Written Evidence For The Exodus

[MerryG]

 

  I could have been a better god than Yahweh......

 

 

Oh Margee you already are a better god than Yahweh.

 

 

Yeah. Cuz at least you exist, Margee.

 

Um ... of course, existing wouldn't exactly be a plus in the Yahweh department. Heck, if anything like him actually existed, we'd probably have monthly eruptions of the Yellowstone supervolcano, followed by quarterly tsunamis, and inbetween millions of rapes and dismemberments of virgins.

 

Oh, but to keep this on topic, a handful of his favorites would be allowed to escape to go on drinking, committing incest, and worshipping golden calves.

 

Yeah, Margee, what mymistake says. You're waaaaaay better than Yahweh, even without being able to invite us into your personal heaven.

[Kris]

Ok--- I have provided a link to a Christian site that is discussing "The Exodus Decoded" and addresses why Steve's scarabs are not good evidence--- along with debunking quite a few other things he is likely to being up.

 

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/debunking-the-exodus-decoded.aspx

[Kris]

And here is a nifty article on the one structure Beitak found and the caution by other archeologists that this does NOT prove the exodus.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Are you kidding-- you are an idiot. You already posted "facts" on exodus that were trounced in another thread so you move it? No wonder you are still a Christian. You only see what you want.

 

Please understand that I am merely asking that I be "trounced" in regard to one single fact at a time.

[Kris]

Why, can't handle it all at once?

[slave2six]

 

Ravenstar already refuted your Scarab belief, 

 

What, exactly, did a secondary source (anywhere) say that could possibly refute how well the Jacob Hr scarabs correspond to Genesis 37 - Exodus 1?

 

A perfectly, historically expected, symbol of Joseph's authority?

 

Could someone have fabricated such a perfect detail to correspond to what Genesis 37-Exodus 1 claims?

 

Of course not.

 

Does this make the events that Genesis 37-Exodus 1 records all true?  No. It only makes them more likely true.  Since, wherever we can empirically test, the text passes.

 

 

Are you a Rabbi? I still don't understand why you are continuing on this Exodus crap. You say your evidence indicates that makes Exodus 1 likely to be true. So what? Even if you had video footage of the whole Exodus story, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Christianity. At best, it would only make Judaism valid.

 

But you don't. You have one piece of evidence that concludes nothing.

 

What irritates me is that you Christians always work backwards. You start with a conclusion then go looking for anything to support that conclusion and ignore everything else. The scientific approach is to first gather the data and then come up with a theory which all the data supports. That's why there are still Young Earth Creationists.

 

It's freaking lazy and intellectually dishonest to approach subjects like this.

 

And, TBH, I was living under the delusion that Genesis was part epic poetry (everything pre-Abe) and part history until I read Ravenstar's posting. Now it makes a lot more sense that the whole of Genesis is fiction. And since Exodus is built upon the Genesis account, it's actually more  likely that Exodus is simply another fiction. 

 

Why are you laboring away with this? Why are you so desperate for the Bible to be proven factual or true? More importantly, why are you not honest enough with yourself and with us that there is a possibility that it is all fictitious? Only one open to that possibility can claim intellectual honesty.

[Thackerie]

The topic of this forum is one fact at a time.  

 

Please try and understand, and be respectful, of the fact that not everyone can keep up with a discussion that keeps deviating off topic.

 

My personal opinion is that sincere thinkers are hungry for a single forum in which someone doesn't reference an authority figure or secondary source-- and dissects one issue at a time.

 

Thankyou.

 

I'll be logging out now.  I will return in about 14 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

 

Does anyone else think this character is an arrogant jerk? Who made him lord of the forums? And who cares what he thinks?

[Kris]

Yes-- I think he is an arrogant jerk.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

Ravenstar already refuted your Scarab belief, 

 

What, exactly, did a secondary source (anywhere) say that could possibly refute how well the Jacob Hr scarabs correspond to Genesis 37 - Exodus 1?

 

A perfectly, historically expected, symbol of Joseph's authority?

 

Could someone have fabricated such a perfect detail to correspond to what Genesis 37-Exodus 1 claims?

 

Of course not.

 

Does this make the events that Genesis 37-Exodus 1 records all true?  No. It only makes them more likely true.  Since, wherever we can empirically test, the text passes.

 

 

Are you a Rabbi? I still don't understand why you are continuing on this Exodus crap. You say your evidence indicates that makes Exodus 1 likely to be true. So what? Even if you had video footage of the whole Exodus story, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Christianity. At best, it would only make Judaism valid.

 

But you don't. You have one piece of evidence that concludes nothing.

 

What irritates me is that you Christians always work backwards. You start with a conclusion then go looking for anything to support that conclusion and ignore everything else. The scientific approach is to first gather the data and then come up with a theory which all the data supports. That's why there are still Young Earth Creationists.

 

It's freaking lazy and intellectually dishonest to approach subjects like this.

 

 

I see no attempt to analyse primary sources. . . please remember. . . we are all 3000 years after the fact.  Many loud voices have come and gone since those during the time of our discussion have spoken.

[Kris]

I showed effective counter arguments to your claims--- even by using Christian and archeological sources--- no responses for me?

[Ravenstar]

I did not do all that research to be dictated to as to HOW I present information, nor am I taking time out of my busy schedule to place it here again just to make you more comfortable. Your request is awfully self-centered.

 

Please reply to the original material. In the original thread.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Why, can't handle it all at once?

 

Because few want anything to do with a "broad brush."

 

Only the critical (sincere) thinker focuses on 1) facts and 2) methodology of analyzing those facts.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I showed effective counter arguments to your claims--- even by using Christian and archeological sources--- no responses for me?

 

its not about my claims, ma'am, but the single fact at a time.

 

Then LET people piece those facts together themselves. . . 

[Kris]

Or people ignore critical thinking that provides an effective explanation not related to the exodus. You and the naked archeologist are the only ones who can see clearly? Believe what you want-- you are an ass who discounts what doesn't fit into your beliefs-- hence, you are probably an awesome Christian.

[Kris]

By the way-- I was responding to your one argument at a time-- you brought up scarabs and Manfred--- I countered both. You ignored that and spouted about your rules. That's called deflection.

[mymistake]

 

Why, can't handle it all at once?

 

Because few want anything to do with a "broad brush."

 

Only the critical (sincere) thinker focuses on 1) facts and 2) methodology of analyzing those facts.

 

 

That is not what the phrase "broad brush" means.  You also don't get to dictate the meaning of critical thinking or sincere thinking.  You are insisting that you get to dictate the pace at which others look at the issues.  "Broad brush" does not mean going too fast for stevebennet.  Now the so called facts you presented have been debunked.  Perhaps you should acknowledge that and move on to the next questions.

[slave2six]

I see no attempt to analyse primary sources. . . please remember. . . we are all 3000 years after the fact.  Many loud voices have come and gone since those during the time of our discussion have spoken.

 

Just curious, how do you type when you have your hands over your ears, your eyes closed and you're saying "La la la la la..."?

[slave2six]

I'm done with this bozo.

 

Peace out y'all!

[Ravenstar]

History and archaeology can not be looked at this way. There are myriad little things that piece together - it's like finding a shattered pot and putting it back together. To establish the veracity of any historical claim (that's not on video, and even then) there are a thousand things to consider… social construct of the time, the civilizations around them, changing loyalties, wars, rulers and conquerors, their technology; i.e.; metal-working, pottery, weaving, etc..., their art and how that evolved (the origins of language is in there too, etymology) how they fed themselves, diet, lifestyle, religions, mythology, language, trade, archaeological discoveries, literary sources - poetry, songs, historians, cross-cultural legends, economic accounts, letters, geography, anthropology and sociology, politics and political propaganda, etc..etc..etc..

 

The Scarab thing is just stupid though. You DO realize that the Egyptians had a culture that FAR predates the Hebrews, right? We have lots of evidence of that…(they really liked to write things - they wrote on everything, about almost everything - they liked their magic too, amulets were extremely commonplace. No self-respecting Egyptian would go without them) and the farther back they look the farther back the culture of the Nile River goes. WAY back into prehistory.

 

The Sumerians predate the Egyptians… by quite a bit. Many of the stories in the Bible can be traced back to them (and later the Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians). The interesting thing about the Sumerians is that their language does not correlate with any of the other cultures in the area. It is uniquely their own. Semitic, Arabic and Persian are not descended from Sumerian. This tells us that other people moved into the area after the fall of Sumer.

 

Ur was never Chaldean. Ur was a Sumerian city-state that was long gone before Abraham showed up.

 

Dualism in religion in the middle east comes mainly from Zoroastrianism (Persian)… it didn't exist in the early Hebrew religion.

 

Persians are not Arabs, nor Semites. (I believe they are Aryan - but don't quote me on that) Just thought I'd throw that in there.

 

No… I won't take one tiny little thing out of this remarkably complicated puzzle to examine, because it's all inter-related. That would be disrespectful and a disservice to the complexity and history of the many peoples that lived, worked and died back then.

[thereisnoperfect]

I'm crossposting this because I want to feel confident that Steve has seen it. 

 

Steve, as I say below, if you ignore this, that's fine--it'll just tell me to ignore your posts.

 

A few things. I'll keep them brief because I suspect you'll ignore my post for not complying with your arbitrary rules for what you will respond to, but I'd be happy to elaborate on these if you are interested in hearing more.

 

#1:

I notice you are very concerned with primary sources and logical fallacies. 

 

However, you cannot prove the existence of such things as "logical fallacies" or their meanings or their validity, from any primary sources. 

Therefore, by the rules of argument you insist on, it is impossible to prove anything.

 

#2

I do not think you understand what logical fallacies are or how they work. You seem to be operating on the assumption that if someone starts from primary sources and commits no recognizable logical fallacies, whatever they get to must be truth and, conversely, that if someone commits any logical fallacies they must necessarily have arrived at falsehood. 

 

But the logical fallacies are simply a human invention intended to help us reason better. They are not given by God; they are not perfect. It is possible to commit no logical fallacies as still be wrong, and it is possible to commit one or more and still be right.

 

Because imperfect human judgment is involved in argument and in identifying fallacies. What you might dismiss as "appeal to authority" someone else might consider the very logical step of trusting experts more than they trust someone else. 

 

In short, you're placing a lot of faith in the list of logical fallacies, and in your ability to apply them perfectly.

 

#3

The Bible is not a primary source about God. About the only way any of it qualifies as a primary source is as an example of the writings of the time.

 

#4 

I'm wondering what your purpose here is. Broadly speaking, I see two possible reasons for you to post here:

1) That you're trying to make yourself feel better.

2) That you're trying to persuade people here of something, presumably that we should return to Christianity.

 

If it's the former, if you're trying to make yourself feel better by making yourself feel smart or "doing God's work" or impressing your friends or whatever, then you can do whatever you want within the limits of the rules and what the mods will tolerate. (I'm new here, so I don't know yet where exactly those boundaries are.)

 

If it's the latter, then I can tell you that you're going about it quite wrong. I can elaborate on this a lot, but short version is: you come across as a pompous jackass. This means that you have so little ethos that it doesn't matter how sophisticated or sound your logos is because nobody wants to listen to you.

 

(You also have some serious problems with logos, as I hinted above and others have pointed out here and elsewhere.)

 

But when you come in here acting like you know more than everybody and we have to earn the right to talk to you by adhering to arbitrary rules you made up, and you ignore the stuff that's tough to deal with--as a teacher of rhetoric and writing, I can assure you--that will persuade no one.

 

If you reply and indicate that you want to discuss more of any of this, I'm happy to oblige. If not, that's fine--and that will tell me exactly how much of my time your posts are worth

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The biggest problem you have, Steve, is confirmation bias.  You speak of logical fallacies employed by others here and you like to couch what you say in language meant to be intellectually impressive.  The problem, though, is that, as I have already pointed out to you, you are operating under the assumption that the bible is true.  Now you are going back and attempting to find evidence to support the conclusion you have already made.

 

Anyone with even the slightest grasp of the scientific method knows this is not going to provide you with a viable conclusion.  You should first determine whether or not the bible is true by approaching it with the assumption that it is not and studying it with a critical eye.  If you are intellectually honest, you have no option but to admit that the bible is not without serious flaws.  You can either hide behind apologetics to address these flaws; or you can face them fearlessly and honestly.  That choice is entirely yours.  However, simply claiming that the bible is true and expecting arguments or "evidence" based on this claim is not an option you have.  Prove your foundation before you invite me to see the view from the upstairs balcony.

 

As a biologist, it is extremely difficult for me to take anything you say seriously, despite your impressive vocabulary and an over-abundance of words in bold print.  Five dollar words mean nothing when they come from a 50 cent mouth.  I can't take you seriously when I know your conclusion was made before the evidence was presented.  This is neither scientific nor is it logical.

 

Lastly, I apologize for not debunking the one "fact" you think you have proven here; I just find it easier to debunk your entire method of arriving at your "facts" rather than dealing with them on a first-come, first-served basis.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Persians are not Arabs, nor Semites. (I believe they are Aryan - but don't quote me on that) Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Yes, Farsi is considered an Indo-European language.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

 Hyksos doesn't mean Hebrew.  

 

That is correct.  "Hyksos" would have referred to all Asiatics-- including Joseph of Genesis 37- Exodus 1.

 

Also, remember the approach of a historian is not to dismiss the text summarily-- but to pull out of it testable details that can lead a search.

 

Everything we know about the Indus river civilization, for example, comes from the Vedas (and the archaeological sites that the Vedas has led us to).

 

In other words, you are allowing your modern biases to get in the way of an archetypical approach to history in general.  Maintain suspended judgment. Follow the text wherever it leads. Let a legitimate archaeologist dig up whatever happens to be wherever it leads, and then let the cards fall as they may.

[Guest SteveBennett]

By the way. Moller used Ron Wyatt as his primary source and even used his "evidence" and failed to explain the controversy of Wyatt's findings in his video as any good historian should do so as to educate the viewer who could then decide what to believe. He is untruthful and deceptive--- what a Christian.

 

No one, three thousand years after the fact, is a primary source. . . 

 

It is fundamentally important to separate primary sources from secondary sources and focus on the primary source data only. Otherwise one finds themselves going down a path of attacking people who were born 3000 years after the purported events that we are actually attempting to investigate.

 

That's not how history works.  Try and focus on the primary source data only (the data that is as close to the purported events as possible). Remain objective, and remember Bertrand Russell's quote: "either a thing is true or it isn't.  If it is true then you should believe it, if it isn't then you shouldn't.  And if you can't figure out whether it is or isn't, then you should suspend judgment."

[JadedAtheist]

yep, this guy is definitely a true scotsman Christian. Like most Christians that come on here, diverts attention away from topics they cannot defend and hope we are blind to their bunny hopping about.