My Review of "Bible Myths and Their Parallels In Other Religions" by T.W. Doane

Didn't Sarah Palin's daughter give virgin birth?

In the Shatnerverse, Spock was born in a cave:



And there are strong arguments for Spock as a Christ figure. Just sayin'.

Many times

That's the Old Testament, doesn't count.

What is interesting about Epic of Gilgamesh and the Captivity, is that Genesis doesn't follow precisely and there is a certain logic to that, lending credence. In this case it doesn't matter who, or when. What is important, is what is jerking your chain.
Both Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh mention a duality that hints at the Neanderthal/ Cro Mag event. At the time of Herodotus, the Babylonians told the Greek historian that their King list went back 11400 years, jiving well with the Egyptian, Valley of the Kings. That could also be the tail end of the Ice Age, melting ice, yielding Noah and the Flood. Anyway, in E of G, we have Gilgamesh, his wild man friend, Enkidu, and one pissed off goddess, Ishtar. One must die; Gilgamesh is 2/3 "god"; Enkidu is killed. Sounds a hell of a lot like Cro Mag, Neanderthal, and Mother Nature out competed one, but not before, one passes us a few genes.

In Genesis, We have Adam married to Lillith, both presumably created from the same earth, indicating they are of the same species. She said she didn't like being fucked over, from behind. Enter Eve, out of the rib of Adam, indicating the next step in evolution. From them, we get the "twins", Cain and Abel. One is favored of God, and is presumably murdered by the other. Essentially the Genesis version states, " Gilgamesh done it!" not the smartest thing to say. Daniel even tells of a fiery furnace, hinting of book burning. They emerge untouched. Enter the Persians, who take over. In addition to giving the world the tayloring technique called, the set in sleeve, they were fond of carving rocks with images of men holding hands, thirty feet tall. And if they're the ones who are giving you a ticket home, you don't go calling THEM, dirt bag queers. The Babylonians were now the vanquished and therefore okay to sully them. Sodom and Gomorrah may never have happened. With all the tip toeing and sucking up, it give an odd credence to Genesis, to the point that even Abraham admits to being, originally from Babylonia or Sumeria. A century later, give or take, The Persians occupy the fledgling land of Greece. You get to wonder who taught them about doing it Greek, but that's a whole, 'nother story. Anyway, even though the two stories are similar, they both seem derived from common knowledge. In Genesis, Eve shares knowledge with Adam and the two are banished to the realm of mortality. Gilgamesh manages to get his hands on the Water of Life, only to fall asleep and get rolled, by a snake.

But the two stories are not exactly the same. Was Genesis written in 600BCE or sooner? At the time, Israel is a vanquished people, and anything that is of them seems destined to be buried in extinction. At this point, The Babylonians don't know they are on the way out. As far as they know, theirs is the only version, the true version. Gilgamesh is not only out, he is about to be buried by time and no one knows of him until the early 20th century. Epic of Gilgamesh seems a straight forward action and adventure, a Buddy Film starring Arnold. Genesis comes off as more contrived until you realize it really a Kindergarten view of Darwin.( How do the Hebrews manage to survive against these odds? No one, except Patton ever followed The Art Of War)

When was Genesis written? Hard to say, but, if we are searching for a Moses figure, we need to find an event that is earth shattering to precipitate a Mass Exodus. Simply saying, the Egyptians make us work like dogs is not going to cut it. You need something huge, not necessarily an extinction level event, but something big. The Hittites were generally credited with the development of the iron sword. Why? At this time, we are in the Bronze Age, but suddenly there is a tin shortage, a major component in the manufacture of Bronze. The Hittites, have this stuff called sponge iron, but they use that to make the bbq grills. ( Art of War. Even though the Hittites were the people of a 1000 gods, do not assume they were not fervent about their gods) They worshipped a god of war; they won battles with the swords of that god. Imagine the poor smuck who gets the sword made from the bbq grill! As it happens, Ramesses II is at war with the Hittites. ( This might also be the time of the Trojan War, though it is still uncertain if Troy ever existed) Ramesses is so certain of victory, the he pre mints his coin, and takes the entire nation to battle, ( women and children) to fight or be spectators, making the Roman coliseum seem like the Super Bowl. This was the battle of the millennium. History called it a draw, with the Egyptians fleeing over the River Kadesh very butt-hurt. It has the Earth shattering event. Two Super Powers at war, with a small tribal nation stuck in the middle. A transition to a new war machine. ( The Hittites invented it, but in 800 BC, the Assyrians perfected it. The Israelites had some use of the swords, being vassals of the Hittites, making them the Bad Boys of the Levant for a time. About the time of Jezebel, they go all Taliban on the people. What's the matter, God? Doncha love us anymore? By this time EVERYONE had the iron sword and it diminished them.) What Moses would say would have to give credence to his story, that he and his tribe of 600 were lost and trying to get home. Whom must he convince? In the historical account, there was mention of spies and double agents, and a prisoner exchange. Though this is only speculation, it's not a far stretch. " Yeah, we'll save your skanky asses, but no pulled pork for you!" Or not.

I thought Genesis was believed to have been written by Moses centuries before the Babylonian captivity.

If so then what relevance would it be what the Babylonian legends said?

Haven't been keeping up on this, but let me guess, its just been a bunch of....

I think very few scholars believe that. You have to imagine Moses tearfully writing about his own death if you think he composed the Book of Exodus. Of course, the whole story of Moses and the Exodus has very, very little historical support.

Moses--if such a figure did exist--is dated to around 1400-1500 BCE. There's no evidence that Hebrew was a written language until 500 years after that, about the 10th Century BCE. There is no evidence of any of the "Books of Moses" existing before the 6th Century BCE. It's certainly possible that the stories in the Hebrew Bible were oral traditions before that, but oral traditions lasting 800 years intact? Doubtful.

The evidence points to the Hebrew Bible being written down after the Babylonian Captivity.

Aborigines have oral traditions that go back thousands of years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ent-sea-level-rise-survived-10-000-years.html

Pretty incredible!

Of course, the Aborigines were isolated from the rest of humanity during almost that entire time, so there were no outside influences. They also had no society-wide catastrophes.

The Hebrews (are said to have) left bondage in Egypt, wandered in the wilderness for many years, conquered Canaan, suffered an invasion of Philistines, had their kingdom divided in two, had the northern kingdom scattered by the Assyrians, had their temple destroyed and their southern kingdom taken into captivity for a century by the Babylonians, and returned to their homeland by the Persians. That's quite a lot of turbulence, transitions of power, interaction with other societies, etc. As we know these things shaped Jewish beliefs in profound ways, it seems implausible that any oral traditions they had from the time of Moses would stay intact.

Being isolated is a factor, I'm just pointing out that it's not impossible. I think it's completely possible that some may have remained. I'm pretty sure some Native American oral traditions are quite old as well and they interacted with others.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Some traditions can remain in place for a long time.

But the Hebrews interpreted their history through the lens of their religion, and, given that their fortunes changed radically many times over the centuries, I expect the stories they told would've changed as well.

In any event, we KNOW that many things purporting to be historical in the Hebrew Bible are either unsupportable with available evidence, outright fiction, or extremely implausible.

You could make a strong argument that most events in history are not supported either at all or at least very little by evidence.

Check out Matthew White's "Great Big Book of Horrible Things".

White who IIRC an atheist (and is very hard on religion as a cause of human conflict) has a summary in one chapter where he begins with as

"A long time ago, the Chinese wiped out a people no one had ever heard of"

"Most of history is like that".

White also presents a perfectly reasonable scenario how in a century or so all the written records of the Holocaust would be destroyed and people would be declaring it was impossible for the Nazis to have wiped out nearly six million Jews.

It depends on how you mean that.

If you mean that most of the things that happened in the past are not "discoverable" with evidence, you're right. To use an example of Bart Ehrman's: Although I think my grandfather probably had lunch on October 12, 1956, it's impossible to confirm that he did or to figure out what he had.

If you mean the things that appear in history books, you're wrong. Most of what we accept as history is reasonably well-supported by multiple pieces of evidence. Although Julius Caesar is 2000 years in the past, we can be pretty certain that he existed. There is a ton of documentary and archaeological evidence spanning many sources that all consistently point to his existence.

I'll give you an example from the New Testament. One story point that is consistent in the Gospels is that the prefect who had Jesus crucified was called Pontius Pilate. Do we have evidence that such a person existed? Absolutely. Apart from his mention in the NT, we have documentary evidence of him and even rchaeological evidence (an inscription on a building dedicated by him). We know pretty clearly the dates of his tenure in Jerusalem.

In fact, Pilate's existence helps prove Jesus's, because it shows that this element of the NT is probably historical.

No doubt there are events that occurred in the past--some of which may be very significant--that we will never discover. We can't really speak about things for which we have no evidence.

I suppose that could happen, but such an effort would itself likely leave historical clues. Historians in the 25th Century would be asking what secret people in the 21st Century were trying to conceal.

I suppose that could happen, but such an effort would itself likely leave historical clues.[/quote]

I think White was suggesting more negligence and lack of attention to technological change destroying the records that intentional cover up by humans.

@Dayton3 and @Federal Farmer : your quotes are screwed up. Dayton was the one talking about White, but the quote makes it look like I was.

Anyway, it's hard to imagine a scenario where records of the Holocaust are completely lost, but records of the Nazis and World War II remain.

Goddamnit Dayton! Yeah, I deleted my post.

That's why I chose Ramesses II. There's a lot of history and it is violent. At 1500-1600 BCE, the Minoan civilization collapsed. Thera erupted. What ever happened, we do know that people were hungry, indicating a famine on a massive scale. Generally, what was left of Minoa( Crete) preyed upon Helenes recently moved into the area. Graves were excavated with the tell tale marks of butchery. This turns into the legend of Theseus. We all know the tale of Joseph and the technicolor dream coat which culminates in a tale of global famine. It wouldn't mean anything except, find the butcher's bones was a more recent discovery. 3 to 400 years later, their descendents are suffering hardship at the hands of Egypt. Again, Ramesses II. He was generally regarded as a very great pharaoh. but a curious feature of Egyptian religion demanded judgement at death. The soul may weigh no more than a feather or the Crock Monster will eat your soul. Ramesses was being too good of a Joe, and had to do something rotten. He lived to be ninety. Very few did. He did not know he would. He was growing long of tooth. He could kick off at any time. To please eternity, he had to fill his Bucket list with the entrails of somebody. He wasn't going to harm his own. The Hebrews seemed convenient. They lived on the fringes. They were muscle for hire and they sucked. The Hittites were bearing down upon Sacred Egypt. Time to disarm the trailer trash.
In Israel, clay jars were excavated. Hidden inside was Egyptian jewelery. These are dated a century later. If the Hittites own you, and is they are at war with Egypt, you don't run around wearing Egyptian jewelry. It's gold so it's too valuable to throw out. Add to this, that another group has moved into the area. The Phillistines. Their pottery shards say Greece, or maybe survivors from Minoa. They build up their arms; they take out the Hittites. With them gone, Israel sees an opportunity. Instead of defend the old guard, why not be the new ruler? The events I choose were big and really happened. whether they happened to Israel, is unknown, but you can not put Israel in the Levant BEFORE the Hittites arrive. This is kind of a Jewish DaVinci Code.

Anyway, what @Paladin said. There's plenty of evidence of the attempted extermination of the Jews that it would take a lot of negligence. I mean we have evidence that dinosaurs exist.

He might've been writing tongue in cheek to suggest how records can be lost over time.

IIRC he suggests a Middle Eastern War destroying the records in Israel, a right wing government deliberately purging the records in Russia, and a massive computer failure destroying the digitized records in Washington D.C.

But yeah, an event like the Holocaust has to have been thoroughly recorded in so many places that loss of records should be impossible.

At the same time, I've heard Holocaust deniers already making the argument that it would've been impossible for 6 million Jews to be wiped out like that. That they could've fought back and made it too expensive in terms of German lives for the Germans to continue.

Yeah, there's no "negligent" or "accidental" means that could erase the Holocaust from history, unless it was part of some wider phenomenon where all knowledge was lost.

There are people still alive today who experienced the Holocaust first hand, and their children, grandchildren, etc. will keep their experiences alive. There are towns like Dachau and Auschwitz that have concentration camps preserved as memorials, and whose residents remember the history. There are Holocaust memorials and museums. There are books, films, etc. There are government records. There are newspaper and magazine articles. A great, great many people alive today are well aware of the history. The evidence is extremely plentiful and spread all over the world.

When historians from the future look back on this era, they'll be certain the Holocaust happened because there will be so much that attests to it.

In that case the crew of the Enterprise will be our only hope.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

That's correct. But what good is memory if there's a will to repeat it. The memories did not prevent Srebrenica from happening. Or Rwanda. Or any other ethnic cleansing that happened since 1945.

Which Enterprise?

(Rachel Garret's? )

Well it would be the epic crossover we never got. Federation scientists have been studying the Guardian Planet ever since Kirk an crew were there and in post VOY days Broccoli, I mean Barklay has been heading the engineering project there. While on leave,he's captured by Tamalak and is interrogated. Tamalak learns of the Guardian Planet and seeks to destroy the Federation once and for all by wiping out our history.

Meanwhile Ambassador Spock along with a secret Romulan Ambassador is in route to meet with Ambassador Picard who is traveling on the Enterprise E captain'd by Data. For security reasons, the USS Titan is also tagging along. They happen to be in a nearby sector where Barklay has escaped the Romulans and sends a distress signal which the Enterprise intercepts. They beam Barclay aboard and he warns them about Tamalak's plans.

Worf is trailing the Enterprise in a cloaked ship because the Klingons don't trust the Federation and the Romulans and Worf still has a thing for Troi. The Enterprise adjusts course under orders from Janeway to the Guardian Planet and the Titan and Worf's ship follow. They get there just as Tamalak begins to beam down to the surface, but two other Romulan war birds uncloak and a fire fight breaks out and Ricker is forced to abandon ship and beam on to the Enterprise. Worf's ship uncloaks and fires on the remaining war birds, but is also forced to abandon ship as well leaving a heavily damaged Enterprise to stop Tamalak, but it's too late.

The Enterprise chases after Tamalak and find some weird time loop shit going on that involves the TOS crew and the TNG and ENT NC-01 crew working together to restore the time line. As a result, Sisko returns from the wormhole and Q finally finds humanity not guilty and the trial is over. Somewhere in there the Enterprise C is involved as well. Then Spock reuinites Vulcan and Romulans, and we get a similar ending to Star Trek 4 where Picard is demoted back to Captain because that's what he really wants and Kirk dies a proper death. Everything fans bitched about is fixed and everyone is happy. Or are they?

Post credits scene, Professor X shows up in Picard's ready room and says, " you're not the only one with powers." Followed by Tyler Perry's Star Trek, but it's in the wrong font. Roll credits.

Eliminating Earth from Galactic History doesn't cause the end of the Federation.

The Romulans tried that in "Killing Time" and never got anywhere.

That's entirely up to the writer.

What @Paladin said, it's my story and I'll do what I want to.

According some accounts, disputed by others. Either way, some of Paul's preachings contradict those of the apostles who are said to have met Jesus. Who are we to believe? The guys who met Jesus in the flesh? Or the guy who had a vision of Jesus?

Riiiight. So, about the whole "gays are bad" thing, is that meant to be "scientifically accurate" or simply "locally observable"? How do you determine this? You know, like how you determined that certain things Paul talked about (say, women going around with their heads uncovered was bad) was a "local custom" and not the word of god.