Canaanite Psalms

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Shuny, to be consistent, you would have to reject the Exodus story. It did say that the Hebrews were slaves for 430 years, but they would be Egyptian or Hebraic, not Canaanite, when they fled Goshen. Then they wandered in the wilderness for about 40 more years, until the time came for them to conquer Canaan.

It's somewhat unreasonable to think that archaeological evidence of the Hebrews' stay in Egypt should be plentiful, because age and the environment of the lower Nile region would have destroyed most, nearly all, of the evidence. As for evidence of their wilderness wandering, surely you can accept that there should be rather a lack of evidence for that.

It's somewhat reasonable, if the Exodus story is true, to think that the Mereneptah Stele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereneptah_Stele
is evidence that the Hebrews were already established in Canaan around 1210 B.C. If that is true, your dates 600 to 800 B.C. are rather late dates.

I don't think Shunyadragon will have much difficulty in rejecting the Exodus narrative. I know I certainly don't.

[37818]

Shuny, to be consistent, you would have to reject the Exodus story. It did say that the Hebrews were slaves for 430 years . . . ..

That is factually not true. The 430 years is from the promise given to Abraham to the giving of the Law to Moses.

[Truthseeker]

That is factually not true. The 430 years is from the promise given to Abraham to the giving of the Law to Moses.

Perhaps a few more moments studying Genesis 15:13 might make things more clear. And then studying Exodus 12:40-41 might have an additional salutary effect. If my reading is somehow not mistaken . . .

[37818]

Perhaps a few more moments studying Genesis 15:13 might make things more clear. And then studying Exodus 12:40-41 might have an additional salutary effect. If my reading is somehow not mistaken . . .

Genesis reference refers to the 400 years from when Ishmael mocked Issac at age 5. The Exodus reference adds the 30 years from when God gave Abraham the promise. The Hebrew has lost part of the Exodus text. See Galatians 3:17.

[Truthseeker]

Genesis reference refers to the 400 years from when Ishmael mocked Issac at age 5. The Exodus reference adds the 30 years from when God gave Abraham the promise. The Hebrew has lost part of the Exodus text. See Galatians 3:17.

The year that the people of Israel left their Egyptian centuries-long slavery is also the year Moses brought out the Ten Commandments? First Abraham, then Isaac, who "lived [in Gerar] a long time (Genesis 26:8). Jacob, who came to be called Israel. Joseph, who was sold into slavery. I am puzzled, unless Paul and other authors were reckoning the years quite loosely. Do you have a detailed explanation?

[37818]

The year that the people of Israel left their Egyptian centuries-long slavery is also the year Moses brought out the Ten Commandments? First Abraham, then Isaac, who "lived [in Gerar] a long time (Genesis 26:8). Jacob, who came to be called Israel. Joseph, who was sold into slavery. I am puzzled, unless Paul and other authors were reckoning the years quite loosely. Do you have a detailed explanation?

The promise was given Abraham in Genesis 12:7. Paul cites Genesis 13:15, ". . . and to thy seed . . ." Galatians 3:16. Genesis 15:13, ". . . and they shall afflict them 400 years." This began Genesis 21:9, Ishmael "mocking" Issac then 5 (v.8). Exodus 12:40 should read as according to the LXX and Samaritan text, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, 430 years."

[Truthseeker]

The promise was given Abraham in Genesis 12:7. Paul cites Genesis 13:15, ". . . and to thy seed . . ." Galatians 3:16.

Start counting the years then (when God made that promise)?

Genesis 15:13, ". . . and they shall afflict them 400 years." This began Genesis 21:9, Ishmael "mocking" Issac then 5 (v.8). Exodus 12:40 should read as according to the LXX and Samaritan text, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, 430 years."

[to be discussed later]

[Adrift]

This subject has been addressed in detail in a number of threads in the past, but here goes again. The only archeological and internal text evidence we have available is that the Book of Psalms is a Canaanite text, possibly edited later when added to Hebrew scripture. We have no other evidence for the origins of the Book of Psalms.

The written poetic and linguistic style of the whole book is Canaanite.

You've been dropping this bit of goofy wisdom all over the forums recently. I think its only within the course of this very thread that you've reexamined your assertion, and make adjustments to it by acknowledging that there was at least some editing that dates rather late. So we are making progress.

I've noticed this about you and these sorts of topics. You'll read something interesting somewhere and come to all sorts of wild conclusions based on the little knowledge you've gained. You'll run around TWeb acting like an expert on said topic, with the good people of TWeb (both theists and nontheists) attempting to correct your misunderstandings, but stubborn as a mule you'll resist every effort to walk you back some. Eventually, you'll make small concessions here and there, but only after you've "done some research", which usually means flexing your Google-fu skills. You'll find that, yeah, based on this new Google research, maybe you didn't understand the topic as well as you thought you did, but that's about as far as it'll go. You are the very poster child of the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I in reality do not believe the Psalms are Canaanite, but I believe that the Book of Psalms have Canaanite origins, and they were considerably edited and about 50-80% were added material very late as rewritten and embellished by Hebrew stories and history as the Hebrews developed their own written language and identity after ~600 BCE. I do believe early Hebrews were Canaanite minor pastoral tribes. Presenting an extreme position I drew more Twebbers out to express their views.

yeah_sure_jon_hamm.gif

[pancreasman]

Presenting an extreme position I drew more Twebbers out to express their views.

Your friends Paprika, Darth and Epoetker are waiting for you in the clubhouse.

[shunyadragon]

Your friends Paprika, Darth and Epoetker are waiting for you in the clubhouse.

I thought this would get a rise from you folks. Wrong clubhouse. They're serious and their clubhouse has arched doorways

[MaxVel]

So the take-away from all this is that either:

(1) Shunyadragon is a deceptive liar, publicly maintaining positions he doesn't privately believe, to 'draw TWebbers out to express their views.'

A normal person would present the position and say up-front that they're playing devil's advocate for it; or ask what people think are the best arguments against the position- but not Shunya.


or

(2) Shunya read some amateur and fringe ideas, got all carried away, and was shown to be completely wrong by people who have more sense. Now instead of admitting it, he's trying to pass it off as a way of enhancing dialogue.


Which is it, Shunya?

[Adrift]

So the take-away from all this is that either:

(1) Shunyadragon is a deceptive liar, publicly maintaining positions he doesn't privately believe, to 'draw TWebbers out to express their views.'

A normal person would present the position and say up-front that they're playing devil's advocate for it; or ask what people think are the best arguments against the position- but not Shunya.


or

(2) Shunya read some amateur and fringe ideas, got all carried away, and was shown to be completely wrong by people who have more sense. Now instead of admitting it, he's trying to pass it off as a way of enhancing dialogue.


Which is it, Shunya?

I'd go with what's behind curtain number 2.

[shunyadragon]

So the take-away from all this is that either:

(1) Shunyadragon is a deceptive liar, publicly maintaining positions he doesn't privately believe, to 'draw TWebbers out to express their views.'

A normal person would present the position and say up-front that they're playing devil's advocate for it; or ask what people think are the best arguments against the position- but not Shunya.


or

(2) Shunya read some amateur and fringe ideas, got all carried away, and was shown to be completely wrong by people who have more sense. Now instead of admitting it, he's trying to pass it off as a way of enhancing dialogue.

Which is it, Shunya?

Those who cling to ancient paradigms in black and white mythical worlds of 'Truth' in believe or die debating, cannot remotely be expected to understand the 'learning' intellectual exercise of contrary debating to explore alternative beliefs and ideas. Anyone who has taken serious college level courses in the Philosophy of Debating would understand.

[shunyadragon]

I'd go with what's behind curtain number 2.

Hint: The tiger is behind curtain number 2.

[seer]

Those who cling to ancient paradigms in black and white mythical worlds of truth in believe or die debating, cannot remotely be expected to understand the 'learning' intellectual exercise of contrary debating to explore alternative beliefs and ideas.

Really shuny, aren't you embarrassed?