Is belief in God or the Bible necessary to believe in a massive flood.

The creation myths of different religions vary greatly...probably moreso then the flood story.... im not sure what you mean by you're question here???

one thing that can be said for that is that if Moses was writing a myth, why did he make it so detailed??why would he go into the minor details of the height and lenght and breadth of the ark, what sort of wood it was made from, how they used tar to make it water tight etcwhy would he tell us the age of Noah, the month and day in which the flood baganall this points to a real history as opposed to a mythical story.

thats not quite rightif we want to find out how the Jews viewed the writings of Moses, we can determine it by looking at the teachings of Jesus (a jew)He used the account of Adam and Eve as the basis for his teaching on divorce. In Matt 19:4-6 Jesus quotes from Genesis 2.24The account shows that he viewed Adam and Eve as real people and the marriage arrangement as put in place by God himself. He applied it to a question that was posed to him by jewish teachers....therefore, if he knew it to be nothing more then myth, why would he use it as a basis for his teaching?The truth is that neither he, nor his jewish listeners, viewed it as a myth. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

What makes you say that the exodus never happened as described?
there is evidence in Jewish traditional customs such as the Passover celebration which is still celebrated today.
An Egyptian historian, Ahmed Behgat, has published a book charging that "during the Exodus ancient Israelites smuggled gold out of Egypt and used it to make the golden calf." His research into ancient Egyptian archives has led him to conclude that Israel should pay Egypt $40billion.
There is also an ancient egyption poem about a Pharaoh Ni-maat-Re that says in part "Fight on behalf of his name ... There is no tomb for a rebel against his majesty, and his corpse is cast into the water." As all ditties do, this one would have been based on an actual event.
Seeing there is some evidence for the historical exodus...it makes it very possibly based on fact and not a myth.Now to say that David and Solomon may not have been real people you must have some pretty solid evidence for such a claim. What is it??You're right that the archeological evidence has to be considered. Time and time again archeology digs up things that the bible spoke about long before...there is so much archeological evidence that many scholars believe the bible to be a History book full stop.many museums house wall reliefs, inscriptions and statues that verify the Bible accounts. Various Kings of Judah and Israel such as Hezekiah, Manasseh, Omri, Ahab, Pekah, Menahem and Hoshea appear on cuneiform records of Assyrian rulers.
Archologists have found the ancient city of UR the city where Abraham lived. Andre Parrot and his French team of archaeologists found over 20,000 clay tablets at the royal city of Mari. Some of these cuneiform tablets mention cities by the name of Peleg, Serug, Nahor, Terah and Haran....all these names occur in the Genesis account as names of Abraham’s relatives.So archeology backs up the early part of the bible in many ways. and yet the age of fossils IS the most important factor in determining science matters and evolutionists dont mind using it as a strong basis for their evidence.

I agree that the archeological evidence is scarce but its certainly not surprising in view of the fact Egyptians did not record defamatory matters and were in the habit of changing their histories to suit later rulers. When ThutmoseIII came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory Queen Hatshepsut. He had her inscriptions erased, chiseled her name from monuments, built a wall around her obelisks and her name was not recorded in later annals.Also if we consider that the history was written under the direction of the priests, whose chief interest, obviously, was maintaining their position and upholding the glory of their gods. They surely would not want to record the defeat of their own gods by the God of a nation of slaves.Josephus also mentions Manatho, an Egyptian historian whom he quotes to confirm that the Jews did come out of egypt

quote:

---

Wicki on Manehto writings: Volume 2 covers Dynasties XII - XIX, which includes the end of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (XV-XVIIthe Hyksos invasion), and then their expulsion and the establishment of the New Kingdom (XVIII onward). The Second Intermediate Period was of particular interest to Josephus, where he equated the Hyksos or "shepherd-kings" as the ancient Israelites who eventually made their way out of Egypt (Apion 1.82-92). He even includes a brief etymological discussion of the term "Hyksos".

---

Yes this was a short straw... it could have been a hoax of sorts...or he may have based the evidence on the torah...i havent read the book so i dont really know. Lack of evidence for the existence of David and Solomon???such as? perhaps i could word it differently...Why is it appropriate for science to use dating as a basis of evidence but we cant use dating as a bases for evidence of the age of manuscripts?

this was reported on some years ago by the World Press Review...but they only have archives dating back to 2003PaulK has posted that his evidence was based on the Torah and not on egyption sources though, so its not a good reference, my apologies.

actually that was just me...i've read it wrong and will happily go down with the shipthats what i get for late night posting

As with all books, there is always only 1 original manuscript. There would not be one original manuscript on our libarary shelves and yet we happily use the reprints of the manuscriptare we to doubt the authenticity and content of all books?

Manetho's account was written over 1000 years after Israel's exodus from Egypt, so perhaps it had become distorted in the details. If the Egyptians were brazen enough to change the history of their own monarchs then why would they maintain a truthful account about a foreign people who dwelt for a short time in their land and conquered their gods and their army?What Manetho's writings prove is that there was indeed a wandering group of Semitic people, otherwise known as 'Shepherd Kings', who had long come to Egypt for trade and other purposes, who managed to gained control of Egypt and were eventually 'driven' out by the Egyptian army.... this story is very similar to the biblical account of the Semitic family of Jacob settling in Egypt and eventually leaving in one big exodus with the army hotly in pursuit of them. Im not sure why you say that??
According to the archaeological inscriptions in the Karnak Temple in Egypt, Shishak (Shoshenq I) conquered Solomons temple and carried off the booty
Archaeology confirms the existence of the cedar forests of Lebanon, where Solomon obtained timbers for his building projects
There was an Isreali team led by Yigael Yadin who discovered the defensive gates built by Solomon...see the book Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible.There is evidence for Davids existence too.
In the early 90's at the site of an ancient mound called Tel Dan, archeologists uncovered a basalt stone with the words carved into it "House of David" and "King of Israel". It was dated to the 9th Century BCE. This was the first ever find of David outside the bible and it wasnt written by jews...its actually a part of a victory monument erected by the Aramaeans who were enemies of Israel and proves that King David was certainly known in the Ancient world.

the fact is that King David is mentioned by another nationthe assertion was that there is NO mention of him anywhere except the bible. That assertion is incorrect.

but it does prove that the writers of the bible were not writing fanciful tales of mythical places and mythical charactersthe bible is a history of real people and real places everything is disputed...but you cant change the fact that there is evidence for both solomon and david...even if its being disputed.

Paul, you said there was a good LACK of evidence to support the existence of David and Solomoni asked "such as?" you replied with... if you dont accept the archeology that has been found as a possibility, you should say "there have been various finds for these individuals, but i doubt they are accurately interpreted" or something to that effect rather then blatantly claiming there is no evidence. Little bearing on the accuracy of the bible???King Sargon was thought to never have existed apart from the bible mention of him...then they found the mans Palace!Pontius Pilate was completely unknown apart from the bible until his name was unearthed300 cuneiform tablets were uncovered in Iraq relating to the reign of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, the inscriptions include a list of names including King Jehoiachin of the land of Judah, and 5 of his sons!Critics have argued that Bible history was transmitted by unreliable oral tradition because the isrealites were illiterate, yet in 2005 archaeologists found an archaic alphabet, perhaps the oldest Hebrew alphabet ever discovered, dating to the 10th century BCE.the site of ancient Nineveh, revealed a sculptured slab in the palace of King Sennacherib, which shows Assyrian soldiers leading Jewish captives into exile after the fall of Lachish in 732BCE. backing up the bibles account at 2Kings 18:13-15.The annals of Sennacherib found at Nineveh, describe his military campaign during the reign of Judean King Hezekiah, and mention him by name.Sheesh...you seem so certain that the bibles accuracy is not backed up by archeology and yet im seeing plenty of evidence for it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

please keep in mind that we are talking about the bibles accuracyThe bible speaks of such cedar wood forests where Solomon gathered wood for the building works...are there such forests in the vicinity???yes.So is the bible accurate in its description of cedar wood forests?yes.

the question ppl have to ask themselves is would a book of myth and legend contain so many real places and people and dates and timescompare the bible to other 'real' myths and legends and the difference will be glaringly obvious.

in terms of the accuracy of the bible as a book of fact and history, i will not stop being 'silly'