Written Evidence For The Exodus

[Mudhoney]

This is not fucking Vacation Bible School (just in case you were under the impression that we needed schoolin’).

 

The book of Exodus is part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It belonged to Judaism before Christianity. My Jewish brother-in-law was always taught that the account of the exodus from Egypt was not literal. It was a story. Rabbi David Wolpe is just one rabbi who teaches that the exodus account was not literal:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1

 

Suck it, Steve.

[falemon]

This is not fucking Vacation Bible School (just in case you were under the impression that we needed schoolin’).

 

The book of Exodus is part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It belonged to Judaism before Christianity. My Jewish brother-in-law was always taught that the account of the exodus from Egypt was not literal. It was a story. Rabbi David Wolpe is just one rabbi who teaches that the exodus account was not literal:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1

 

Suck it, Steve.

 

Yes, I went into Jerusalem and visited the Rabbi University and they said that they only believe the law was from God and everything else is from men.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Are you equating SteveBennet with our beloved (at FRDB at least) Ed, the Calvinist Wannabe and holder of the 2013 Award for The Most Mere Assertions in One Thread?

You think they're the same guy??! I never thought of that, so I wasn't making such an equation. I've never actually seen a post by Ed directly; I've only seen his stuff quoted in replies that show how vapid it is.

 

Heh heh.

[mymistake]

This is not fucking Vacation Bible School (just in case you were under the impression that we needed schoolin’).

 

The book of Exodus is part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It belonged to Judaism before Christianity. My Jewish brother-in-law was always taught that the account of the exodus from Egypt was not literal. It was a story. Rabbi David Wolpe is just one rabbi who teaches that the exodus account was not literal:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1

 

Suck it, Steve.

 

[Fernweh]

I sincerely thank everyone for their best wishes and concern.

 

I certainly understand the differing points of view here.  Again, I truly believe that a lot of this comes down to *how* we, ourselves, choose to approach not only empirical evidence itself-- but also philosophical issues such as death, hell, heaven etc.

 

To clarify, I was not saying an atheist's reason for being an atheist was because atheism offers the comfort that God does not exist, just as I don't think anyone would read what I wrote and think my own reason for being a Christian is because it offers me comfort.  My point was, simply, that both world views do offer comfort.

 

I'm a Christian only because I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Judeo-Christianity being true-- but I am willing to admit by biases.

 

 

---------

 

And that is really the point, I think.

 

Take every argument that is out there, every piece of empirical evidence that I'll continue in presenting here, take every manner of portraying things that you have ever heard.  Do you find your time and focus is split evenly?

 

See we all suffer from a thing called "confirmation bias."   No one is immune to its effects.  

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art12.html

 

And being aware of our own biases is only the first step.  After that, we have to set up an approach in which we actually control for our own biases.  This means:

 

1) Establishing objective criterion that is generally applicable to all ancient documents and all religions (including the one presented in the Bible) before we even begin to look at the evidence.

 

2) It means establishing, explicitly, how one is going to approach a subject.  Linearly?  Or by jumping around to whatever happens to attract our focus (this would be to allow our confirmation biases to take over).

 

3) It means taking a sincere inventory of how we ended up with the lenses that we did, and are we really willing to go back to the drawing board to see if a different set of lenses actually holds water?

 

4) It means deliberately, and consciously, choosing not to engage in any of the informal fallacies (ad lapidem, ad hominem, or ad novitatem are the most common) red herrings, or straw men as one investigates.

 

5) It means severing facts from worldviews, opinions, or various perspectives on history-- simply because it ought to be the facts, themselves, out of which worldviews or views on history emerge.

 

6) It means choosing the hypothesis that fits all of the data without violating lex parsimonia.

 

7) It means recognizing when a philosophy (like naturalism) is actually seeping into our analysis or research strategy and causing us to violate lex parsimonia.

 

It means sticking to the scientific method-- taking caution that our hearts are not clouding our minds-- while sifting through a vast ocean of vehemently powerful opinions.

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

 

In step 1), I am starting with a simple question: does the Bible pass empirical testing? And, to what extent? I.e. Can it be treated as a credible primary source of information?

 

In step 2) We simply read through the bible linearly-- focusing on any parts which may be empirically experimented on, and discarding parts which can not.

 

In step 3) We maintain suspended judgment until all of the facts regarding the particular testable events have been gathered.

 

In step 4)  We assess the credibility of the experiment.  How conclusive was it? i.e. How much legitimate potential to falsify did the text provide us with?  This is vitally important to the scientific method-- if its not falsifiable, then it has what one would call "zero credibility."  One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  Which means that every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, literally hinges on the credibility of one or two people.  So spotting legitimate potential to falsify is vitally important to any scientific thinker before claims are lent any credibility.  That is why, as we read the Bible in a linear fashion, our minds should zero in on finding opportunities to empirically falsify its claims.

 

In step 5)  We revise our hypotheses to align with the testable aspects.  If someone never, ever revises any of their hypotheses, or admits when they've made a mistake, beware that they are probably just out to argue-- not apply objective scientific criteria.  This is true for Christians as much as it is for non-Christians.

 

In step 6)  We conclude.  We ask "how many empirical tests did the Bible pass?"  And "how much legitimate potential to falsify its claims were provided to us in each of these tests?" If the level of potential falsifiability was very high, yet the claim was not falsified, then the likelihood of the text being credible is increased.  This is an important principle to remember about the scientific method. Because anyone can claim they won the lottery-- our focus should be on how falsifiable that claim is.  If it has no potential to be falsified, then it has what is known as "zero credibility."

 

 

On a side note, you might see why, now, the dating of the book of Luke and Acts is such a vitally important issue.

 

 

-----------

 

 

If, understanding the scientific method, one does not see why it is so important to proceed linearly (to control for our own cognitive biases, and to ensure that each individual fact gets accepted as research before one attempts a hypothesis) then maybe its because I'm a bad salesmen.  I don't know.

 

I do know that this method is not for everyone, but I noticed that a lot of people had asked that this approach be taken before I even began to post here.  I am primarily responding only to those people who are interested in taking a legitimately scientific approach that is designed to help us control for our own biases, and cipher facts from world views or opinions.

 

In the end, please understand, no one can ever make everybody happy.  My intention is *only* to respond to those who asked for this method of approach.

 

Holy Gish Gallop, Batman!

 

Seriously, you should start your own religion and call it The Cult of TL;DR.

[Thackerie]

 

HUGE WALL OF TEXT

 

Holy Gish Gallop, Batman!

 

Seriously, you should start your own religion and call it The Cult of TL;DR.

 

 

Obviously, he's in love with the sound of his own voice -- which puts him only slightly above the man who is in love with the smell of his own farts.

[falemon]

God created the Universe so that he could make it difficult to believe in him!

[Mudhoney]

 

This is not fucking Vacation Bible School (just in case you were under the impression that we needed schoolin’).

 

The book of Exodus is part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It belonged to Judaism before Christianity. My Jewish brother-in-law was always taught that the account of the exodus from Egypt was not literal. It was a story. Rabbi David Wolpe is just one rabbi who teaches that the exodus account was not literal:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1

 

Suck it, Steve.

 

 

 

Nice!

[bornagainathiest]

Where is this thread going, Steve?

.

.

.

Here are the options I see.  Please feel free to correct me, if you feel moved to do so.

 

1.  You hold good to your word

That is, you respond to all the many valid points we've raised and you seek our permission to move on once these have been addressed.  (These are your words btw, as written in the opening post of this thread.)

 

2. You don't hold good to your word

That is, you ignore the many valid points we've raised and you don't seek our permission about anything.   Instead, you follow your own agenda.  This option runs the risk of the thread being locked by the Mods and/or them dropping the banhammer on you.  Please remember that you've got two strikes against you!

 

3. You quit this thread and start up another

This option runs the risk of being quickly stopped by the Mods, who will probably recommend that you return here and take option # 1.  (If they're feeling lenient.  They could just ban you for going against their warnings not to do this.)

 

4. You wait until the heat dies down

That is, you stay away from this thread for a long while, returning when you reckon that interest has waned enough for you to take either option 1 or 2.  If it's the first... no problem.  If it's the second, then the due penalties attached to this option will probably come into force.  Resumption of this thread, no matter how long you wait, will be noticed by those who keep watch for such events. Waiting too long however, brings it's own risks.  If you page thru the Lion's Den you'll see that the Mods automatically lock down threads that have lain fallow for too long. 

 

5. You try and persuade us to accept your methodology

This option is open to you - within the limits of the Moderator's patience.  You began this thread Jan 31 and March is fast approaching.  How long your window of opportunity stays open is up to the Mods.  If they conclude that your methodology will never be accepted by us, then they may well recommend you to take option  # 1, on pain of this thread being locked and/or your being banned.

 

6. You introduce off-topic material into this thread

This'll probably earn you another warning and/or a thread lockdown and/or the banhammer.

 

7. You use on-topic (Exodus-related) material in an off-topic manner

There are those always on watch for this kind of maneuver and the usual penalties (see # 6) will probably apply.

 

8.  You edit your opening post

You alter the terms and conditions you set down in your opening post, to sidestep # 1.  Your opening post has, however, been copied and if you try this maneuver, the Mods will be instantly informed of your attempt to change things.  The due penalties will no doubt follow.

 

9. You delete some or all of your posts

Please see # 8.

 

10. You quit this thread for good

Making post # 262, your last.  After a suitable time this thread will be locked by the Mods, as per the last sentence of # 4.

 

11. You resort to Private Messaging only

This puts your fate in this forum into the hands of those you choose to contact privately.  If they don't want dialog with you, then they can opt to simply ignore you.  If they do...fine.  If you persist in forcing yourself on anyone they'll probably report your behaviour and the Mods will take appropriate action.

 

12. You quit this forum for good

Either cancelling your account or leaving it just as it stands.

 

.

.

.

So where is this thread going, Steve?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest SteveBennett]

Interestingly enough, many of the points that Ravenstar has raised with regard to who the Hyksos were to be addressed in the very next section of our discussion.

 

 

But I do agree—there is an important sub-discussion to be had before we can move on to further evidence.

 

 

--------------------------

 

 

It’s important to clear up a fundamental misunderstanding that I noticed Ravenstar has with regard to who the Hyksos were. The easiest way to explain who the Hyksos were is to use a simple analogy:

 

 

Hyksos:Semitic:Hebrew::American:Latino:puerto rican

 

 

Now the official term “Hebrew” did not show up until much later after than the period we are discussing (Hyksos period)—but, of course, the term “Hyksos” is an Egyptian term that is actually racially biased in its categorization (according to native Egyptians, if you weren’t native Egyptian then you were Hyksos—regardless of your subcategory designation).

 

 

To make the point more explicitly clear:

 

 

Ravenstar has been showing us various idols that various Hyksos tribes worshiped and making the mistake of concluding that they were somehow representative of what the Hyksos believed.  This is like taking an American, giving an example of what some sub group of Americans worshipped, and then saying it is representative of all Americans.

 

 

-- Except in this case the term “Hyksos” is decided upon by Egyptians as a general categorization of foreigners.  In this respect, a better analogy might be the Native American’s term “European.”  Because just as the Native American’s opinion for the “European” would fluctuate depending on circumstances, so too did the Egyptian’s opinion of the Hyksos fluctuate depending on circumstances.

 

 

This is, I think, the best possible analogy we can use in all respects:

 

 

The native Americans didn’t discriminate between the early Europeans—they grouped them into one broad category. 

 

 

So too did the Egyptians not discriminate between the early Asiatics—they grouped them into one broad category.

 

 

AS

 

 

The European names (Dutch, Irish, British etc.) follow distinct phonetic patterns.

 

 

So, too, did the Hyksos names (Nubian, Hittite, Assyrian etc.) follow distinct phonetic patterns.

 

 

-----------

 

 

 

Summary:

 

 

I’m not here to argue with anyone.  Ravenstar’s hypothesizes that any circumcised were polytheistic, I hypothesize that any circumcised were henotheistic.  Surely. . . if archaeologists were ever to find a 3800 year old circumcised body in the middle of Avarice (the Hyksos captial) then I would be right and Ravenstar would be wrong.

 

 

As it stands, though, neither view is falsifiable .  Therefore both Ravenstar and I must both be lent zero credibility with regard to the claim that *any* amongst the Hyksos were henotheistic or polytheistic.

 

 

We simply can not know for certain.

 

 

I will stand by my hypothesis, though—the circumcised sons of Jacob were either monotheistic, henotheistic, or polytheistic—but I admit neither my, nor Ravenstar’s, view may be tested.

 

 

Whether or not my view, or Ravenstar's view, is given more than "zero credibility" depends on whether or not the orthodox Jewish narrative continues to pass sciences fourth step.

 

------------

 

[Guest SteveBennett]

Regarding the many other assertions people have made here,

 

I would, respectfully, point out that they lack in criteria.  All of the analogies made are ad hoc (specifically designed for argumentative point).

 

My mind, honestly, boggles at the fact that so many clearly intelligent people never noticed just how falsifiable Jesus Christ is-- whereas all of the other religions on the planet are not falsifiable (and therefore have zero credibility).

 

Has no one ever taken a rational approach to the divine origins of either Judaism or Christianity?

 

[falemon]

Without a video, without an overly convoluted answer, tell me in a single sentence or short paragraph how exactly Jesus is falsifiable.

 

Second, why do you so selectively respond to people? Either you are here or you are not. Half measures are just wasting everybody's time, especially people who have put time into participating.

 

The thread will go around in circles if you continue to do that.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Sophisticated versions of Christianity insulate themselves from falsifiability. Literalist versions have been falsified many times over.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Sophisticated versions of Christianity insulate themselves from falsifiability. Literalist versions have been falsified many times over.

 

Ficino, in every case I've personally reviewed I've found the problem is that people didn't study the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic.

 

There is such a thing as "competing hypothesese."  Yes?  The Hebrew word "yom" is the most famous example of this.  Does it mean a 12 hour period?  A 24 hour period?  Or an undefined period of time.

 

A key point of the scientific method is that one can not proceed to experiment until they have first accurately apprehended what is being hypothesized.

 

Jesus understood the idea of falsifiability amongst one's own peers better than anyone religious claimant in all of history.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Without a video, without an overly convoluted answer, tell me in a single sentence or short paragraph how exactly Jesus is falsifiable.

 

Second, why do you so selectively respond to people? Either you are here or you are not. Half measures are just wasting everybody's time, especially people who have put time into participating.

 

The thread will go around in circles if you continue to do that.

 

1) Because the people of Jesus time would have known, that he, as well as his followers, were lieing.

 

2) Because every idea here has been responded to by someone at some point.  I can only choose to focus on those that I've noticed seem to rely most heavily on the informal fallacies.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Here is how religion works:

 

(a) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances;

( as long as the claim cannot be checked.

--------------

Everyone is asking me to get to the point.  So let me ask you all question:  how on earth do you think Jesus was able to convince so many of his peers that he had performed numerous miracles right before their very eyes? 

Don't you see?  God understands that He bears burden of proof to demonstrate both His love as well as His legitimacy to love us as no one one else can!

---------

THINK

Who is it that wants to worship God JUST in spirit?  New Age religions right?

Who is it that wants to worship God JUST in truth?

These are the Pharisees and the Atheists-- who constantly justify their point of view however they possibly can. . . right?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1) Because the people of Jesus time would have known, that he, as well as his followers, were lieing.

 

 

Nobody ever heard of, or wrote anything about jesus until decades after his supposed death.  There are no eyewitness accounts.  How could anybody know he was lying in his time?

 

THINK.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

These are the Pharisees and the Atheists-- who constantly justify their point of view however they possibly can. . . right?

Kind of like you've been doing all this time.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Could I ask a moderator to please edit that sunglass half smirk?

 

its suppose to read:

 

(  b  )

 

[pratt]

Here is how religion works:

 

--------------

Everyone is asking me to get to the point.  So let me ask you all question:  how on earth do you think Jesus was able to convince so many of his peers that he had performed numerous miracles right before their very eyes? 

Don't you see?  God understands that He bears burden of proof to demonstrate both His love as well as His legitimacy to love us as no one one else can!

---------THINK

 

dear steve, i dont believe the existence of bible jesus, so what peers are we talking about?

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

1) Because the people of Jesus time would have known, that he, as well as his followers, were lieing.

 

 

Nobody ever heard of, or wrote anything about jesus until decades after his supposed death.  There are no eyewitness accounts.  How could anybody know he was lying in his time?

 

THINK.

 

 

 

Think.  

 

What is the methodology by which you date the biographies of Jesus?

[florduh]

Everyone is asking me to get to the point.  So let me ask you all question:  how on earth do you think Jesus was able to convince so many of his peers that he had performed numerous miracles right before their very eyes? 

 

Steve, how do you not see this? First, you are "getting to the point" by instead asking us an unanswerable question. Asking how Jesus was able to do this or that and how his contemporaries would have seen it is no different than discussing why Bruce Willis, in the movie The Sixth Sense, couldn't see all the clues that indicated he was in fact dead. Once you accept fiction as fact, there can be no productive discussion.

 

Maybe this will help you understand the basic disconnect we have here.

[Guest SteveBennett]

In other words:

 

Either I am force fitting a date of prior to 64 A.D. for the biographies of Jesus, or skeptics are force fitting a 2nd century date in order to explain away the historicity of Jesus.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Sophisticated versions of Christianity insulate themselves from falsifiability. Literalist versions have been falsified many times over.

 

Ficino, in every case I've personally reviewed I've found the problem is that people didn't study the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic.

 

There is such a thing as "competing hypothesese."  Yes?  The Hebrew word "yom" is the most famous example of this.  Does it mean a 12 hour period?  A 24 hour period?  Or an undefined period of time.

 

A key point of the scientific method is that one can not proceed to experiment until they have first accurately apprehended what is being hypothesized.

 

Jesus understood the idea of falsifiability amongst one's own peers better than anyone religious claimant in all of history.

 

As I said, sophisticated versions of Christianity [try to] insulate themselves against falsifiability. You're doing that here, preparing to pick a meaning of "yom" that suits your purposes. Ad hoc.

 

You do not know Greek. I'm not sure about Hebrew.

 

I have presented three biblical prophecies that were not fulfilled. You have not addressed any of them.

 

BAA has presented the problem of Genesis 1:1 and repeatedly asked you to engage it.

 

Instead, you repeat your opinions about methodology, ask condescending questions, and post more videos.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

 

Think Florduh,

 

You are actually hypothesizing that the disciples of Jesus, the crowds around Jesus, were actually watching Jesus in the midst of an ancient play?   With special effects and the whole shibang?

 

And thats why they followed Him?