Why always evolution vs creation?

[ToadBrother]

We just do things in a cleaner and supposedly more civil manner. Yes we have evolved - into more skilled liars..deception is animalistic - and we are still animals...there maybe a few angels amongst us, but not many. We still murder..we still steal ...we still inslave - sure it's not opium or rot gut liquior - Now it's pharma product and cleanly distilled booze - but we still dupe and posion each other for supremacy - need I go on.?

Most animals don't deceive at all. Dominance is gained by beating the crap out of your opponent. Only certain animals other than humans have ever been observed actively deceiving each other.

[ToadBrother]

The Egyptians were a civlized society. The Aberew or so-called wandering Jews ...messed the place up after abusing the hospitality of the Egyptians - we seem to forget

There was no Egyptian Captivity. It's a story, a myth, it didn't happen.

----Moses took off out of there not because he was a nice guy..chanting "set my people free." He murdered a man and was on the run -- and dragged a bunch of rag tag hooligans along with him. It's revisionism to say that the Jews were slaves...they are exactly as they are today - They hate good kingship - cramps their style - The dispised Solomon - but loved David the corrupt murdering leaher..They sucked up to the Roman occupiers and betrayed their own king - Jesus.

Huh? The Jews frequently revolted against the Romans. Ever heard of Messada.

As to Jesus, well, if I were your average devout Jew and some carpenter's son came up to me and said "I'm God and your king", I'd probably have cried foul as well.

As for creationism - Yes thing did come into being because of some power - as for evolution of man - I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

That's because your blind. We're evolving right now.

[ToadBrother]

That makes no sense, as it is a projection of current values and ideas back into a time when such things were utterly different. You do realize that in that time period no justification was needed to conquer one's neighbors besides the will and power to do so?

That's the best guess anyone has as to why the story of the Captivity was created, because its pretty much a moot point now that there was no captive, enslaved Hebrew population within Egypt at any time. The Egyptians at various periods did control parts of Canaan, and maybe they might have taken Hebrew slaves much as they would have taken Nubian slaves from their southern holdings, but that would be about it.

All the archaeological evidence points towards the change from polytheistic religion to monotheistic religion happened in Canaan itself. Evidence of a change in food laws coming into effect are the increasing absense of pig bones in the remnants of herths and firepits, suggesting that somewhere between 1100 and 900 BC, the Hebrew tribes were becoming dominant. There's damned little evidence for any kind of massive revolutionary battles overthrowing the older polytheistic religion with the new Hebrew one. It seems that the first five books, all in all, are largely mythical in nature, and any truth in the accounts found within are pretty watered down. But that shouldn't surprise us, even in Greek and Hindu mythology, there are clearly some true places and events, but so heavily embellished, altered and redacted that only glimpses can be seen.

[Oleg Bach]

There was no Egyptian Captivity. It's a story, a myth, it didn't happen.

Huh? The Jews frequently revolted against the Romans. Ever heard of Messada.

As to Jesus, well, if I were your average devout Jew and some carpenter's son came up to me and said "I'm God and your king", I'd probably have cried foul as well.

That's because your blind. We're evolving right now.

You don't know your full history..The Bible is bias and full of revisionism...for instance - Pontius Pilate refused to take down the sign above the head of the cruxified Chirst - the sign said..."King of the Judeans" _ Pilate knew that Christ was not some common son of a carpenter...and even Christ said of his so-called Jewish detractors..."Those who say they are Jews (Judeans) are not but of the synagog (gathering) of Satan (the liar and slanderer).... The Judeans did revolt against Rome on occassion - Christ was not the first or the last - If you ask the simple rube _ "Who killed Christ?" - They will mutter "the Jews" _ mean while the Judeans did not have control over the police force - the courts etc ..The Italians did! So it was the Italians that executed the King of Judea - and those that supposedly were Jewish that insisted on it _ Knew that Christ had title to the royal lands - so they wanted him dead and gone - the real estate dispute goes on to this day....You do not kill your own king in an effort to kiss Italian ass!

[jbg]

And if there was any evidence of an Egyptian Captivity, you might have a point. But all the archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were simply Canaanite tribes who began worshipping a tribal deity Yahweh and began obeying what would become the food laws in situ (that is, in Canaan/Palestine).

There is no Egyptian record of any large number of Canaanite/Hebrews living in their heartland. There is no record of the death of a Pharoah and his troops in this fashion. There is no physical evidence of a 40 year wandering through the Sinai by a large group of people. The Egyptian Captivity and the Exodus were simply a story, perhaps to justify the notion of the Hebrew tribes conquering their polytheistic brethren (remember here Ancient Hebrew was simply a dialect of the West Semitic language spoken by most, if not all Canaanites and the Phoenecians).

I suspect the Hebrews were tiny in number and would have left behind mostly camel scat as physical evidence, at least in the wandering phase. I will not go allon g with any effort to delegitimize current Jews or Israel.

[Molly]

- as for evolution of man - I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

This is such a cheap shot:

..Yeah! Undeniable evidence of devolution is all around us!

[Smallc]

I will not go along with any effort to delegitimize current Jews or Israel.

I don't think that's what anyone is trying to do. Jews and Israel don't need this story in order to be legitimate.

[ToadBrother]

I suspect the Hebrews were tiny in number and would have left behind mostly camel scat as physical evidence, at least in the wandering phase. I will not go allon g with any effort to delegitimize current Jews or Israel.

Um, how does any of this delegitimize Israel? We're talking about events that happened during the Bronze Age.

The fact is that the Egyptians did not have a large enslaved population at any point. There's no historical evidence of it in Egypt, nor is there any archaeological evidence of a sudden shift in political or religious orientation in Canaan. The evidence is quite the other way around, that the polytheistic Canaanites went through a henotheistic stage (multiple gods, but Yahweh being the chief) and ultimately sometime around the Babylonian captivity finally becoming fully monotheistic.

The idea that we should ignore evidence just so some group can make a stronger claim to a bit of territory is historical revisionism at its worst. I'm very pro-Israel, but I can't imagine buying a mythical story from the Book of Exodus to justify it. Besides, if you are going to buy that, then the grandpappy of all the Hebrews; Abraham, was from Ur, and thus, even if you want to accept Biblical myth as truth, the Hebrews still were not "native" to Canaan.

Edited September 9, 2009 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

That's because your blind. We're evolving right now.

A roomate and I a few years ago had a discussion on this. He coined a term 'New Man' or what some others have termed Homo Nova. We have evolved out of the day/night routine and now run 24 hours a day. It's our technology that allows us to become this and 'enlightened' in some fashion.

So you are correct, we are seeing evolution right before our eyes.

[jbg]

The idea that we should ignore evidence just so some group can make a stronger claim to a bit of territory is historical revisionism at its worst. I'm very pro-Israel, but I can't imagine buying a mythical story from the Book of Exodus to justify it. Besides, if you are going to buy that, then the grandpappy of all the Hebrews; Abraham, was from Ur, and thus, even if you want to accept Biblical myth as truth, the Hebrews still were not "native" to Canaan.

The question of course is that if it weren't largely true, outside of obvious tall tales, why would it have been spoken and written? My point is that there were lots of nomadic groups criss-crossing that entire area, following the rains, fleeing from wars or persecution or slavery, etc. What information do you have that falsifies the Exodus version of the story and promotes the idea of Yahweh being supreme among idols?

I am glad you're pro-Israel. My point is that people use equivocal evidence or lack of evidence in mischievous ways.

[ToadBrother]

The question of course is that if it weren't largely true, outside of obvious tall tales, why would it have been spoken and written? My point is that there were lots of nomadic groups criss-crossing that entire area, following the rains, fleeing from wars or persecution or slavery, etc. What information do you have that falsifies the Exodus version of the story and promotes the idea of Yahweh being supreme among idols?

Because all the archaeological evidence points towards the rise of monotheism in Canaan being completely homebrewed. Traces of the henotheistic period can even be found in Genesis, with the first two chapters containing both a monotheistic "Yahweh" version of Creation and a henotheistic "Elohim" version. One would expect that, if the Hebrew invasion claim was true, you would find evidence of a sudden shift from polytheistic religion to monotheistic religion, but there is no evidence of this at all.

Besides, you can't prove a negative.

I am glad you're pro-Israel. My point is that people use equivocal evidence or lack of evidence in mischievous ways.

Maybe they do. But the lack of evidence of an Egyptian captivity or of Hebrew-speaking tribes wandering around Sinai is as much the product of modern Israeli archaeology as anything else. Clearly Israeli researchers have little problem with the Bible not actually reflecting the Bronze Age and early Iron Age history of the region.

To my mind, Israel's claim to the region is simply that they are there, that they were allowed to move there beginning with the Ottomans, and that after the Ottoman collapse, the Brits controlled the region, and they basically made the commitment. As well, that control was solidified by the failed attempts of the Arab world to unseat the state. Even if you somehow reject Balfour and Britain's right as the Mandate power, the Israelis won it in the field, and that, to my mind, is the end of the issue.

Edited September 15, 2009 by ToadBrother