Question For Non-Christians: Did You Know?

[Guest SteveBennett]

Did you know that the crossing site of the Exodus has been found?  See comment's section of the video to review "holes" people have already attempted to poke.  Feel free to put your thinking cap on, and poke holes as well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXf2IDS-9g0

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Did you know that nothing in Egyptian history ever points to a large mass of Hebrews living there?

[Guest SteveBennett]

Did you know that nothing in Egyptian history ever points to a large mass of Hebrews living there?

That is a fairly easily falsifiable statement.

 

1) Manfred Bietak uncovered multiple buildings with Hebrew styled architecture (the video discusses those findings) in the Hyksos capital of Avaris.

 

2) In addition to these buildings, more than a dozen scarabs with the inscription "Jacob Hr" (translated "rock of Jacob") have been excavated in the Hyksos capital of Avaris, throughout Egypt, and some have even been found scattered throughout the land of Canaan and modern day Israel.

 

To understand the significance of this finding, one needs to understand that a scarab is the equivalent of a modern day police badge.  If your authority came from a Pharaoh, for example, then your scarab would have the Pharaoh's household name inscribed on it.  If your authority came from Joseph or his descendant's (see Genesis 37-50) then your scarab would have been inscribed with something pursuant of the house of Jacob (aka: Israel).

 

3) Furthermore, Brooklyn papyrus 35.1446 is an ancient Egyptian slave transaction document with hundreds of names on it dating to the beginning of the New Kingdom era (just after the Hyksos expulsion from power). More than HALF of the slave's names written on the document are definitely, characteristically, Hebrew.  From a statistician's point of view, this random sampling of slave names is enough to justify stating that "the *majority* of the slaves at the beginning of the New Kingdom era were characteristically Hebrew."

[Thurisaz]

Q: How do you know a morontheist is lying?

 

A: Her lips are moving (or in these modern times, her fingers are typing).

 

Present neutral sources for your claims. Preferrably multiple ones. Morontheist ones do not count and will only earn you a load of well-deserved mockery. If you comply to this, maybe we might want to consider what you're claiming.

 

I'm not holding my breath.

[Guest SteveBennett]

"Present neutral sources for your claims."

I'm presenting you with what is known as "primary sources."

 

You are familiar with the difference between secondary sources and primary sources. . . yes?

 

Ad lapidem

Ad hominem

Ad novitatem

 

Any sincere thinker would prefer to avoid these fallacies and, instead, stay focused on primary sources. . . 

[Deva]

Let's assume there is evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt and that they got free - you can't prove YHWH did it by some miracle.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Let's assume there is evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt and that they got free - you can't prove YHWH did it by some miracle.

 

When it comes to historical or empirical questions of fact, I always recommend one employs the scientific method of investigation:

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

An extremely important aspect of this method is that one has to posit a hypothesis that has legitimate potential for empirical falsification. If there is no legitimate opportunity to falsify a hypothesis, then it automatically means there is no evidence. One should always be on the lookout for legitimate opportunities to empirically falsify a hypothesis.

 

Falsification and evidence always go hand in hand. This is because the logical statement which connects step 3 and step 4 is: "If statement 'A' is true, then 'B' must be empirically observable."

 

Now if we do empirically observe "B" that doesn't make "A" true, necessarily, it only makes "A" more likely true than not true.

 

The more and more empirically observable "B's" that must necessarily follow from "A", the more and more potential for falsification "A" endures, and the more likely it becomes that "A" is true.

 

The hypothesis that Nuweiba is the crossing point of the Exodus has endured many, many, many legitimate opportunities for falsification. And it has passed through every single one of them.  The video discusses a few of these.

 

But I agree with you.  There is no proof (in the strictest sense of the word) of anything.  "Proof" is for mathematicians and logicians only.

[Deva]

Good, we agree it can't be proven.

 

Now, I don't know much about this alleged discovery of the Red Sea crossing, because I have not heard of it before. I haven't had time to view the entire video - let me just say its pretty slow out of the starting gate.

 

I think the entire idea of trying to prove the God of the Bible exists and prove the Bible by archeology is misguided - the Bible as a historical document seems to leave much to be desired; although I am not a historian, and the scientific method and God don't much mix.  I don't see how you can prove God or miracles from archeological finds and it really seems a bit silly to me. If you are a person who already has faith, maybe you can find it upheld or bolstered or something like that, but why would you need that boost?

[disillusioned]

Let me preface what I about to say by noting that I am in no sense an historian. Nor am I an archaeologist. Nor do I have an hour and half free at the moment to watch the video that was posted above. Maybe I will later. However...
 
It is my understanding that there is a consensus in the archaeological community that the Exodus is a legend, and nothing more. "After more than a century of research and the massive efforts of generations of archaeologists and Egyptologists, nothing has been recovered that relates directly to the account in Exodus of an Egyptian sojourn and escape or of a large scale migration through Sinai." (source, p 5).
 
Or, if you prefer videos, consider the following.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I think the entire idea of trying to prove the God of the Bible exists and prove the Bible by archaeology is misguided 

 

I don't.  What good is *any* belief if what is claimed to be believed doesn't hold water when it is subjected to rigorous testing of any kind?

 

If a belief is not even true, then its worthless.  And if something is true, then a significant number of empirical observations ought to necessarily follow from it as a result.

 

The issue, I think, is that perhaps you've chosen to abandon basic reasoning principles when it comes to the most important issues.  This seems, to me, backwards.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Let me preface what I about to say by noting that I am in no sense an historian. . . 

Disillusioned,

 

Your entire response, including the video, was:

 

Ad hominem

Ad novitatem

Ad auctoritate

 

Nowhere did you, or the man in the video, offer any consideration of any primary source data-- save a scant mention of trade routes between Egypt and the levant.

 

Why is focusing on primary sources of information so important?

 

Here is why:

 

Suppose I asked you, "Disillusioned, what is the basic standard methodology for dating when ancient documents were originally written?"

 

If you don't know the answer to that question, then how will you know if any given source is being biased with regard to this text or that text?

 

Popular vote?

 

Suppose I asked you, "Disillusioned, what is the basic standard methodology before one may admit an archaeological finding as a fact?"

 

If you don't know the answer to that question, then how will you know someone is basing their analysis on credible findings or not?

 

Ad hominem attacks?

 

Do you see the point?  Sticking to basic criterion, methodology, and primary source data becomes especially important when dealing with issues where strong opinions are known to exist.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I think the entire idea of trying to prove the God of the Bible exists and prove the Bible by archaeology is misguided 

 

I don't.  What good is *any* belief if what is claimed to be believed doesn't hold water when it is subjected to rigorous testing of any kind?

 

If a belief is not even true, then its worthless.  And if something is true, then a significant number of empirical observations ought to necessarily follow from it as a result.

 

The issue, I think, is that perhaps you've chosen to abandon basic reasoning principles when it comes to the most important issues.  This seems, to me, backwards.

 

 

Hello Steve.

 

Your reply to Deva interests me.

 

In the light of what you wrote to her, may ask you this...

 

In what way do you consider Genesis 1:1 to be 'true'?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest Marty]

 

Let me preface what I about to say by noting that I am in no sense an historian. . . 

Disillusioned,

 

Your entire response, including the video, was:

 

Ad hominem

Ad novitatem

Ad auctoritate

 

Nowhere did you, or the man in the video, offer any consideration of any primary source data-- save a scant mention of trade routes between Egypt and the levant.

 

Why is focusing on primary sources of information so important?

 

Here is why:

 

Suppose I asked you, "Disillusioned, what is the basic standard methodology for dating when ancient documents were originally written?"

 

If you don't know the answer to that question, then how will you know if any given source is being biased with regard to this text or that text?

 

Popular vote?

 

Suppose I asked you, "Disillusioned, what is the basic standard methodology before one may admit an archaeological finding as a fact?"

 

If you don't know the answer to that question, then how will you know someone is basing their analysis on credible findings or not?

 

Ad hominem attacks?

 

Do you see the point?  Sticking to basic criterion, methodology, and primary source data becomes especially important when dealing with issues where strong opinions are known to exist.

 

 

I can't believe we are being lectured by a christian about proper scientific methodology...

 

Yet all of this will go out the window as soon as evolution is brought up.  Or the historicity of jesus.  Or the dates of the epistles, or the authors of the gospels.  Or anything else that proves the foundation of the bible could not have ever happened.  Then science is man made and flawed...

 

There is no evidence hundreds of thousands of people wandered the desert for 40 years.  None.  That many people would have left evidence that would have survived till today.  Garbage pits, campfires, even random graves.  There is nothing.  As also mentioned the Egyptians have no record of enslaving the Hebrews, and the Pharaoh Ramseess, who is a big part of the Exodus narrative, is not at the bottom of the Red Sea with his army as the bible states.  He is in the Smithsonian Museum having lived a long life and being mummified according to the customs of his culture.  Iirc he lived into his 90's…

[Deva]

 

I think the entire idea of trying to prove the God of the Bible exists and prove the Bible by archaeology is misguided

 

I don't.  What good is *any* belief if what is claimed to be believed doesn't hold water when it is subjected to rigorous testing of any kind?

 

If a belief is not even true, then its worthless.  And if something is true, then a significant number of empirical observations ought to necessarily follow from it as a result.

 

The issue, I think, is that perhaps you've chosen to abandon basic reasoning principles when it comes to the most important issues.  This seems, to me, backwards.

 

Archeology - how is it subject to rigorous testing? You speak as if it were physics or mathematics. To me, a total layman, if you discover an artifact, you can carbon date it and start theorizing about it, and see how it fits in or doesn't fit in with prior discoveries, and then modify your knowledge of that particular time accordingly, but what do you mean by rigorous testing in this case?

 

What is your definition of "truth"?

 

Who has "abandoned basic reasoning principles" here? Please explain yourself.

[Fernweh]

Basic reasoning tells me that donkeys cannot talk, killing 1000 men with a jawbone is preposterous, and that women cannot become pregnant without the sperm of a man. If you believe the Exodus story then you must also believe these things. If you are going to use the scientific method on the Bible then lets see the empirical evidence for the Firmament. Got any youtube videos proving there used to be a dome over the Earth separating the waters from above and below?

[par4dcourse]

They found scarabs in Caanan? Well that does it for me! I'll rededicate my life to jaysus immediately. If only I had known there was such concrete proof! We atheists tend to be ignorant doofuses who never read the bible so please edumacate us more about this god fellow.

[slave2six]

Do you know that the Exodus story has exactly ZERO impact on the legitimacy of Christianity?

 

Indeed, Christianity is a usurpation of the Hebrew faith and is rejected by Hebrew scholars (the ones who will adamantly support the Exodus story) to this day.

 

Were there slaves in Egypt? Yes. That was very common. Did they leave Egypt and slaughter people all over Canaan? Yeah, probably.

 

The problem I have with Exodus is the narrative itself. 

 

Let's take a look at your "loving" god for a moment, shall we?

 

1. Jacob and his dozen sons leave Canaan and move to Egypt. 
2. Their offspring live in Egypt for 400 years.
3. They become enslaved but god doesn't seem to notice until it gets "really bad" (god could have pulled them out of Egypt at any time, yeah?)
4. God intentionally "hardens Pharaoh's heart" with the express purpose of wreaking havoc on Egypt as punishment for Pharaoh being hard-hearted
5. He sends plagues ending in god's favorite, the old reliable death penalty (except in this case he kills off innocent children - some "right to lifer"!)
6. God does nothing to stop the Egyptians from pursuing the Jews, because he really hates Egyptians apparently and killing off their children just wasn't enough
7. God turns a 2 week journey into a 40 year journey
8. God finally leads his people to Canaan, a land that is suddenly "theirs" because twelve guys who were their ancestors 400 years before were there first
9. God goes about merrily destroying cities and helping his people slaughter the inhabitants who had been living there since time immemorial.

The whole story is complete bullshit. If that's what your god is like, screw him. (BTW - Since Jesus is supposedly god as well, he is responsible for all those deaths. Don't give me this meek and mild crap. That's a complete sham.)

 

More likely, the Jews invaded Canaan and justified it by claiming that god sent them. Their military success was OBVIOUSLY due to god's help.

[slave2six]

You seriously want me to watch 1 hour 22 minute video? Why? Why not just sum it up for us?

[mymistake]

Did you know that the crossing site of the Exodus has been found?  

 

Wrong.  I know for a fact that it has not been found for the same reason that the Tooth Fairy as not been found.  My thinking cap has been on for years and I do wish you would wear one as well.  You don't have to leave your religion but it would be nice if you would learn to think critically.

[mymistake]

 

Did you know that nothing in Egyptian history ever points to a large mass of Hebrews living there?

That is a fairly easily falsifiable statement.

 

1) Manfred Bietak uncovered multiple buildings with Hebrew styled architecture (the video discusses those findings) in the Hyksos capital of Avaris.

 

2) In addition to these buildings, more than a dozen scarabs with the inscription "Jacob Hr" (translated "rock of Jacob") have been excavated in the Hyksos capital of Avaris, throughout Egypt, and some have even been found scattered throughout the land of Canaan and modern day Israel.

 

To understand the significance of this finding, one needs to understand that a scarab is the equivalent of a modern day police badge.  If your authority came from a Pharaoh, for example, then your scarab would have the Pharaoh's household name inscribed on it.  If your authority came from Joseph or his descendant's (see Genesis 37-50) then your scarab would have been inscribed with something pursuant of the house of Jacob (aka: Israel).

 

3) Furthermore, Brooklyn papyrus 35.1446 is an ancient Egyptian slave transaction document with hundreds of names on it dating to the beginning of the New Kingdom era (just after the Hyksos expulsion from power). More than HALF of the slave's names written on the document are definitely, characteristically, Hebrew.  From a statistician's point of view, this random sampling of slave names is enough to justify stating that "the *majority* of the slaves at the beginning of the New Kingdom era were characteristically Hebrew."

 

 

 

 

 

Very funny!

 

If you start with "The Bible must be true" you will end up lost.

[mymistake]

 

"Present neutral sources for your claims."

I'm presenting you with what is known as "primary sources."

 

You are familiar with the difference between secondary sources and primary sources. . . yes?

 

Ad lapidem

Ad hominem

Ad novitatem

 

Any sincere thinker would prefer to avoid these fallacies and, instead, stay focused on primary sources. . . 

 

 

And when those primary sources indicate that most of the Bible is false, then what?  When those primary sources indicate that there is no reason to believe the little content of the Bible that isn't in conflict with reality, then what?

[MerryG]

Archeaologists Tourists have found buildings with Greek columns and Roman arches in Washington, DC, and New York City!

 

Proof positive that ancient Greeks and Romans populated the United States!

 

Um ... Steve. Ever heard of trade and cross-cultural influences?

[mymistake]

 

I think the entire idea of trying to prove the God of the Bible exists and prove the Bible by archaeology is misguided 

 

I don't.  What good is *any* belief if what is claimed to be believed doesn't hold water when it is subjected to rigorous testing of any kind?

 

If a belief is not even true, then its worthless.  And if something is true, then a significant number of empirical observations ought to necessarily follow from it as a result.

 

The issue, I think, is that perhaps you've chosen to abandon basic reasoning principles when it comes to the most important issues.  This seems, to me, backwards.

 

 

Good questions.  Now apply that to your god.

[mymistake]

 

 

The hypothesis that Nuweiba is the crossing point of the Exodus has endured many, many, many legitimate opportunities for falsification. And it has passed through every single one of them.  The video discusses a few of these.

 

 

 

What fallacy did you use here?  Assuming facts not in evidence?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Did you know that nothing in Egyptian history ever points to a large mass of Hebrews living there?

That is a fairly easily falsifiable statement.

 

1) Manfred Bietak uncovered multiple buildings with Hebrew styled architecture (the video discusses those findings) in the Hyksos capital of Avaris.

 

2) In addition to these buildings, more than a dozen scarabs with the inscription "Jacob Hr" (translated "rock of Jacob") have been excavated in the Hyksos capital of Avaris, throughout Egypt, and some have even been found scattered throughout the land of Canaan and modern day Israel.

 

To understand the significance of this finding, one needs to understand that a scarab is the equivalent of a modern day police badge.  If your authority came from a Pharaoh, for example, then your scarab would have the Pharaoh's household name inscribed on it.  If your authority came from Joseph or his descendant's (see Genesis 37-50) then your scarab would have been inscribed with something pursuant of the house of Jacob (aka: Israel).

 

3) Furthermore, Brooklyn papyrus 35.1446 is an ancient Egyptian slave transaction document with hundreds of names on it dating to the beginning of the New Kingdom era (just after the Hyksos expulsion from power). More than HALF of the slave's names written on the document are definitely, characteristically, Hebrew.  From a statistician's point of view, this random sampling of slave names is enough to justify stating that "the *majority* of the slaves at the beginning of the New Kingdom era were characteristically Hebrew."

 

This does nothing more than suggest that a community of Hebrews lived in Egypt.  Far from falsifying my statement, it does nothing to speak of the millions of Jews the bible would have us believe were there.