Egyptian Mythology

[David Mauldin]

I am not sure if Christ was God-  The concept of God/Man is found in Greek mythology. Yet I do believe my experience was valid as far as this life is concerned.

[David Mauldin]

Tom now that I am off work I have had time to read your post.  What do you meen by history class?  I stated that Egypt was a civilization for thousands of years before Abraham was born?  O.K. forgive me I was 800 years over
The fact still stands.  Circumsicion was around a lot longer "before" God made this exclusive covenant. So is this reason enough to demean me?  Again read my opening post I am just presenting facts that are interresting.  But you know I could be wrong,

1.  I was deceived before
2. I could be deceived again
3.  I will never know everything!

[Oscar]

Dave,

You stated in your post that the existence of circumcision before Abraham was a "contradiction of the sign between you and me".  

I pointed out that there was a flaw in your logic, and demonstrated what the flaw was.

Later, you qualified your original statement saying that you just meant that it is  presented as an exclusive sign implying that its pre-existence casts doubt on the Bible record.

So I would ask you, where does the Bible say that it was an EXCLUSIVE sign???

It seems to me Dave, that if you wish to criticize a document, you should at least be clear as to what it says.

Another point Dave,  
If you undertake to show Bible believers what is wrong with the Bible, you don't expect to have what you say critically examined?  I think that that idea is just a tad optimistic.

Tom Maddux

[H]

Dave,

I'm not interested in discussing Egyptian Mythology or circumcision, but I am interested in helping you, if possible, in your search for truth. Have you ever read the book "Does God Believe in Atheists?" by John Blanchard? It is available from TBS:
 http://www.trinitybookservice.org/44600.html
If you are willing to read it, but are not willing to buy it, let me know and I will order it for you as a gift.

H

[Arthur]

Circumsicion was around a lot longer "before" God made this exclusive covenant.

If I may ask, how do you know that this is a fact?  I wonder how "historians" are able to determine any dates from so long ago.  So many people don't ever even look at the original artifacts but write books based on books based on other books that were written by someone who saw the actual thing.  And that guy could have been just guessing and entirely wrong.   So, did you see a 5,000 year old foreskin with a label marked "Egyptian" on it or what?

I believe in the Bible.  I've heard that the Bible was written by over 40 different authors from all walks of life over a span of 1,500 years and yet is miraculously cohesive as a single book.  I've been told that there are over 10,000 original manuscripts that support the validity of the Bible (the next highest count for a work of ancient literature is around 300 for the Illiad).  
But, you know, I have never seen in person an original Greek or Hebrew manuscript.  But I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because no man has ever told me things like what I read in it.  I've never heard anything so sweet to my ears and so comforting to my heart as the good news of Jesus Christ.
David, has this news become no longer sweet for you?  Does Buddha offer something so much better?  Does Buddha love you so much that he died for your sins?  
There is none as merciful and tender yet strong and almighty as our God.

[Joe Sperling]

This is a very interesting post sight--Egyptian Mythology.
I have a book at home that was translated from "Reformed
Egyptian"--it was translated from some plates found in a  hill in New York. Maybe they should go back and see if maybe there are some foreskins buried there too. I don't know whether this would verify anything you are discussing but it could be a help. According to the book there was a vast civilization which came from the lost tribes of Israel--these people definitely got circumcised. There were supposedly millions of these people living here thousands of years ago. Perhaps there is a huge mound packed full of petrified foreskins--it's truly possible. Of course they would have gone through a "reformed circumcision" which might differ from what you are discussing, but it's always a distinct possibility that they had the same type of circumcision the ancient Egyptians had. More information can be found in the book "Joseph Smith, Peep stones and Circumcision" by Elias Wimber. Check it out.

--Joe

[Rudy]

For what it is worth, I was rather dead in my faith around '95.
I didn't renounce Christ, but was definitely questioning my faith.
My interest went towards American Indian mysticism. However,
after a while I found that the loving arms of my Lord were still there
waiting for me.

A faith that cannot be questioned isn't faith at all. The Lord Jesus
wants those that love Him with their whole being. No doubts,
reservations, etc. Questioning and being honest about one's
standing in Christ can be a good thing - provided one doesn't
end up like Solomon. That would be tragic.

'and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain
or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless'.  Eph 5 : 27

[Arthur]

Good point, Rudy.

[Oscar]

Dave,

I did a little checking about circumcision in Egypt.  Unless you have some other source for your claim, the source of information most rely on for this is Herodotus.  He was a 5th century BC Greek writer.  His "research" consisted of travelling around and questioning the temple priests.

So...this could be nothing but legend.

Arthur,

Even conservative Bible scholars have long recognized that the genealogies written in ancient times are not equal to the birth/death records at the County Recorder's office.
The writers weren't trying to establish chronologies, but to show family lineages.

It is also widely recognized that there are gaps in the lists that are not apparant to casual readers.

For example, Matthew 1:8 says Uzziah was born to Joram, but in I Chron 3:10-12 there are three generations between Uzziah and Joram, (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah).

Ezra 7:3 says Azariah was the son of Meraioth, but in I Chron 6:6-9 it lists six generations between these two names.

The idea that the world is only 6000 years old is built on some pretty shaky assumptions.   Various conservative scholars, by this I mean those who accept inerrancy, estimate that Adam was created  anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Tom Maddux

[David Mauldin]

O.K. I will go back and check my resources.  Contrary to the belief of most Americans (thanks to Cecil B. Demil and most recently Walt Disney pictures)  Egyptians did not use slave labor to build their cities!

[Will Jones]

There are many interesting ideas on this thread that I would like to comment on.

1.  You have to choose where you place your faith, which means "firm persuasion" in Greek.  Do you place it on scholars or a book people believe was written by God through men?  I remember one experience at a secular university where--IN THE SAME DAY--I went to a history class in the morning and the professor said the walls of Jericho never fell during the time of Joshua (he had some people to quote to back up his "proof") and in my afternoon history class my history professor showed archelogical slides that "proved" the walls of Jericho did in fact fall in the time of Joshua.  Who do you choose to believe?  You have to do a lot of reading of a variety of sources (secular and spiritual) and then, from the various opinions, form your own opinion.  "Recommended Reading Lists" are dangerous because they restrict a person's access to a better understanding of the world around them.  Read, read, read!  "Seek and you shall find!"

2.  An understanding of epistemology is important.  Basically, we "know things" because we were taught things by others.  Apart from experiential knowledge, everything else that we think we know has come from others through books, the media, etc.  We are dependent on others to "know."  Now, if you believe in Divine Revelation, it is God that we have to rely on to know.  If there is no God, than you can only know what others claim to know.  Unique, new thoughts are very rare and are usually closely linked to or a reaction against older thoughts.  "There is nothing new under the sun."  Regardless, we are dependent on others--who are not perfect and all-knowing--for what we think we "know" in this world whether we believe in divine revelation or not.

3.  The falability of humankind and personal interpretation are key issues.  Nobody is perfect.  People make mistakes.  We do not have direct access to the reality "out there," but our senses and minds interpret what we see, hear, etc.  The same thing when we read a book or watch a news program--we are interpreting what we have seen, read or heard in the context of our present views of the world.  Sometimes, we see what want to see.  Paradigm shifts or changes of beliefs are difficult to come by because we invest so much time and energy in living and believing as we believe is correct.  That said, Science and the Scriptures are very much the work of humans.  They are not perfect.  Scientists make mistakes and there is not THE copy of the Bible to refer to.  The results of experiments and passages in the Bible NEED TO BE INTEREPRETED BY FALIBLE HUMAN MINDS.  Scientists disagree and so do theologians.  

So who do you believe?  I know Science or human knowledge is not perfect because humans are not perfect, but what about the Bible?

4.  Is the Bible infalible and divinely inspired as the Princeton Scholars of the 19th Century claim?  You will be surprised to learn that the notion that the Bible is the inspired and infalible Word of God is a relatively recent development of Fundamentalism.  For example, Martin Luther did not believe all books in the Bible were the "work of God through man."  He stood up to the Papal authority by standing for his right to INTERPRET the Bible for himself,  yet in his writings (which I have read at great length) he criticizes the authenticity of more than one book in the New Testamant.  Many present day Biblical scholars can also adequately demonstrate that the Bible has been pieced together from a variety of sources:  (1) The Bible is heavily influenced by the Babylonian Captivity.  The story of the Flood is taken directly from the Epic of Gilgamesh (a book I highly recommend because it is the worlds oldest story that has survived in many forms since before 3000 B.C.).  Does that mean we don't believe in the Flood because it appears earlier than the Bible?  No, the Greeks and many other cultures believe in a huge flood too.  Perhaps that validates the Flood as fact.  (2) Compare the Synoptic Gospels of Matt., Mark and Luke that were taken from a variety of sources such as "Q" and you will see many discrepencies between the stories that are the same.  For example, in one case the Centurion sends his servants to Jesus and in another narrative he comes himself.  I have tried, and so have many others, to try and make a coherent chronological account of the Resurrection Story in all four gospels.  You can't do it because there are too many discrepencies.  BUT does this mean we should throw out the Bible?  Perhaps we just need to re-evaluate our believe in the infalibiblity of the Bible.  Luther believe it was the Word of God without it being perfect.  Regardless, what I have been saying is... We rely on others for knowledge and we must choose who we will believe.  I believe what I believe because of serious soulsearching and personal study of the Bible and history over a period of many years, not just because one book or a few scholars or scientists have said such and such.  I base my beliefs on a very wide body of books that I have read over the years.  I am also willing to be proven wrong and open to new ideas.  I am constantly getting a better understanding of myself and "facts" through reading and having a desire to know the truth regardless of what I may presently believe.  If you are willing to be open to it, "The Truth will set you free."

[Joe Sperling]

I did a little research concerning whether circumcision
existed before the Israelites were given it as a sign
of covenant with God. In a book by Dr. Ernest Grabler,
a renowned Egyptologist, there is proof that indeed
circumcision did exist in Ancient Egypt. This is based upon
the writing inscribed on an ancient wall, which may have
been part of a room where actual circumcisions were
performed. It took some time to decipher the words as
there appeared to be in the ancient cuneiform a repeating
of one word three times in a row. After much tedious work
they finally agreed the message read: "Holy Rameses that
REALLY REALLY REALLY hurts!". I hope this helps out in your archaeological enquiry.

Thanks,  Joe

[David Mauldin]

While visiting the Metropolitan Museum in New York, I had a chance to view Cleopatras Needle (An Oblisk in Central Park) The interpettation to its hieroglyphics is right besides it. Although it is a worship monument to an Egyptian god I was amazed at the similarity to the psalms of the Old Testement.

[David Mauldin]

Will I like to think that life is a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery.

[Arthur]

Arthur

Even conservative Bible scholars have long recognized that the genealogies written in ancient times are not equal to the birth/death records at the County Recorder's office.
The writers weren't trying to establish chronologies, but to show family lineages.

It is also widely recognized that there are gaps in the lists that are not apparant to casual readers.

For example, Matthew 1:8 says Uzziah was born to Joram, but in I Chron 3:10-12 there are three generations between Uzziah and Joram, (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah).

Ezra 7:3 says Azariah was the son of Meraioth, but in I Chron 6:6-9 it lists six generations between these two names.

The idea that the world is only 6000 years old is built on some pretty shaky assumptions.   Various conservative scholars, by this I mean those who accept inerrancy, estimate that Adam was created  anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Tom Maddux

Tom, you have criticized David for faulty logic, yet you just made the same faux pas.  

Here is your syllogism:
Premise:  Conservative Bible scholars recognize that the genealogies in the Bible were not given to establish chronologies, rather they believe the world is 15,000 to 50,000 years old.
Premise:  There are differences in two separate accounts given in the Bible for the same genealogy.  
Conclusion:  Therefore the world is not 6,000 years old rather 15,000 to 50,000 years old.

Your syllogism is faulty because the two premises do not apply to the conclusion, and the first premise is not true.  

Let's take a look at premise #1.

Tom, you stated:
"Even conservative Bible scholars have long recognized...."
"It is widely recognized...."
"Various conservative scholars, by this I mean those who accept inerrancy, estimate...."

Three times you appealed to the "fact", or at least what you believed to be true, that conservative Bible scholars think the thoughts that you have mentioned.  Not all do.  Therefore your statement is not true.  (For an example of one who does not, visit http://www.drdino.com)
However, EVEN IF THEY DID, and this premise were true, the conclusion that you stated does not necessarily follow from it.  The reason is that just because everyone thinks a certain way does not mean that it is so.  

I find it interesting that the argument you used ("Well, all the scholars believe it.") is the same that a group of conservative Bible scholars used as seen in John 8: 44-53:

"44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him. 45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. 47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? 48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? 49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. 50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. 53 And every man went unto his own house."

You see how the Pharisees tried to use their expert clout as reason not to believe on Jesus and then they criticized those who did as being stupid. Jesus called the Pharisees blind guides.  On a side note, I think it's also interesting that evolutionists, who do not have factual evidence to support their claims, refer to what the "experts" THINK as proof for their theory (though many "experts" now believe that the Big Bang is bunk).  
Tom, the fact that you appealed to what other people think on the matter three times as your major premise, instead of pointing to hard facts, is in itself an indication that your argument is on shaky ground, not mine.


Now let's take a look at premise #2.       
What you said about the genealogies being different in Matt 1:8 than in I Chron 3:10-12 and Ezra 7:3 being different than I Chron 6:6-9 is correct.  I looked it up myself.  But here is where you commit the fallacy of hasty generalizations. You reason that since these accounts have differences, then we cannot use the other accounts to establish a chronology.   That is simply not true.  Let's examine the matter a little more closely.  I'd like to point two things out:

1.  The accounts that you mentioned in which differences are evident do NOT include years.  I agree with you and I think it is obvious that THESE accounts are not given for a chronology.  I think these were used to emphasize certain people in the accounts, or perfection in generations, etc.  However, OTHER accounts ARE given for a chronology so that we may know how old the earth is without a doubt.
2.  The other accounts that I am referring to are the genealogies in Gen 5 and 10 and 11, and the separate verifying account in I Chron 1.  THESE ACCOUNTS DO AGREE PERFECTLY - NO GAPS!   And THE ACCOUNT IN GENESIS SPECIFIES YEARS so that we may know and believe without a doubt the certainty of the facts.  God made the world not too long ago and men are the same now as they were then.  It's not ancient as in something so far away that has nothing to do with us today.  Nor is it a fantasy of "millions" of years ago.  No, this world is temporary and its short term is about to come to completion.  


In summary, here is my syllogism.

Premise: The Bible gives the numbers of years in a very clear account that so that we may know and believe that God created the heavens and the earth 6,000 years ago.
Premise: The Bible is the Word of God and as such is a completely reliable record of the history of the world.
Conclusion: God created the heavens and the earth about 6,000 years ago.