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.