Jesus fulfilled somewhere in the region of 350 prophecies from the Jewish scriptures. Or so many desperate Christians tell us. The mere mention of something – anything – in the Old Testament that might be stretched far beyond its original meaning to apply to Jesus is interpreted as pointing to him. I’ve looked at many of these non-prophecies and supposed foreshadowing episodes before (here and here, for example), so let me make mention of another. John 5:24-29 is, according to newtestamentchristians.com, the fulfilment of Job 19:23-27, which goes as follows:
Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever! I know that my redeemer[ lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me! If you say, ‘How we will hound him, since the root of the trouble lies in him,’ you should fear the sword yourselves; for wrath will bring punishment by the sword, and then you will know that there is judgment.
And here’s John 5:24-29:
Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
According to newtestamentchristians.com, the Job passage presages the John in predicting the resurrection. Specifically, the passage from the fourth gospel shows how the Job prophecy has been realised. But the Job is not a prophecy. Just because it is supposedly fulfilled by the fourth gospel doesn’t make it one. To say it does is tautological; A proves B proves A. The author of Job was reflecting his character’s anguish at the trials and tribulations he had been through with the God-approved inflictions that had befallen him. The passage might also be symbolic of the trials the Jews had also suffered according to their mythic history. It had, and has, nothing to do with Jesus. You have to read a lot into it to see any connection between the two (they both mention judgement and the fact a redeemer lives, but that’s it).
Perhaps the authors of John detected an allusion to resurrection in general and then ‘reimagined’ it as applying to Jesus. Perhaps it’s only today’s Christians who do it. Either way, this is how gospel Jesus came to be created: he’s an amalgam of ‘prophecies’, incidents and characters from Jewish scripture. Nothing he does or says is historical or even original; it can all be found in the Old Testament (and in the case of Mark’s gospel, in Paul too). This isn’t because Jesus miraculously and supernaturally fulfilled 350 prophecies as he lived, died and revived. It’s because he was written that way. Everything he did while he supposedly lived, everything surrounding his death and certainly everything about his resurrection is recreated from Old Testament episodes and Paul’s ramblings about his heavenly Messiah. To see it otherwise, is to fall for the trick and succumb to the illusion. As the Religious Studies Center puts it:
What becomes clear from these varied techniques for using scripture is that the earlier Old Testament scriptures were an important resource from which to draw upon in the creation of what would become new or additional scripture, the New Testament. It also becomes evident that these scriptures were read, recited, and known well enough by the listeners and readers to use as support and authority for their teachings (my emphasis).
The New Testament shows us repeatedly that this is the case:
Mark 4: 11-12 (quoting Isaiah 6:9-10): Jesus told them, ‘The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that “they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”’’Matthew 16: 13-17: Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Wasn’t Jesus ‘flesh and blood’ at this point? And weren’t ‘the people’ not far off the mark in equating JC with the ancient prophets? Fictional Jesus also stresses that Peter is a descendant of Jonah, another hint we’re dealing with revamping of older characters.)
Matthew 17: 2-3, 6-7: Jesus was transfigured before (the disciples). His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus… They fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.
Acts 1:3: After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.(That’s ’proofs’ from scripture: what else could it be?)
Acts 18:28: …(Paul) vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. (Not from Jesus’ amazing life, feats or resurrection?)
Hebrews: Every quote attributed to Jesus is lifted from Jewish scripture. (eg: Hebrews 2:12-13), likewise Revelation.
1 and 2 Peter quote nothing but Jewish scripture when talking about Jesus (this supposedly from a man who supposedly knew Jesus in the flesh.)
So no, Jesus doesn’t fulfil the innumerable ‘prophecies’ Christians claim. He was just written that way.
Strike up another big fail.
rejectingjesus, 
This gets me back to my “No one lies like Christians, especially Christian APOLOGISTS!” How did I learn this? By trying to learn about Christianity and the Bible on my own, instead of listening to the preachers, clerics, and apologists! The claims they make are often completely specious and they continue to try and support those same claims. Jesus doesn’t fulfill even ONE of the predictions in the Hebrew Bible and doesn’t even fulfill the prophecies HE HIMSELF made while alive! the more you look into the faith, the more it falls apart in your hands like trying to hold on the water!
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re right: he doesn’t. He’s written as if he does but this entails twisting the ‘prophecies’ out of all recognition. This is one reason Jewish people do not accept he was the long awaited Messiah.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I found years ago if you really want to know what the “Old Testament” says, by a Hebrew Bible! It hasn’t been interpolated, edited, altered, etc., by Christian scribes trying to squeeze a very square Jesus into a round gospel! Altering a “young maiden” into a “virgin” is a classic example of a deliberate change by a scribe to insure Jesus’ birth was miraculous. This is completely spurious and there are many, many more!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although the Hebrew scribes were also busy editing their holy book and writing new ones to elaborate on the old.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, that is true, the Israelites were “updating” their own mythology for their own purposes, but that did not include proselytizing or religious recruitment. The Christians were marking up the Scriptures of ANOTHER belief system in order to make theirs more easily believable. This is one of the most ridiculous aspects of Christianity; they’re so obvious efforts to create something new and appealing to others. Not really the same thing, but I accept your comment. Thanks!
LikeLike
It’s me, Don The book of Job or at least the core that is the dialogue is very old. Many scholars date it to around the time of Abraham. And it is not Hebrew in origin, though it may be Semitic. It predates virtually every other book in the Tanakh. Internal evidence supports that. The several chapters at the beginning and end frame the core and were added later. The core is not dependent upon later Jewish thought. And it for that reason cannot be a reference to the trials of the Jews. There were no Jews when it was written – or probably created as an oral piece.
The passage you quote is not a prophecy.. But it is a motif that is repeated in later literature. Being a literature guy, I assume you know what a motif is. This motif and a lot of others are the matrix that holds the Bible together and provide unity and coherence to the larger narrative of the Bible. So, even though the website you refer to is mistaken as to prophecy and the connection with John, the motif of resurrection does put them together. And it does not require a Christian perspective to do that. It only requires someone who understands literature and is able to see motifs. .
By the way, the resurrection motif can be found in Genesis 3:15. That as a piece composed probably 12,000 years ago may be the first in the Bible.
The practices of Slamans even earlier seem to indicate that resurrection was a common idea. Otherwise why bury people with tools and weapons they might need in the afterlife?
LikeLike
Don sed: It’s me, Don The book of Job or at least the core that is the dialogue is very old. Many scholars date it to around the time of Abraham. And it is not Hebrew in origin, though it may be Semitic. It predates virtually every other book in the Tanakh. Internal evidence supports that. The several chapters at the beginning and end frame the core and were added later. The core is not dependent upon later Jewish thought. And it for that reason cannot be a reference to the trials of the Jews. There were no Jews when it was written – or probably created as an oral piece.
Oh, Don! That’s what I was taught too – so many years ago. But scholarship has moved on. Modern linguistic analysis disproves all that.
A simple trip to wikipedia gives us the modern consensus:
The language of the Book of Job, combining post-Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540–330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner.[2] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job )
Fun side note: Most of the Bible now appears to have been written during this period.
And the accompanying footnote:
2 ^Greenstein, Edward L. (2019). “Introduction”. Job: A New Translation. Yale University Press. p. xxvii. ISBN 9780300163766. Determining the time and place of the book’s composition is bound up with the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew prose of the frame tale, notwithstanding many classic features, shows that it was composed in the post-Babylonian era (after 540 BCE). The poetic core of the book is written in a highly literate and literary Hebrew, the eccentricities and occasional clumsiness of which suggest that Hebrew was a learned and not native language of the poet. The numerous words and grammatical shadings of Aramaic spread throughout the mainly Hebrew text of Job make a setting in the Persian era (approximately 540–330) fairly certain, for it was only in that period that Aramaic became a major language throughout the Levant. The poet depends on an audience that will pick up on subtle signs of Aramaic.” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#cite_note-2 )
Don also sed: By the way, the resurrection motif can be found in Genesis 3:15. That as a piece composed probably 12,000 years ago may be the first in the Bible.
Where the flaming hell did you dig up this? Seriously, I’d love to see your source. (Assuming you’re not just pulling this out your ass.)
Don continued as he began: The practices of Slamans even earlier seem to indicate that resurrection was a common idea. Otherwise why bury people with tools and weapons they might need in the afterlife?
Because they’d need them wherever they were going. You don’t need to be resurrected to need tools (according to most primitive humans).
LikeLike
Okay. I’ve slept, had my coffee and done my treadmill. Let’s continue with today’s edition of Mostly Anonymous Don: Deceiver, Delusional, or Dumb-ass?
We return to Don‘s most recent comment, where he declares: It only requires someone who understands literature and is able to see motifs.
Once again, Don jumps in with English Literature and Assuming His Conclusion! Go with your strengths, Don!
Leaning on those strengths, Don gives us: Being a literature guy, I assume you know what a motif is. This motif and a lot of others are the matrix that holds the Bible together and provide unity and coherence to the larger narrative of the Bible.
Don is a least honest here. He’s going to use the trappings of English Literature to counter what is primarily a mater of history and anthropology. Doing this allows Don to assert a unity and late-20th Century Christian understanding on the Hebrew Bible that just isn’t there.
Don tells us: By the way, the resurrection motif can be found in Genesis 3:15. That as a piece composed probably 12,000 years ago may be the first in the Bible.
No, Don. That’s not 12,000 years old. You’re imagining that. Pushing your god back to the gaping gap of pre-history. That’s not scholarship, Don. That’s fantasy.
And what does Genesis 3:15 say? I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.
Do you see what’s missing, Don? Any mention of a resurrection. None at all. To shove resurrection in there, you have to use your presuppositions and a large helping of imagination to assume an allusion to resurrection that just ain’t there. Jews have never imagined it there. You have to start from your conclusion to see it there.
So let’s look at resurrection in the Hebrew Bible. It won’t take long because it’s very nearly almost entirely absent.
We’ll turn again to Wikipedia because it’s become a surprising good reference, is readily available, and is littered with footnotes so you can explore more deeply if you’d like (you won’t, because you don’t).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection#Judaism
In the Hebrew Bible, resurrection (Hebrew: תחיית המתים, techiyat hametim) appears only in a limited number of narrative and prophetic contexts and is not presented as a systematic doctrine. Three explicit cases describe individuals being restored to life through prophetic intervention: Elijah raises a widow’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24), Elisha revives the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:32–37), and a dead man comes back to life upon touching Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21). These episodes are portrayed as extraordinary miracles rather than as evidence of a general belief in post-mortem resurrection.
So, in the Hebrew Bible we have 3 stories more correctly identified as resuscitations – where people were restored to life to live and die later. Much like Lazarus in John.
What about resurrection as Christians think of it today?
During the Second Temple period, there developed a diversity of beliefs concerning the resurrection.[47] The concept of resurrection of the physical body is found in 2 Maccabees, according to which it will happen through re-creation of the flesh.[48] Resurrection of the dead also appears in detail in the extra-canonical Book of Enoch,[49] 2 Baruch,[50] and 2 Esdras. According to the British scholar in ancient Judaism Philip R. Davies, there is “little or no clear reference … either to immortality or to resurrection from the dead” in the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[51] C.D. Elledge, however, argues that some form of resurrection may be referred to in the Dead Sea texts 4Q521, Pseudo-Ezekiel, and 4QInstruction.[52] Too, there is the Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones in the Book of Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, which mentions resurrection. As Professor Devorah Dimant notes on TheTorah.com, “Originally an allegorical vision about the future return of Judeans to their land, Ezekiel’s vision (ch. 37) becomes one of the cornerstones for the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead. … The only biblical passage that unambiguously refers to resurrection is found in the final chapter of the book of Daniel[.]” [53]
So resurrection is alluded to only in Ezekiel and only unambiguously mentioned in Daniel (dated to 167 BCE). It is primarily a post-Hebrew Bible idea (Daniel being the last book written).
It is NOT a motif that runs throughout the Hebrew Bible. It’s a late development that’s barely mentioned at all. And there is no mention of a resurrecting messiah/god.
Christianity comes along just as the resurrection idea is becoming normalized in Judaism. Paul mangles the idea with greco-roman philosophy to get what Don imagines he sees starting in pre-literate 10,000 BCE Turkey.
So, dear reader, what’s your conclusion? Mostly Anonymous Don: Deceiver, Delusional, or Dumb-ass? I say, “Why not all three?”
LikeLike
Neil‘s original article sez: … according to newtestamentchristians.com…
To which Don responded: So, even though the website you refer to is mistaken as to prophecy and the connection with John,…
Highlighting just how subjective interpreting the Holy Text™ is. Christians can’t agree on what is and isn’t prophecy. Hell, they can’t even agree on how Salvation® is done.
God needed better writers. Or, maybe the Holy Text™ was written by disparate men with disparate views on how to Christian. Too bad the Holy Spirit™ was on a break while the text was being written.
Now, I really need to go out and watch the grass grow with my cat.
LikeLike
It has been a journey of discovery for modern Bible scholars and theologians, but the particular issue in John doesn’t stand on whether it is prophecy or motif.
RE dating. I have not doubt that just a decade ago you could go to Wikipedia or to the scholars who study history and find that civilization began in the Middle East with the development of agriculture about 5,000 B.C. My history books said that.
It turns out they were wrong about almost all of it and off by 5,000 years with Gobekli tepe. Even today 40 years after the discovery of that much older civilization Bible scholars and others are just barely catching up.
With that discovery, which happens to be smack in the location of Eden as described in Genesis, our placing of the old primeval stories is just catching up, Study inn oral traditions has been just as slow to go mainstream. But when those two things are placed in our picture of that period the primeval stories take on new life. They did not come from the middle of the first millennium B.C. They were in the oral memories of people 8,000 years before that.
The motif of resurrection is found in that earliest of human stories. In Gen. 3:15 the prediction, the first actually, says that the seed of the women would crush the head of the snake and the seed of the snake would strike the seed of the woman on his heal. It was a puzzle … as the resurrection motif was repeated and repeated and over millennia and until it was completed in detain just as the earliest motif hinted at with the death of Jesus and his resurrection after having defeated the attempt of the serpent to destroy him.
Motifs don’t become motifs until they are repeated.
LikeLike
How do you know the stories that were eventually written down circa 500BC were in the ‘oral memories’ of people 8,000 years earlier? You dont, Don. There is no way you or anyone else can know what was in the memories of people in primitive, pre-literate societies. You’re just making stuff up again.
Likewise your waffle about motifs. You’re imposing a much, much later interpretation on a short verse from Genesis that could be about almost anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except there is no evidence of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
So where does that leave your prophecy/motif?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poor Christianity! Founded by a failed messiah and false prophet. Who spawned a long line of Christian false prophets after him. Even today you can find Christian false prophets across the world and internet prophesying that the Second Coming™ is going to happen any minute now.
Even our own Anonymous Don dabbles in (always false) prophecy. Doesn’t the Bible say we’re to take him outside of town and stone him to death? Then hang him on a tree? (Like they did Jesus.) Good thing we don’t follow the Bible anymore.
Pity Christianity! Poor, pitiful Christianity!
LikeLiked by 1 person
As always, Anonymous Don, you are making claims without evidence. (That’s kinda the religion’s whole shtick.)
Link me to the scholarly articles, by real anthropologists about this early belief in resurrection. Show me an early link to Genesis.
You can’t. Because it’s your crackpot fantasy. Cooked up by critical thinking that was drowned long ago by faith.
LikeLike
Yup. Just forget it. But the motif is there if you care to read it. But I suppose the Bible is like poison and you won’t touch it. You could check ancient history. Resurrection is more than a motif in history, It was a belief that is recorded in ancient Egyptian tombs and literature. It is found in the burial practices of shamans around the world in many cultures. There seems to be a hint of that belief in what appears to be a skull cult at Gobekli tepe. Hey, here’s an idea. Look it up on Wiki. That seems to be your go-to source for information. I did.
Old reliable Wiki indicates belief in resurrection witnessed by burial goods was widespread across many ancient cultures.
Those date back into the Upper Paleolithic. Paleolithic religion – Wikipedia If the people who composed the earliest story in Genesis from the Neolithic period did not believe in resurrection, they were the only people who did not.
LikeLike
Not resurrection, Don, but preparation for an afterlife on some other plane. That’s not the bodily resurrection you claim for Jesus and which you believe you’ll experience after death (cf. Paul and his resurrection in a spiritual body here on Earth.) Two different things, both wishful thinking. Nothing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Don.
The point you steadfastly avoid is the fact there is zero evidence of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore, no matter how convoluted your motif scenario is re: the character Jesus, what you are trying to assert has no evidence to support it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don sed: Resurrection is more than a motif in history, … It is found in the burial practices of shamans around the world in many cultures. … Look it up on Wiki.
Give me a hand here, Don. Looked up Resurrection, no mention of Shamans or Shamanism. Looked up Shamanism, no mention of Resurrection.
Could you share a link or two, and maybe a quote or two showing your claims? Cuz it seems you’re confusing all afterlife beliefs with resurrection.
LikeLike
Anonymous Don sed: RE dating. I have not doubt that just a decade ago you could go to Wikipedia or to the scholars who study history and find that civilization began in the Middle East with the development of agriculture about 5,000 B.C. My history books said that.
Were your history books written “a decade ago”, Don? Anyway, let’s find out!
I went to Wikipedia’s entry for Göbekli Tepe, clicked on “View history” and found it was created on 29 April 2010 and includes the following:
So far excavations have revealed very little evidence for residential use. Through the radiocarbon method, the end of stratum III can be fixed at circa 9,000 BC (see above); its beginnings are estimated to 11,000 BC or earlier. Stratum II dates to about 8,000 BC.
Thus, the structures not only predate pottery, metallurgy, and the invention of writing or the wheel; they were built before the so-called Neolithic Revolution, i.e., the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry around 9,000 BC. But the construction of Göbekli Tepe implies organisation of an order of complexity not hitherto associated with pre-Neolithic societies. The archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the 10–20 ton pillars (in fact, some weigh up to 50 tons) from local quarries and move them 100 to 500m to the site.
Looking through the source publications on Göbekli Tepe, it seems they began in 2007 in German and in 2010-11 in English. It would seem Wikipedia, with its April 2010 publication was reporting the info as it was made available.
Funny what a minimum amount of research can tell you. But even the minimum is to much for you, ain’t it, Don?
LikeLike
Don again. I thought you might like this report of archeological work at Gobekli tepe https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-real-reason-g%C3%B6bekli-tepe-may-have-been-abandoned/vi-AA22qY7h?ocid=socialshare
LikeLike
Don again.
If you watched the video, it ends with Gobekli tepe being abandoned. It suggests why. But there is more to the story. Prior to abandonment there is evidence of new technologies being developed. One was fired pottery. Another was domesticated grains and beginning of agriculture. Another was brick construction. All of those made moving to lower better agricultural ground a good idea. That ground was the flood plain of the Euphrates River.
That placed the villages that were built in danger of periodic floods. I suppose you can guess what that led to. The next story in the series of primeval stories in Genesis is a flood. Is that surprising? Following that is a tower with a description that matches perfectly a ziggurat.
Research on ziggurats identifies them with the Sumerians who migrated into the Mesopotamian region sometime between 4-5,000 B.C. They came from the mountain country around the Mesopotamian valley. They brought with them a religion of the gods of the mountains. But there are no mountain in the Euphrates plain. You cannot even see one from Eridu. So they built mountains. That is the story of the Tower of Babel.
All these stories fit history so perfectly that they almost feel like history. What is the chance that they were all dreamed up by a group of Israelite scribes around 500 B.C. while Israel was presumably searching for an origin story?
I would say pretty small. But why should they want to when they had these in their history already?
LikeLike
Don here again.
I have been around the globe, Kos. I have been in churches as different as Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Brethren, Conservative Baptist, and Pentecostal. I have not seen the difference in core things regarding salvation that you mention. I have been invited to preach and teach God’s word in all these with the only exception being Catholic, without questioning if I hold true what they do. So, I’d say that your observation lacks merit. And even in the Catholic churches where I have worshipped I have been accepted as a brother in the faith.
No. Way overstated, Kos.
LikeLike
Don again.
Many do consider motifs prophetic. I prefer to distinguish between them and prophecy, but it is a fine distinction. In the end it doesn’t make much difference. Both anticipate a fulfillment in the future. The fact is however, that the motif in Isaiah 7:14 is not the significant thing. (I wonder how you don’t get that.)
The significant thing is the term “Emmanuel”. In Isaiah 7:14 it means that the birth of Isaiah’s son will be a sign that God is with them as will he eliminate the two kings who threaten Israel. And guess what. He did.
In Matthew, “Emmanuel” means the same. This child’s birth is a sign that God will save Israel from their sin. And he did.
The way almah is understood is inconsequential. It does not establish the virgin birth by prophecy. The virgin birth is established by Matthew and Luke without prophecy. It is, however, interesting that the LXX translated the Isaiah passages using the Greek word for virgin. And that happen several hundred years before Matthe wrote.
LikeLike
But concerning the original article on prophecy:
If it were easy to take existing “scripture” and write whole books about that scripture being “fulfilled,” someone could take the following
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16 KJV)
and write a whole book about Jesus going to the ancient Native Americans (who were actually Jews the whole time!).
And they could take that book and found a new religion that would reach 17 million followers in just 200 years – outpacing Christianity in its first 200 years.
That obviously would never, could never happen.
LikeLike
Kos, you didn’t go to the Wiki article that talked about civilization. But I did. Heree is today’s mention of Gobekli tepe:
The Natufian culture in the Levantine corridor provides the earliest case of a Neolithic Revolution, with the planting of cereal crops attested from c. 11,000 BCE.[63][64] The earliest neolithic technology and lifestyle were established first in Western Asia (for example at Göbekli Tepe, from about 9,130 BCE),
That’s it. Many archaeologists right now consider the tas tepeler culture a civilization because it meets all the criteria historians use to identify society as a civilization. But really, you’d think that the origin of urban living and the beginning of agriculture would merit a little more notice. (I may discontinue my support for Wikipedia if they can’t keep current.)
Why do I date the first of the stories in Genesis aa contemporary with the tas tepeler civilization? i) it is an oral tradition well before writing. We know by its form and style. 2) It describes condition before Eden consistent with the late Ice age about 14,000 years ago. 3) It describes a semi tropical climate consistent with the climate of the Bolling-Allerod and consistent with the climate implied in the animals on the pillars in Gobekli tepe. 4) Its theology is primitive monotheism with no hint of polytheism. 5) It indicates a rapid change in climate that is consisted with the onset of the Younger Dryas and the conditions of the Younger Dryas. 6) It is separated from the next big story which is the flood by at least ten generations but probably many more. (Using the tas tepeler civilization as a indicator, the flood happened sometime after the migration of this people into the Euphrates plain about 8,000 years ago. That was about 4,000 years after Gbgekli tepe was founded.)
LikeLike
I wonder what’s the Hebrew phrase for: Don’s a disingenious, Ignorant Dickhead?
😂😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish I knew Hebrew so I could tell you. I do remember a man’s name in Latin from Monty Python: Biggus Dickus.
LikeLike
I wish I knew Hebrew so I could tell you. I do remember a Latin man’s name from Monty Python: Biggus Dickus. I hope that helps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps Don is just a very naughty boy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, this article came out this morning.
Traders brought Central American cacao to Georgia [USA] 1,000 years ago
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/08/traders-brought-central-american-cacao-to-georgia-1000-years-ago/
For most of us this is just some interesting new information about the world. But I bring it up because for my Mormon friends and family this will become “evidence” for the Book of Mormon.
“Nobody knew such long distance trade existed in the Americas. But the Book of Mormon knew!”
The problem is, this is exactly the same type of evidence for the Book of Mormon as the existence of Göbekli Tepe is for the Bible: None at all.
But while people like Don will agree concerning ancient American trade, they will insist that the opposite is true for Göbekli Tepe. Because special pleading.
LikeLike
Hey Don,
I see you’ve left some comments. I’ll try to read them this weekend if I have time.
But this morning the universe blessed us with a timely youtube video:
In which the nice rabbi explains the evolution (he doesn’t call it that, but he describes it) of biblical and Jewish thought on the afterlife.
The evolution is covered in the first 15-ish minutes. Then the bulk of the video describes rabbinic thought. Which, of course, was developed about the same time as Christianity.
Enjoy.
LikeLike