Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Look at the Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah if you want proof of the reality of the spiritual realm . How come no one ever does that? If you accept that the spiritual realm exists, there's a far more significant case that the soul exists.

the old testament is a book, penned by humans... it is evidence of nothing, and is most likely little more than mythology with possibly some basis in real events

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Essentially you're saying that chance, personality and outside influences determine your character, right?

i don't know if there really is such a thing as 'chance'... but we are a product of our environment... i don't think anyone would argue that we are not greatly influenced by our surroundings... but people feel uncomfortable when you take the next step and say we are completely a result of the world around us... and i'm not just talking people, i mean everyting that is a part of our existance

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you accept that the spiritual realm exists, there's a far more significant case that the soul exists.

What is the "spiritual realm"? And what is the "soul"? My dictionary says soul is "the spiritual part of a human being that is believed to survive death".
"spirit" is defined as "the animating principal of life, especially humans."

I don't believe anything survives death but good old chemical energy... you know ......our biomass breaks down into usable elements for other things to draw upon. We are "recyclable" not "magical", for IMO, a survivable soul seems like "magic" to me. (and by magic I mean something unproveable by scientific methods)
The spiritual realm is not real to me. There ARE things we don't understand, like dark energy, or some of the sensory abilities of other species of animal life that exist now, or have existed in the past. Experiences where people brush up against such phenomenon might make us inclined to believe these as yet *unexplanables* (man, I'm sounding like a real dork here! )are evidence of a "spiritual realm", but I don't.
Are the "humans are NOT merely animals" folks saying that humans are the only creatures to have these "souls" which I assume are purposefully designed by a singular supernatural god? And all other creatures do not posess souls, therefore humans are above them, and may use the souless creatures as we see fit? That's the jist I'm getting....

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lizra

man, I'm sounding like a real dork here!

not as bad as me

nice artwork btw! i think i checked out that link before, but browsed it pretty quick

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Look at the Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah if you want proof of the reality of the spiritual realm . How come no one ever does that? If you accept that the spiritual realm exists, there's a far more significant case that the soul exists.


the old testament is a book, penned by humans... it is evidence of nothing, and is most likely little more than mythology with possibly some basis in real events

Ahem. (Gets out "The Case for Christ," ignoring Lizra who is rolling her eyes )

Prophesies of the coming Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus, and a good many of them there were too that were fulfilled. Indeed, that makes a very substantial block of evidence in support of his being who he said he was, and hence, a strong argument in favor of the spiritual realm existing, and hence, a strong argument in favor of the soul existing, which is extremely important to this discussion.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
First, I asked Lapides whether it's possible that Jesus merely fulfilled the prophecies by accident. Maybe he's one of many throughout history who have coincidentally fit the prophetic fingerprint.

"Not a chance," came his response. "The odds are so astronomical that they rule that out. Someone did the math and figured out that the probability of just eight prophesies being fulfilled is one chance in one hundred million billion. That number is millions of times greater than the total number of people who've ever walked the planet!

"He calculated that if you took this number of silver dollars, they would cover the state of Texas to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blindfolded person wander the whole state and bend down to pick up one coin, what would be the odds he'd choose the one that had been marked?"

With that he answered his own question: "The same odds that anybody in history could have fulfilled just eight of the prophecies."

I had studied the same statistical analysis by mathmetician Peter W. Stoner when I was investigating the messianic prophecies for myself. Stoner also computed that the probability of fulfilling forty-eight prophecies was one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!"

Our minds can't comprehend a number that big. This is a staggering statistic that's equal to the number of miniscule atoms in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion universes the size of our universe!

"The odds alone say it would be impossible for anyone to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies," Lapides concluded. "Yet Jesus-and only Jesus throughout all of history-managed to do it."

The words of the apostle Peter popped into my head: "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, has been fulfilled" (Acts 3:18 NASB).

I've never seen anyone effectively argue against this. No one bothers. Everyone ignores it. Sob. "One tear for me, and one for you" (a quote from Nero in the movie Quo Vadis, though I alterred one word).

I know, however, that brownjenkins tends to think about issues and make the best intellectual conclusion he can. Therefore I open to him this evidence of the existence of the spiritual realm, straight from the old mythology book .

It is a powerful argument. I know I've been talking somewhat humorously, but I am very serious about this. I hope it'll be given the attention and thought it deserves.

~Lief

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Are the "humans are NOT merely animals" folks saying that humans are the only creatures to have these "souls" which I assume are purposefully designed by a singular supernatural god? And all other creatures do not posess souls, therefore humans are above them, and may use the souless creatures as we see fit? That's the jist I'm getting....

I think that's essentially it. Though I have no idea what evidence (from scriptures or other means) there is that animals don't have souls.

[Lizra]

Hi Leif! I won't bother debating about stuff from the bible, because I view it (the bible) as merely one of several books written by ancients to explain stuff they didn't understand. The prophesies are just quaint stories to me. The fact that a man with a huge christian church has written an engaging book propping up the bible doesn't mean that much to me. My common sense does. Nice book though!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Prophesies of the coming Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus, and a good many of them there were too that were fulfilled. Indeed, that makes a very substantial block of evidence in support of his being who he said he was, and hence, a strong argument in favor of the spiritual realm existing, and hence, a strong argument in favor of the soul existing, which is extremely important to this discussion.

well... the silver dollar stuff is cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the bible was a book written by humans... i encourage you to read joseph cambell's the power of myth where he has some in-depth discussions about the mythological archetypes of the messiah, the virgin mother and prophecy

many of the stories seen in the bible can be traced to more ancient sources... gilgamesh is just one of many in which you can see some of the foundations for the 'great flood' story... and the bible, like many religious books that came before and after it, is more a distillation of common myth than a book of history

we have no way of knowing if jesus even existed... and if he did, what he did and did not do... it's possible that the whole thing is just a story... it's also possible that he was a real person and people embelished the story of his life to strengthen his following... we see this very thing today... just check out the presidential election, where, even now, separating truth from fiction can be tricky at best

do we assume that godlike beings once lived at the top of mount olympus just because so many greeks wrote about them? can we claim that a monster inhabited loch ness just because so many have claimed to have seen it, and even taken photos

proof, as far as science is concerned, is reproduceable... come up with an experiment that can be reproduced at any time that displays a human soul, or implies its presence, and you may have something

mythological writings are not evidence in any way, shape or form

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
well... the silver dollar stuff is cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the bible was a book written by humans...

It doesn't matter whether the Bible was godly inspired or not for the evidence of the prophecies to work. The prophecies are a powerful evidence for God having inspired the Bible, and for all of Christianity being true. The argument doesn't assume God. It proves him.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i encourage you to read joseph cambell's the power of myth where he has some in-depth discussions about the mythological archetypes of the messiah, the virgin mother and prophecy

many of the stories seen in the bible can be traced to more ancient sources... gilgamesh is just one of many in which you can see some of the foundations for the 'great flood' story... and the bible, like many religious books that came before and after it, is more a distillation of common myth than a book of history

Enormous numbers of events from the Old Testament have been established as real events. I can list for you some of the different accounts that evidence has now been provided for, if you like, and if I can find my "Evidence that demands a verdict" apologetics book.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
we have no way of knowing if jesus even existed...

You mean that you don't. I doubt that there are any ancient history scholars that believe Jesus didn't exist, and I challenge you to find one. If you can find one, I'll bother with taking the time to take up the argument with you.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
and if he did, what he did and did not do...

There is enormous archaelogical evidence that establishes the Biblical account correct even in minute details. The textual evidence from the New Testament is superb. I can provide evidence for that also. The problem with providing these evidences is that usually no one ever argues against them. It takes a lot of my time to post the evidence, but people respond to all the arguments together with one pat answer. They prefer ignorance to knowledge and unbelief to evidence. This tends to make me prefer to leave them in ignorance, rather then have the evidence I provide ignored.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
it's possible that the whole thing is just a story...

Nope. The New Testament accounts themselves are very reliable sources, but their findings are corroborated by accounts from non-religious historians. Accounts from the scripture are found to be verified even in the writings of Jesus' opponents.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
it's also possible that he was a real person and people embelished the story of his life to strengthen his following... we see this very thing today... just check out the presidential election, where, even now, separating truth from fiction can be tricky at best

The evidence against that having occurred is also compelling.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
do we assume that godlike beings once lived at the top of mount olympus just because so many greeks wrote about them? can we claim that a monster inhabited loch ness just because so many have claimed to have seen it, and even taken photos

proof, as far as science is concerned, is reproduceable... come up with an experiment that can be reproduced at any time that displays a human soul, or implies its presence, and you may have something

mythological writings are not evidence in any way, shape or form

Prophecies were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born, predicting the time of his birth, what his ministry would be, his death and resurrection, his manner of death (betrayal and crucifixion), and many other details. The authors of the New Testament are known to be people that were willing to die for their beliefs. The New Testament itself was written within the lifetimes of the people that it described. It would hence have been easy to argue against if its claims were false. The writers had massive incentive to be correct in every detail. The early Christians that claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected died horrendous deaths for their beliefs, thus providing clear evidence to us today that they did not tell lies. The strict moral code that Jesus implemented and that his followers were advocating and willing to die for indicates the reliability of the gospel writers and the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. The evidence goes on and on, but who that is a nonbeliever is willing to listen to it? (Listens to the big silence) So what is the point in my refuting every argument or statement you make? You need to be willing to listen, evaluate and possibly learn before any debate here can be held.

I apologize if I sound condescending or like a jerk in this post through style of writing and what I say. I'm simply telling what I've experienced and what I need to hear before going forward. I've encountered a lot of hard hearted pat answers in the past that ignore the issues and refuse to pay attention to them. Everyone assumes Christianity is wrong and refuses to be attentive to the evidence as a consequence. It's a bad attitude :P .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Hi Leif!

Hello to you too .

Originally Posted by Lizra

I won't bother debating about stuff from the bible, because I view it (the bible) as merely one of several books written by ancients to explain stuff they didn't understand. The prophesies are just quaint stories to me.

Okay. Is the fact that they were fulfilled quaint?

Originally Posted by Lizra

The fact that a man with a huge christian church has written an engaging book propping up the bible doesn't mean that much to me. My common sense does.

What does your common sense say?

Originally Posted by Lizra

Nice book though!

I agree. I found it a very engaging read, though because of various activities I was going through I had to read it more slowly then I would have liked . Have you read many books on the subject of evidence for or against Christianity?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

What is the "spiritual realm"? And what is the "soul"? My dictionary says soul is "the spiritual part of a human being that is believed to survive death".
"spirit" is defined as "the animating principal of life, especially humans."

I don't believe anything survives death but good old chemical energy... you know ......our biomass breaks down into usable elements for other things to draw upon. We are "recyclable" not "magical", for IMO, a survivable soul seems like "magic" to me. (and by magic I mean something unproveable by scientific methods)

It's a big and massively complex universe . Ruling something out because it isn't possible to grasp with science doesn't seem very fair to me. Hmm. Saying that the spiritual realm doesn't exist because it's unprovable by scientific methods to me is like saying shirts don't exist because it's not possible to iron them with pencil tip erasers. You need to access the spiritual through spiritual methods, just as you need to access the physical through scientific methods. Those methods might seem dodgy to you, but that's entirely because you haven't experienced the spiritual yet in a recognizable way. Does that make sense?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I apologize if I sound condescending or like a jerk in this post through style of writing and what I say. I'm simply telling what I've experienced and what I need to hear before going forward.

a little bit... but that's ok

my views are seen as pretty radical by many too... how about this?

when you have the time... be it soon or a few months from now... post just one specific instance of this evidence you speak of and i will try to address directly without the 'big picture' questions (i don't have the time to respond to twenty... so i'd prefer it kept simple too )

however, i will bring the scientific method into play... i.e. if you had a photo of jesus standing next to lazarus outside his tomb, it does not necessarily prove that jesus raised him from the dead

and on the

The New Testament itself was written within the lifetimes of the people that it described. It would hence have been easy to argue against if its claims were false. The writers had massive incentive to be correct in every detail.

argument

i direct your attention again to the present day... choose any volatile subject from politics, to religion, to even specific world events, and you get a host of conflicting reports from various 'experts'... and in this day and age we have television and world travel... it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or discredit the things which the bible speak of by anyone living back in 100 BC

i still suggest you read the campbell book at some point too, you may not agree with it... but it gives a very interesting perspective on the whole idea of human beliefs and practices throughout recorded history

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's a big and massively complex universe . Ruling something out because it isn't possible to grasp with science doesn't seem very fair to me. Hmm. Saying that the spiritual realm doesn't exist because it's unprovable by scientific methods to me is like saying shirts don't exist because it's not possible to iron them with pencil tip erasers. You need to access the spiritual through spiritual methods, just as you need to access the physical through scientific methods. Those methods might seem dodgy to you, but that's entirely because you haven't experienced the spiritual yet in a recognizable way. Does that make sense?

you are correct in part here... we do not know everything, and anything is possible... we may have been created by a superior race who 'planted' god myths to cover their tracks... or there may actually be a god... or maybe more than one

i rule nothing out, but if there is no physical evidence for a theory, like the existance of souls, or my superior race... then it is little more than speculation... which is all fine and well, but not evidence

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

however, i will bring the scientific method into play... i.e. if you had a photo of jesus standing next to lazarus outside his tomb, it does not necessarily prove that jesus raised him from the dead

you're absolutely right!

Personally, I don't think there is any scientific PROOF for Christianity (or atheism or agnosticism or any other worldview belief) (or a lot of other things that we believe, for that matter) - there is evidence and indicators, and one must do the best with what one has. And there is a LOT to go on, but not the type of stuff that fits in labs. But a lab can't prove that your wife loves you, either. Does that mean that you deny that she loves you? No, I think you go on the evidence and the indicators that you have, and come to a reasonable conclusion that she loves you. Just like I go on the evidence and the indicators that I see and come to a reasonable conclusion that Christianity is true. And I give the non-Christians the benefit of the doubt and say that altho I think they're wrong, I think that they have come to THEIR worldview beliefs through looking at evidence and indicators (and one other thing, but I won't say what it is).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a little bit... but that's ok

Thanks for being lenient .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

my views are seen as pretty radical by many too... how about this?

when you have the time... be it soon or a few months from now... post just one specific instance of this evidence you speak of and i will try to address directly without the 'big picture' questions (i don't have the time to respond to twenty... so i'd prefer it kept simple too )

All right, I'll argue one point. (Gets happy )

I think for now we can wear out for a while the one we're currently talking about.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

however, i will bring the scientific method into play... i.e. if you had a photo of jesus standing next to lazarus outside his tomb, it does not necessarily prove that jesus raised him from the dead

Great!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and on the

Quote:
The New Testament itself was written within the lifetimes of the people that it described. It would hence have been easy to argue against if its claims were false. The writers had massive incentive to be correct in every detail.

argument

i direct your attention again to the present day... choose any volatile subject from politics, to religion, to even specific world events, and you get a host of conflicting reports from various 'experts'... and in this day and age we have television and world travel... it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or discredit the things which the bible speak of by anyone living back in 100 BC

A good point. I would direct you in turn to the fact that the first people the Jews preached to were other Jews. They were talking to people who had themselves experienced these things or knew people that had. Very tough it is in that kind of situation to make up the facts.

In modern politics, religious discussions, elections, specific world events, etc. we don't have people trying to change peoples' minds about the events they or their family members saw or experienced. We have people saying the Palestinians' mistreatment didn't happen to us here in America, but we don't have people telling Palestinian families that their houses that they saw bulldozed weren't actually bulldozed.



I further ask you this: What motive did the disciples have for preaching these things in the first place, if they weren't true? The disciples faced opposition from the religious structure and from major parts of the community around them. Many of the early Christian Jews were punished severely for their beliefs. So if they were embellishing and making things up, why were they willing to endure all of this for their accounts if they'd been fabricating?

I suppose that'll be enough arguments to get along with for now . Looking forward to your response!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i still suggest you read the campbell book at some point too, you may not agree with it... but it gives a very interesting perspective on the whole idea of human beliefs and practices throughout recorded history

It's my opinion that the ancient chronology is off. There's a great deal of evidence that this is the case; my father's been researching it and I'm keeping up on his discoveries in that area. He thinks that Gilgamesh and some of those other early accounts actually come after the Old Testament. I cannot get into all of the different evidences pointing in that direction here, though.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

you are correct in part here... we do not know everything, and anything is possible... we may have been created by a superior race who 'planted' god myths to cover their tracks... or there may actually be a god... or maybe more than one

i rule nothing out, but if there is no physical evidence for a theory, like the existance of souls, or my superior race... then it is little more than speculation... which is all fine and well, but not evidence

I 100% agree.

[Rían]

Anyway, I think I might be done here, so I'll just sum up my position again for anyone that's interested:

Personally, I think that humans, altho their bodies are made the same way as animals, also have something entirely different, and that is what is usually called a soul. Call it what you will, but I see that humans (or at the least, me, because I"m the only one that I have first-hand experience on!) have an ability to choose BETWEEN instinct and other options, usually those that our sense of morality tell me are right even if my instinct doesn't like them. In addition, I see something in humans that just soars above the physical, and for which I don't see any physical explanation, and that's things like recognizing beauty and courage and honor and love as distinct things apart from whatever benefit they may give me. Because of these observations, I conclude that either (1) humans AND animals both have souls, but I can't see evidence for souls in animals; or (2) humans have souls and animals don't. But given the loads of evidence that I, personally, see to support Christianity, I conclude that option (2) is the correct one. This is my OPINION, and I'm fully willing to say that I could be wrong.

Now if other people don't see the evidence that I described above, and conclude that something that has the name "love" or "courage", for example, is nothing more than our genes forcing us to act in such a way that maximizes our chances of passing on our genes and preserving the herd, then I certainly understand that they would think that a naturalistic explanation explains everything. To them, it DOES explain everything. But since I see more, it does NOT explain everything that I see, and it would be intellectually dishonest and cowardly for me to accept that explanation, so I don't.



Brownie - about your question on free will and how can it be free if our previous choices put us in situations that we don't have control over - I don't think we have COMPLETE free will; I think we have LIMITED free will. And yes, our previous choices "force" us to be in certain places. But that doesn't really matter, because at any given moment, we have the free will (somewhat modified by physical constraints) to choose between options that we have in whatever situation we're in. We have the free will to choose to love someone that's not very loveable at the moment or to slight them, to exert ourselves to help someone that really needs it or to selfishly ignore them, and things like that. And the ultimate free will choice we have, according to what I think is true (altho I may be wrong), is to choose to go to heaven or hell. God grants us the supreme dignity and honor of choosing our destiny, but only within reality - everyone can't design their own heaven - how could that be possible in reality? If there is at least one contradiction among all the billions of people, then it would not be possible (i.e., if someone says "my heaven means that RÃ*an will serve me forever because I think she's a total jerk!", and MY heaven does not look like that, then it's obvious that we can't both have our heavens).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's my opinion that the ancient chronology is off. There's a great deal of evidence that this is the case; my father's been researching it and I'm keeping up on his discoveries in that area. He thinks that Gilgamesh and some of those other early accounts actually come after the Old Testament. I cannot get into all of the different evidences pointing in that direction here, though.

IMO the chronology doesn't matter. God has put a longing for Him into people's hearts, and has put hints of the greatest story ever told into people's hearts, and therefore into their cultures, so that they will search for the truth. It's no accident that so many religions are similar to Christianity.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A good point. I would direct you in turn to the fact that the first people the Jews preached to were other Jews. They were talking to people who had themselves experienced these things or knew people that had. Very tough it is in that kind of situation to make up the facts.

In modern politics, religious discussions, elections, specific world events, etc. we don't have people trying to change peoples' minds about the events they or their family members saw or experienced. We have people saying the Palestinians' mistreatment didn't happen to us here in America, but we don't have people telling Palestinian families that their houses that they saw bulldozed weren't actually bulldozed.

i disagree... i believe we do all the time... imagine, for instance, if there were no pictures of the atrocities that happened to the prisoners in iraq, but everything else was the same... we'd be talking about 'alleged acts by US soldiers', and i am sure there would be more than a few who did not believe they occured at all... and if a few thousand years from now, those who did not believe became the dominant force in our world... the facts of what had actually happened might conveniently disappear from our histories... it would not be the first time... add to this the fact that there were no methods of recording events like video or stills two thousand years ago, and that very few could read or write... there may have been hundreds of illiterate on the streets that said 'this is a jesus stuff is bunch of camel dung', but it was the believers who wrote the history

I further ask you this: What motive did the disciples have for preaching these things in the first place, if they weren't true? The disciples faced opposition from the religious structure and from major parts of the community around them. Many of the early Christian Jews were punished severely for their beliefs. So if they were embellishing and making things up, why were they willing to endure all of this for their accounts if they'd been fabricating?

they may have had ulterior motives... the usual ones of establishing a belief system to rebel against authority fits the bill... or they may have truely believed it themselves... though it did not actually happen... or at least had nothing 'mystical' about it... or maybe a combination of the two

christianity is far from the only religion in our world... by your argument, i could say, the koran must be true... look at all the people who believe in it, even at the cost of their own lives... there is also a huge amount of evidence for the existance of mohammed... including prophecies, second hand accounts and all the rest

many jews i know believe that christ existed... they just see him as one of many 'human' prophets

It's my opinion that the ancient chronology is off. There's a great deal of evidence that this is the case; my father's been researching it and I'm keeping up on his discoveries in that area. He thinks that Gilgamesh and some of those other early accounts actually come after the Old Testament. I cannot get into all of the different evidences pointing in that direction here, though.

i'd like to see the evidence on that

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I somewhat disagree. There are accounts in these ancient legends that the Old Testament historical information is supposed to be derived from. You know, a progressive type of myth. I don't believe that the Old Testament is a myth. Knowing that the events that occur within it actually come before Gilgamesh and the other legendary figures helps to show the impact of the Biblical events. It shows that the Bible didn't come from these legends, but rather that these legends came from the Bible. Therefore the Bible isn't a product of fantasy but fantasy is a product of the Bible. It's rather neat.

Also, many of the pre-Solomon events described in the Old Testament don't fit well according to current chronology. So accepting the current chronology, you have very weak evidence for the invasion of Canaan and for Moses, the plagues and the exodus, among other things. Adjusting the chronology as my father has done causes all of those events to fit into place. The account of Solomon and his treasure, of Israel's influence, Joseph, Moses, the plagues, the exodus, the invasion of Canaan, the defeat of Solomon's son and his treasure, the queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon and how it impacted her, are all possible to find in current history if the adjustment to the chronology is made. My father started with looking for the place where Joseph could have fitted in. There was only one point in history where the Biblical accounts fitted with history there. That wasn't according to the current chronology, so my Dad passed over that, assuming that the Bible was true and that what humans do can be flawed. Then he looked at the Biblical dates and went from there. He was amazed and filled with excitement to find how historical events matched in exact numbers of years all the events described in the Bible with the adjusted chronology. He found that there is a chronology gap in the Egyptian calendar. During the Third Intermediate period of Egyptian history, virtually everything ceases. There are almost no writings from that time. There is almost no evidence of anything that happens during that time. The Egyptian calendar was tied to other calendars. Other calendars were based upon the Egyptian calendar. Hence, all of those countries have a large 'dark age', a period of absence of data. After the years of that period passed (I believe it's 500 something years), art, history, everything picked up right where it had left off.

I don't think really that this is the place for this discussion though, or the time. I can't argue my father's theories here and explain them in depth. But they are important, and brownjenkin's various points about the Old Testament are important. If he's right, the Old Testament is largely put together from other cultures and sources. The religion described in the Old Testament was pieced together from other religions. And with a large number of major historical events from the Old Testament, there's very little or no evidence that they occurred. That's all of what's at stake in this issue. So brownjenkins does bring up something important, to me. I just can't argue it here.