before that it was called the land of the Meii. From these the Heraclidae, descendants of Heracles 3b and a female slave of Iardanus, received the sovereignty and held it in charge, by reason of an oracle; and they ruled for two and twenty generations, or 505 years, son succeeding father, down to Candaules, son of Myrsus.

The chronology of Eratosthenes is given on "ancient Wales studies" (as one word and dot org) in the second paragraph:

The fall of Troy - 1184 BC
interval of 80 years
The return of the Heraclidae - 1104
interval of 60 years
The settlement of Ionia - 1044
interval of 159 years
The regency of Lycurgus - 885
interval of 108 years
The year before the 1st Olympiad - 777
The First Olympiad - 776

But in fact it continues to Alexander's time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts I am claiming "stories" are not automatically "made up stories".

There are several holy scriptures that are not historic narrative, Gathas of Zoroastrian Avestha, and Suras of Muslim Qoran being two cases in point. As to Mahabharata and Ramayana, I accept their historicity, and refer the former to the pre-Flood and the latter to the early post-Flood world. I know Hindoos consider the opposite chronology is real, but chronology is the first victim of inexact transmission, and Genesis has a fairly unique safeguard for chronology : the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11. Yes, I know there are at least three versions of each, but these diverge less than New Kingdom King Lists for Old Kingdom and earlier Pharaos.

Again, I was not remotely arguing for taking Hesiod's Theogony as real history, but there is no pretence of Kronos having castrated Ouranos before human witnesses, while Hesiod is very eager to state his source as nine Muses appearing to him in a revelation.

Neal J Roberts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl neither am I claiming that. I'm responding to your implication that all stories must reflect something that actually happened and do so accurately.

If the Illiad is historical why don't you believe in Athena and Apollo and Ares etc? Yet you believe in the all the supernatural events in the Bible?

Your criteria in holding Homeric chroniclers as mistaken yet Biblical chroniclers as not mistaken seems founded in the assumption that the biblical chroniclers can't be mistaken.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That depends on whether you have legitimate historical documents to go off of. Or some sort of physical evidece."

No, it doesn't."

Yes, it does.

You need evidence for any sort of analysis to have merit.

Regardless, you still have not made the case for the historicity of genesis in relation to the physical evidence we have of old and middle Egypt periods.

Do you have evidence to support your initial claim or not?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There are several holy scriptures that are not historic narrative, Gathas of Zoroastrian Avestha, and Suras of Muslim Qoran being two cases in point. As to Mahabharata and Ramayana, I accept their historicity, and refer the former to the pre-Flood and the latter to the early post-Flood world."

There was no global flood you moron.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "You need evidence for any sort of analysis to have merit."

Indeed. The main evidence for past events being stories, and more precisely, stories that are not initially presented as made up.

The latter criterium rules out Superman, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Sherlock Holmes.

"Regardless, you still have not made the case for the historicity of genesis in relation to the physical evidence we have of old and middle Egypt periods."

I think you misunderstood my initial point. It was not that we have no physical evidence Old and Middle Kingdoms existed, it was, we have less good historic evidence for their sequences of pharaos than Genesis has for the 22 generations from Adam (beginning of Universe) to Abraham (contemporary with, presumably, early Egypt). And that therefore the sequence of pharaos cannot be used to refute a date of the Flood in near 3000 BC (2957 BC according to Roman martyrology, 3266/3258 according to Syncellus).

You see, the physical evidence will not give us an absolute time scale and therefore not tell us whether pharaonic Egypt started in 3100 or 2550 or 2000 BC.

"Do you have evidence to support your initial claim or not?"

Yes, as already given. The kind of evidence you ask for is the wrong question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Neal J Roberts "If the Illiad is historical why don't you believe in Athena and Apollo and Ares etc?"

• Minerva - presumably much of the time the inner voice of Ulysses, and some occasions (like Apollo and Mars and one occasion even Venus) a standin for unidentified perfectly human warrior.
• Apollo - in Iliad I, presumably identic to Abaddon, Apollyon (Homer calls him so before St. John does!), Destructor, in other words a demon, and as a Christian, I do believe demons exist. Same observation for Apollo as Delphic "prophet god" in more than one tragedy : he was a demon making self fulfilling prophecies, prophecies scaring people into fulfilling them.
• Mars - when not a standin for unidentified perfectly human warrior, see first item, simply a personification of human warlike passions. Note, Homer may have believed there was a supernatural actual single person involved when these are stirred, but what Homer tells of historically is people experiencing such warlike passions.

"Yet you believe in the all the supernatural events in the Bible?"

As well as the demonic supernatural in Iliad I and tragedies, yes. Here, we have actual events played out before the eyes of the historic observers, which clearly defy purely natural explanations and as often as not have a clearly less queezy mood than demons promoting proliferation of bacteria or scared people living out their scares.

"Your criteria in holding Homeric chroniclers as mistaken yet Biblical chroniclers as not mistaken seems founded in the assumption that the biblical chroniclers can't be mistaken."

When it comes to theology, yes. But that's not so much actually involved in the historic events, so it doesn't affect Homer being usually not mistaken about what happened only about why it happened.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

" we have less good historic evidence for their sequences of pharaos than Genesis has for the 22 generations from Adam (beginning of Universe) to Abraham (contemporary with, presumably, early Egypt)."

Then present the evidence you have for these lineages?

"The kind of evidence you ask for is the wrong question."

No, it's exactly the RIGHT question.

It instantly exposes the dishonesty of your claims by asking you for the one thing your "all powerfull" god cant provide.

Evidence for his existence in, or impact on the universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "Then present the evidence you have for these lineages?"

The evidence for these lineages is the story. Precisely as the evidence for pharaos of Old Kingdom are Ramessic king lists. In both cases : story given centuries after the facts.

"It instantly exposes the dishonesty of your claims by asking you for the one thing your "all powerfull" god cant provide."

He did, but you are anaesthesised to how historic evidence actually works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton I note, some of your previous comments have been missed and here is an important one:

Did scribes record the number of horses in the army to entertain?

It's purpose was to record data

Nevertheless, reading about an army setting out to war is entertaining. The number of horses won't be all there is in the text, and if there is a discrepancy, that will make the stakes so much higher.

And you shot your own foot. Homer's Iliad song II is also known as "the ship catalogue" - it is very dry and when I read the Iliad (or parts of it) as a teen, this was one of the parts that blocked me from actually getting through.

Equally, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 (between the Babel passage and the mention of Abraham) are not there for entertainment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Another one:

"Because the fact that its wrote purely of fantasy for entertainment is no argument against its accuracy as a historical document."

It is, as soon as this intention is known by the first known audience and believed by it to be the sole rationale for the writing.

In this case, the earliest known audience are people like us or in somewhat older generations, not all of whom are dead yet.

The categorisation given by earliest known audiences for Homer and the Bible is very different. You are aware that "earliest known" need not be the writer himself or his contemporaries, just as close to contemporary as we get?

Did you read the quote from Herodotus, claiming Persians viewed a basically Homer identic version of the Trojan war as history?

Under a video, by Gutsick Gibbon, which I hope to get back to.