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 Since it disproves your claim that historical documents are stories, and not the recoding of information to document the use of resources by the state.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@Ernest Crunkleton "Since it disproves your claim that historical documents are stories, and not the recoding of information to document the use of resources by the state."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