Dear CFI, I am new to this forum and would like to know what I would be allowed to discuss. I have published my theories about the biblical Exodus and the origins of Christianity in two books - would I be allowed to refer to them here, or discuss aspects of my work with fellow members? I guess the question really is what would would be regarded as spam.
Riaan
Anything that could be considered advertising or selling would be considered spam, so if you’re doing it in order to make money somehow then don’t. But spam is a necessarily vague concept.
Even though the books are for sale (one of them is in fact available as a free download), I am much more interested in learning what people think about my arguments. For that reason I have summarized the key arguments about Moses and the Exodus here] and the origins of Christianity here]. Where should I discuss these, if OK to proceed?
Even though the books are for sale (one of them is in fact available as a free download), I am much more interested in learning what people think about my arguments. For that reason I have summarized the key arguments about Moses and the Exodus here] and the origins of Christianity here]. Where should I discuss these, if OK to proceed?Seems to me the Religion and Secularism folder is the place. But NB: I doubt you will get very far by having people read lengthy arguments and respond to them, even if they are summaries of even lengthier arguments. In general short and to the point is best for getting responses.
Thanks, will do
Is it peer reviewed? Did you work with any scholars? Do you have a listing of citations? In the Christ intro you say Barbelo has received “no interest”. Did you submit it to anything? Even write Richard Carrier or someone?
Even though the books are for sale (one of them is in fact available as a free download), I am much more interested in learning what people think about my arguments. For that reason I have summarized the key arguments about Moses and the Exodus here] and the origins of Christianity here]. Where should I discuss these, if OK to proceed?You can try anything and see of DougSmith catches you. If he doesn't you've lost nothing. If he does, just lick your wounds and try something different . ? Lois
Is it peer reviewed? Did you work with any scholars? Do you have a listing of citations? In the Christ intro you say Barbelo has received "no interest". Did you submit it to anything? Even write Richard Carrier or someone?Is it a prerequisite to work with scholars? In my innocence I studied every bit of information I could lay my hands on, including the so-called 'apocrypha'. Whereas the majority of scholars reject these documents out of hand, it turns out that some of them are based on actual events, most notably The Story of Joseph and Asenath (I'll start a thread on that in the appropriate section). The book is extremely controversial, so it is unlikely that scholars will pay any attention to it. If they were to accept it as the truth, they'd be out of a job! Thanks for Richard's name - I'll contact him. I have contacted a couple of others.
Is it a prerequisite to work with scholars?Well, it doesn't hurt. I would accept the opinion of experts in the field over my own. If I couldn't do that, then I'd need to have a PhD in every field there is just to make simple decisions at the grocery store. Or, I'd have to "study every bit of information I could lay my hands on". But how would I know if I'd done enough? If you were a student of history, you would know by asking your professor. They would grade you and tell you if you had done a thorough job. At some point, you could begin to challenge them and to present new collections of data, and you could research source documents and know that you had seen something that no one else had ever seen or put together. Then you'd be the expert. On my brief skim of your work, I see a lot of red flags. The majority of scholars do not reject the apocrypha. Some theologians who want make a case for their denomination do, but not scholars. It wouldn't be scholarly. What it looks like you are doing is making connections between a piece of scripture and an historical event, based on very little similarity. Based on things that could be similar with other events and other writings, so why did you choose the ones you did? Claiming that your book is "controversial" so it won't get attention isn't logical either. It will get attention if it's right. It will be accepted as true if the evidence supports it. To accept something as true without evidence would put a professor's job in jeopardy, and that's exactly how it should be.
Well, if it’s true that Christ was actually known as Simon Magus to the Jews, and that he adopted the alias Paul of Tarsus after his staged crucifixion, then it might put a professor’s job in jeopardy. THere is a lot of evidence that points to just that conclusion.
I think you have professors confused with priests. There are several known forgeries in the Bible, people claiming to be Paul but aren’t Paul for example. Some ministers can say that in the pulpit, some would lose their jobs if they did. It has been known for a long time that the Bible was assembled by men and written by men. Most seminaries teach this. Again, some preachers could still lose their jobs if they preached this on Sunday.
But a professor, no, there is no discipline for which a professor could put his job in jeopardy by teaching something that is supported by evidence. Not in any credited university anyway. Maybe from Moody Bible Institute], but not Columbia.
Dear CFI, I am new to this forum and would like to know what I would be allowed to discuss. I have published my theories about the biblical Exodus and the origins of Christianity in two books - would I be allowed to refer to them here, or discuss aspects of my work with fellow members? I guess the question really is what would would be regarded as spam. RiaanWhy do you fear peer reviews?
I do not fear them at all. The title of my book is Thera and the Exodus, and the name is self explanatory. A former professor of mine (in engineering), was so impressed with the book that he offered it to a fellow scientist, who was convinced that there never was such a thing as an exodus. Having completed reading the book, he became a ‘convert’ who accepted my identification of Moses etc. When my former professor mention the book to one of his colleagues at the department of theological studies, that person was not even vaguely interested in the book: “We all know that Thera erupted ca 1600 BCE, which was centuries before the Exodus”. End of story. Believe me, I have attempted to engage many professors in various ways to discuss various aspects of my book, all to no avail.
It is indeed true that Thera erupted ca 1600 BCE, but there is also evidence, from the tsunami deposits at Crete, that a second eruption must have occurred many years later (250 years, according to ancient legends - the floods of Deucalion and Ogygus). From RADIOCARBON, Vol 51, Nr 2, 2009, p 397–411, THE MINOAN SANTORINI ERUPTION AND TSUNAMI DEPOSITS IN PALAIKASTRO (CRETE): DATING BY GEOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, 14C, AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY Hendrik J Bruins • Johannes van der Plicht • J Alexander MacGillivray, Figure 4 shows solidified volcanic ash in a tsunami deposit (it should have been dispersed), whereas Figure 5 shows a volcanic ash WEATHERED ROCK in the tsunami deposits. Bruins et al are not completely stupid, though. They recognise
“It is obvious that the tsunami at Palaikastro could not have caused redeposition of discrete volcanic ash layers or discrete intraclasts from dispersed volcanic particles in soils. Therefore, in terms of environmental geological dating, the tsunami came after the deposition over eastern Crete of airborne volcanic ash, but before the ash layer became dispersed by erosion and soil-biological mixing.A tsunami generated in the 3rd or 4th (last) eruption phase, as found on Thera, meets the above requirement and fits the presence of discrete volcanic ash in the tsunami deposits at Palaikastro”.
So, the tsunami came after the deposition of the ash. How many years between the different phases? Do you think I’ll ever get Bruins so far as to admit that he may have overlooked something relatively obvious?
PS: Manetho does refer to two exoduses - the first during the reign of Ahmose I (ie the 1600 eruption), and then the second during the reign of Amenhotep III (1600-250=1350, around the time he appointed Akhenaten as his successor).