|
Randor wrote: After watching I think you should expand on your conclusion about Jupiter
The video is meant to be an overview. The Jupiter material is touched upon in a couple places, like chapter 9, of my book. I don't go into detail, because I don't have a mind like yours that can suck up info and approach it from a thousand different ways. I'm not trying to say that it came from a Phoenician god. Instead, the commonality of almost all the cultures back then is that the people were awed by Jupiter's brilliance, and ability to travel the entire sky, so that is the basis of many religions of those times. Logically, Baal and Anat, Yahweh and Asherah, and similar constructs, refer to Jupiter and Venus in their root form, and this comes from each culture semi-independently. I will let others who can hold infinite knowledge in their minds work out the finer details, and where I'm wrong and right. It was hell getting the Samson stuff figured out, and the bigger picture in place, because I've been lied to my entire life.
Randor wrote: I have an issue with the terminology you are using. Phrases like "The bible" for example. Which bible? Do you mean the Tanakh? Your time frame only fits those texts.
This is another area I'm not an expert on. What I thought I was saying is that the core of what is now the Old Testament formed after the Babylonian Exile, rather than 1300 BC and earlier. That doesn't mean that core doesn't contain much older material. I believe Job contains some of the oldest material, from a scholastic perspective. But I think it became incorporated into what is now the Old Testament in about 500-300 BC?
Randor wrote: Your 12th segment, I've seen some similarities between the Akhenaten story and Moses, might be worth investigation.
Chapter 15 is a summary of Moses information, overviewing 7 myths with a similar 'put into the waters at birth' scenario, and the 5 different versions of the Moses story that are documented. (Of course the 5th is the biblical version.)
My contact info is at Contact - RandomMonkeyWorks, if you wish to chat more.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
PS - the book contains references supporting my Jupiter conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Tanakh would have been a better term to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: How many people are named David O'Neil and do you all write books?
You got me!  If you know any religious scholars who are open to such a debate, and can hook me up, I'd love to give it a try! I look forward to your thoughts when you've read it.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: If you know any religious scholars who are open to such a debate
You just need to pick up the phone. The Closer to Truth youtube channel has guests I think would be willing to do interviews. Watch his episodes and look at his Philosophy of religion guests.
It's just a few tanks of gas and a few phone calls, get off your ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the lead. I've contacted hundreds of scholars over the years. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, but for some reason they never follow-up. Perhaps because they really don't want to push their own religious boundaries, and understand our history for themselves. Don't know...
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn had the same problem and he might have a financial advantage. But he didn't use money to overcome the problem. He regularly attends conferences.
I'm more interested in his physics interviews. The physicists were very open to interviews. Religion doesn't interest me as much. But he actually had a harder time breaking into philosophy of religion.
Get involved if you want to succeed in this area.
Upcoming events in Philosophy of Religion - PhilEvents
Not my cup of tea, just making recommendations to help you succeed. If your ideas have merit present them to your peers, not software engineers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Codeproject.com is probably not the right place to disseminate your ideas. There are negative members here that purchase OSINT information believing they can know about a person simply using the forum name.
One of the things I learned in my life is that some of the most brilliant people are eccentric. Perhaps they come from the LGBT community, perhaps they are bipolar, maybe they are on the autistic spectrum or maybe schizoaffective. Or maybe they have only $2 dollars to their name and live in poverty.
Doesn't matter, your ideas are valuable, make your self visible. 
|
|
|
|
|
The $2 sounds familiar! I will do my best! Thanks for the ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
The Amazon truck dropped your book off this evening. ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
How does book pricing work on Amazon? Do you have any control over it? I picked it up (new copy) for $5 plus tax. But I checked after I bought it the price is now $20.
Would you like me to leave a review?
|
|
|
|
|
When I uploaded this version I set the price at $19.95. Evidently someone on their end put it on special for an introductory period, and now that period is expired. But they are still supposed to pay the same royalty.
I also have ebooks on my laughingatthedevil site for less, but still more than their $5 deal - that was a good grab, and I'm glad you got it while it was still on.
I'd love a review! I hope it opened up some long-forgotten aspects of history!
|
|
|
|
|
I bought a physical copy. I can't seem focus on e-books for some reason. I need paper books, that's what I grew up reading.
David O'Neil wrote: I hope it opened up some long-forgotten aspects of history!
It's a mixture of agreement and disagreement on your conclusions. The Samson origin hypothesis is very well done and very convincing. I've heard many religious scholars mention that the Samson story didn't fit and possibly had older origins. This part was very well done.
No 'strong' disagreements, just that some of your conclusions are 'fuzzy' because of lost history.
I also had a hard time figuring out which parts of your book were 'original research'. Alot of what you base your conclusions on come from older scholars/research. There is nothing wrong with that, but I was really curious which parts were your own research. Your 'average' reader probably wouldn't care about this. But because I somewhat know you, it was my main focus.
I have much more to say but it's not codeproject material.
I do have a strong recommendation. Your videos and some of your commentary come across as atheistic. I think you might find that there are believers that are comfortable with the astronomical origins. Especially in the jewish community. I think you could widen your audience with a more neutral commentary. Let people come to their own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
PS - I will also have signed copies available from my site when I get some in, hopefully next week. That $2 has been a limiter. Any sold there result in more bill-paying abilities on my end. I'd sign yours without buying a new copy if you wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
I responded to your above message. I forgot to mention that I have alot of very detailed feedback but it's not appropriate for codeproject. I will give you a better feedback via your website contact at a later date along with some questions.
Edit: I also see that you put an enormous amount of time and research into this. I can see that you are very passionate about this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: I will give you a better feedback via your website contact at a later date along with some questions.
I look forward to it, and wish I could have gotten such feedback long ago. I tried, but all the people in my circles were pretty negative, including most of the scholars I approached. Have a great night, and happy holidays!
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: I also see that you put an enormous amount of time and research into this.
The first edition was completed 2008, as you can see in the copyright page. That version was over 400 pages long, and was a little more new-agey. Fourteen years to work it to this, with each version being an improvement to its present state. I also had to master graphics production and typesetting, because Amazon's graphic creation recommendations were crap. On the other hand, Word is amazing - everything was put together in it, with the embedded graphics. A bunch of work, like you said, but Word made it a LOT easier than other programs I dabbled with.
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I didn't see any crackpot ideas in your book. Controversial? Absolutely.
But worth discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
You would have if you had read the first edition!
(I am glad I had an opportunity to fix those bad premises, and you didn't see the first edition! Even if it did leave me poor and suck up a lot of time!)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, now you caught my attention. Where can I get the first addition? 
|
|
|
|
|
You can't! I think I still have a copy on my shelves somewhere, but it ain't going anywhere. If we ever meet and you remind me, I'll try to find it and you can flip through it. I can't even find the electronic files anywhere anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
