Off Topic Messages

Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:38 pm

the bible is NOT literal in the historical context. there are references to real historical events, but it is far from the truth. - Elvis' Babe

And you know this from........?

Torben, I haven't watch Monk. I've seen it at rental places but I haven't given it a chance.
Also, I'm not opposed to anything that has any kind of sexual stuff. I just don't want it to be exploitative as so many shows do.
Thanks for your suggestion.

Elvis-Fan, you suggested three shows. I'm familiar with The Apprentice and won't watch that. The other two I'm not familiar with. If they are reality shows, I will not give them my time.
Thanks for your suggestions.

jeff R

Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:51 pm

Elvis' Babe wrote:um actually the historical proof of the existance of the hittites is the fact that ramses II fought a war against them in 1275 b.c. called the battle of kadesh against king muwatallis.

the historical proof of the hittites is written all over ramses II's extensive building obsession all over egypt. the bible 'proving' their existance in this case is irrelavant because there is first-hand documentation of a war with them by the egyptians who actually dealt with them.


It's relevant in the sense that there are those who doubt the historical veracity of the Bible. Until the late 19th century nothing was known about the Hittites outside of the Bible. In 1876 English scholar A.H. Sayce connected picture-writing on stone blocks reused in medieval buildings in Syria to similar writings carved on rocks in Turkey. He related these writings to the Hittites of the Old Testament and the 'Kheta' named in Egyptian texts. So until Sayce's discovery we did not know of the Hittites from Egyptian texts, because no one had identified the Kheta as the Hittites.

Elvis' Babe wrote:
as far as the exodus--major historical flaws there. anybody who has read extensively about ramses II knows what i'm talking about. again, i recommend the video series by bob brier--we are talking history channel stuff vs. a christian answers site.

and as far as egyptian records proving things...it's an island called elephantine island near aswan that proves the existance of the hebrews in egypt and spent 40 years wandering in the desert. this stone stela was erected by king merenptah--son of ramses II. thus proving ramses II was the pharaoh of the exodus.


It has long been acknowledged that Ramses II may have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The other candidate is Thutmose III. The Merneptah stele proves the existence of the Israelites in Canaan in 1207 BC. The Exodus and the conquest of Canaan would have taken place some time before. Given the time frame of the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the early Judges period, it's not unreasonable to date the Exodus to the 15th century. Personally, I have no strong feelings on the dating issue one way or the other.

Elvis' Babe wrote:however, the events in the exodus have been greatly embellished--sea of reeds, sea turning to blood is more likely the red nile which happens frequently of natural causes where red sediment flows down from ethiopia. the locusts and such were another frequence in egypt. not quite so amazing to the egyptians. locusts, inundations, and famine were of common occurance.


The sea of reeds may refer to one of the 2 gulfs of the red sea. There is a reference to 'sea of reeds' in the Old Testament that is clearly used in this context, as it's used in reference to a people that lived adjacent to the gulf (of Aquaba I believe, but I don't recall for sure).

The 10 plagues (or 9 of them at any rate) were a domino effect of natural events. In other words one led to another and so on. But this doesn't explain what kicked off these 'plagues,' nor does it explain the death of the first born of Egypt.


Elvis' Babe wrote:you got me on an egyptology rant...but yes...the bible is NOT literal in the historical context. there are references to real historical events, but it is far from the truth.


You're being very selective here Elvis' Babe. You accept the historicity of the Bible when supported by archaeology, but reject the religious claims. But the religious claims are part of the historical record. The truth of the religious claims lies outside the realm of investigation. The Biblical history that is open to investigation has been for the most part upheld by archaeology.

Elvis' Babe wrote:and yes, the sumerian king sargon is where the moses reed basket myth got lifted from. sargon predates moses, and his legend is older.


Prove it was 'lifted.' You can't, so that's just speculation on your part. I could just as easily speculate that Moses' mother was familiar with the Sargon story, and felt that if it worked to save the baby Sargon it could also work to save her son from certain death.
Or better yet it may be that the basket was placed in a deliberate location with the express intent that it would be seen/rescued, which is how the Exodus story reads. Moses' sister was standing off at a distance keeping an eye on the basket. When Pharoah's daughter had the basket retrieved and recognized the baby as a Hebrew Moses' sister volunteered to find a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby. Pharoah's daughter agreed, and Moses' sister brought the baby back to his mother. All of this has a deliberation about it. In this scenario the placing in the water could be coincidental to the Sargon tale.
The drawing from the water bit is not in and of itself a miraculous event, nor is there any reason apart from personal philosophy to suspect the author plaguerized the Sargon story, as the similarities are superficial. We've all heard of baby's being left on the steps of Churches, this may be the ancient equivalent.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:46 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:Elvis-Fan, you suggested three shows. I'm familiar with The Apprentice and won't watch that. The other two I'm not familiar with. If they are reality shows, I will not give them my time.
Thanks for your suggestions.

jeff R


Just curious why you won't watch The Apprentice?
According To Jim (starring Jim Belushi) and The George Lopez Show are family oriented sitcoms.

Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:55 pm

Hi Brad,
I thought The Apprentice was the reality show that starred, oh-oh age is creeping up on me. I can't think of his name...the billionaire who has his name on everything he owns. I hate that when I blank.
DONALD TRUMP!!!

jeff R
Last edited by jeffreyjames on Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:40 pm

Jeff -
According To Jim and George Lopez are decent sitcoms.
I don't really watch Monk, but my wife and daughter are fans of the show, and I sometimes catch bits & pieces. It looks to be a good show.
Seventh Heaven is a family-oriented Christian values show. It can get a little sappy, but a little sap is good for the soul.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:00 am

according to jim even passes my meter, so i'll recommend it as well. i'm a big fan of the belushi brothers and aykroyd (one of both john and jim's best friends), so i've watched several episodes. dan appears every season or so in a cameo. and i think the supporting cast on jim's show is also very strong. it's macho manly man humor mostly.

seventh heaven is the sappiest piece of crap i've ever witnessed, however. some of the kids annoy me. it's a little too neatly wrapped for my tastes. i'd say skip it, but i think it may be the only thing on tv that would meet your moral standards.

it's a little out of date, but you should check out the 80s family show family ties. the one with michael j. fox as alex p. keaton. alex p. is a republican teenager living with hippie parents. it's very funny and cute.

full house is another outdated family show that might appeal to you--you know the one with the olsen twins.

wonder years, boy meets world, growing pains, etc...all fall in the same category.

note that all these shows, with the exception of according to jim, star mainly kids learning life lessons or dealing with kid or teen issues.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:03 am

EB my sweet.......you suffer from a common malady. You believe history began when you were born :wink:

All you cited in your reply was research from a 21st century perspective. All of which, BTW, was facilitated and instigated by the 19th century archaeologists who came to the Middle East to research the Biblical record.

Yes.......we NOW know the things you cited as fact. But those facts were flatly denied and discounted prior to that time.

Hittites.........denied.

Jericho........denied

Exodus........denied.

Until those early stone-turners proved otherwise. That was the point.

You stand on the shoulders of those men..........but it may help to look back and see what was commonly believed before their research.

BTW........I personally lean toward the early date for the Exodus.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:08 am

Elvis' Babe wrote:according to jim even passes my meter, so i'll recommend it as well. i'm a big fan of the belushi brothers and aykroyd (one of both john and jim's best friends), so i've watched several episodes. dan appears every season or so in a cameo. and i think the supporting cast on jim's show is also very strong. it's macho manly man humor mostly.

Agreed.......It's watchable.

seventh heaven is the sappiest piece of crap i've ever witnessed, however. some of the kids annoy me. it's a little too neatly wrapped for my tastes. i'd say skip it, but i think it may be the only thing on tv that would meet your moral standards.

Agreed again..........man I hate that show

it's a little out of date, but you should check out the 80s family show family ties. the one with michael j. fox as alex p. keaton. alex p. is a republican teenager living with hippie parents. it's very funny and cute.

Too dated

full house is another outdated family show that might appeal to you--you know the one with the olsen twins.

Possibly the worst show of all time............makes "My Mother The Car" look like a classic

wonder years, boy meets world, growing pains, etc...all fall in the same category.

I kinda like Wonder Years........the portrayal of teen angst rings true

note that all these shows, with the exception of according to jim, star mainly kids learning life lessons or dealing with kid or teen issues.

Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:22 am

I watched something the other night that brought back tons of memories. I saw a repeat of the Carol Burnett Show Reunion. I laughed at the old clips until I cried. Carol and Vickie Lawrence playing Eunice and Mama was hilarious. However, watching Tim Conway and Harvey Korman together is priceless.

My sides still hurt.

Image