Replies

What passed as "history" during the ancient world wasn't what we consider history. Historians in the ancient world were interested in getting a certain point across/ teaching a certain lesson more than they were stating the facts. There was nothing akin to a grade school history text book with names, dates, places, etc. Josephus' history of the Jewish Revolt is considered the Source for information about Judah in the late 1st Century CE, and most of that information can be independently verified and was written many centuries after the Bible. However, that work still contains a view point. Ditto with all the famous Greek/ Roman historians.

Therefore, I think that it's safe to say that the parts of the Hebrew Bible that are "historical" are written to prove a specific point. It isn't like the Biblical writers decided to write a timeline. However, that idea is moot when discussing Genesis 1-11, because these stories were clearly creation myths meant to tell people how God created the Earth, why there's many different cultures, etc. These stories probably started out as oral legends and were written down in Babylon during the Exile so the people wouldn't forget their religion. Babylonian myths, scenery, etc. were incorporated into them to make them more timely and to also to criticize Akkadian religion. (Creation 1 is a clear polemic against the Babylonian religion; God "creates" all the Enuma Elish gods).

... these stories were clearly creation myths meant to tell people how God created the Earth, why there's many different cultures, etc.

Duh

Of course the Bible was meant to tell people how God created the Earth, why there's many different cultures, etc.

A five year old could figure that out. The question is, how does that fact alone infer that they are myths.

These stories probably started out...

Probably?...and here I thought you had proof for your statement of certainty in the first quote.

Restating a non sequitur does not make it any less the non sequitur.

Your entire rationale is utterly circular. Furthermore, it's 'special pleading' as you give no hint of the incidences where the Biblical record has been vindicated (much to the chagrin of 'experts') such as the existence of the Hittites, or the composition of the Babylonian court when it fell to the Medio-Persians.

It would seem your contribution to this thread is more projection than discussion.

Historians in the ancient world were interested in getting a certain point across/ teaching a certain lesson more than they were stating the facts.

I guess ol' King Solomon was right!

There IS nothing new under the sun!