Makaneek
Makaneek t1_j3ukdxo wrote
Reply to comment by zhivago6 in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
I can answer some more with this video and this one. But where does the count of 8 patriarchs come from? Or any specific resemblance between Solomon and Amenhotep? Insisting on plagiarism seems a bit cherry picked and self fulfilling.
Makaneek t1_j3u8ulf wrote
Reply to comment by zhivago6 in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
Ah that's what you mean. I raise you the absence-of-evidence thing again, copying is a poor explanation for a picture better fit by a common cultural context. Huge differences abound in any example you can pick, so the best assumption is that the variations are derived from older versions of the stories with different cultures remembering what they found relevant:
Makaneek t1_j3tnjds wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
Interesting theory but it doesn't follow the theorem, evidence of absence is evidence of absence. Going by language Hebrew is West Semitic, putting the ancestral culture of both Hebrews and Arabs solidly in Eurasia when they lost mutual intelligibility.
If you're talking genetics nothing is debatable, I agree that a prehistoric Inuit man once journeyed back out of Alaska and is an ancestor to everyone alive by virtue of his genes having so long to spread around the earth.
Makaneek t1_j3tkste wrote
Reply to comment by zhivago6 in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
Adjectives aside, its explanatory power makes "pretending" a lot more like "assuming". I believe u/TamerSpoon3 already mentioned the abundance of Egyptian loanwords in the Torah but I know of no reason why events of an important story having roots in some foggy part of history should be a taboo idea.
The modern era got so enlightened that "bible bad" hardly flies anymore.
Makaneek t1_j3tj6dn wrote
Reply to comment by Adlach in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
Be my guest, not sure why it should affect me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Makaneek t1_j3tdn8r wrote
Reply to comment by zhivago6 in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
Something something absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Makaneek t1_j9n5upq wrote
Reply to Honest question, what if we accepted the assumption that God created the universe 6,000 years ago, could this explain away dark matter and galaxy rotation? by DrMilzie
Holding bible history as true still would give us no reason to think the universe is so young. We tend to focus so much on the physical and material process of creation with that we don’t tend to consider whether the Israelites would have cared about that much, and really why the revelation given to them should be expected to address it. Some clues in the text like the word “bara” connoting the bringing of order and function (as in “create in me a clean heart”) and the purpose of the sun and moon (signs and seasons) being prioritized over their names implies the text of Genesis 1 isn’t the construction of a building, but the furnishing of a home or temple, where God can commune with His human creation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24WZ4Hvytc