Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ion · 08-01-2001, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by E_muse:


This goes back to my previous question - what archeological evidence can we expect to find?

Also (and I cannot at this stage give specific examples), Egyptian literature makes mention of nomadic groups who have left no archeological trace. However, this literature wouldn't be called into question. In fact, it's lack of a clear mention of the Israelites is often used as evidence against the Bible.

Archeologists speak of 'invisible nomads'.

I understand that Finkelstein points out numerous difficulties with material remains of peoples in arid zones (such as Arad, Edom, Kadesh Barnea). The main problem is that arid-dwellers have a behavioral range that varies between sedentry, those who build things and leave thing at abandonment to nomadic who do not build and leave things. As far as I understand he is one of the major experts in this field and rejects the 'no remains, therefore no occupation' theories.

E_muse, William Dever, Zelev Herzog, Israel Finklestein, Carol Meyers, Neil Asher Sielberman, etc., people I mentioned in an earlier post,with a scientific education and that I trust for their full-time occupation in examining the credibility of the Bible, because they follow the same standards I am myself held at when I have an Engineering problem-solving puzzle in my full-time occupation, write in archaeolog

Ion · 08-01-2001, 06:28 PM

(In my post above, the editor cut me. I reprise.)
E_muse, William Dever, Zelev Herzog, Israel Finklestein, Carol Meyers, Neil Asher Sielberman, etc., people I mentioned in an earlier post,with a scientific education and that I trust for their full-time occupation in examining the credibility of the Bible because they follow the same standards I am myself held upon when I have an Engineering problem-solving puzzle in my full-time occupation, write in archaeology:
"...archaeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible."
With extravagant claims in the Bible galore, unsupported outside of the Bible by outside accounts and by archaeological objects, I think the lack of Biblical fossils knocks-out the Bible as unfounded, but otherwise explained by superstitions and different historical scenario. So, what knocks-out theists is the lack of proofs: theists believe in uncorroborated Biblical claims, that are inconsistent too, they have faith on a book supported by air and nothing more.

E_muse · 08-02-2001, 02:49 PM

Quote:

So, what knocks-out theists is the lack of proofs: theists believe in uncorroborated Biblical claims, that are inconsistent too, they have faith on a book supported by air and nothing more.

I would have to seriously question this. You lump all theists (God or gods believers) into one group as 'Bible believers'.

Do you mean Christians or Jews - two groups within theism?

Belief in God does not hinge on a belief or trust in the Bible. Theism is a separate issue.

E_muse · 08-02-2001, 04:51 PM

Quote:

"...archaeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible."

But what is the reason for this lack of evidence? As Finkelstein writes:

Quote:

"Indeed, in almost every multi-period highland site west of the Jordan, intensive building activity in later periods removed all architectural traces of the scanty earlier occupations. This happened because the basic building technique in the highlands was always to remove all earlier material in order to establish the walls directly on bedrock."

On top of this, the Bible doesn't actually mention Joshua burning that many cities. He is mentioned as destroying the inhabitants but not the cities. At the beginning of the book of Joshua he is reported as burning Jericho and Ai.

Chapter 10 claims that the people of Israel actually made peace with the great city of Gibeon.

The next city to be burned is the northern city of Hazor in chapter 11. However, the following is mentioned in the same passage:

Quote:

"But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only, which Joshua burned."

I've mentioned earlier the problems surrounding exact dating. To quote Hans J Nissen:

Quote:

"Since they have hardly ever been manipulated, archaeological sources are usually more dependable than literary ones, but they are difficult to use. Hence, even the construction of a firm foundation for all further investigations, dating, or the confirmation of chronological contemporaneity or noncontemporaneity, causes considerable problems, especially when we take into account the role played by chance in the way evidence has been handed down to us...techniques such as the so-called carbon 14 method have not yet achieved a degree of dependability and accuracy that would allow us to use their results without some reservations....archaeological contexts only infrequently permit a clear demarcation between one period and the next. Drawing such dividing lines is thus very much a matter of the judgment of the individual scholar..."

Where is the quote at the top of this post taken from?

[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Ion · 08-02-2001, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by E_muse:


I would have to seriously question this. You lump all theists (God or gods believers) into one group as 'Bible believers'.

Do you mean Christians or Jews - two groups within theism?

Belief in God does not hinge on a belief or trust in the Bible. Theism is a separate issue.

In my posts under "Lack of Biblical fossils", I do address Bible believers as people believing in a book uncorroborated by anything outside the Bible.
(I don't go into minor to me Biblical quarrels, like Christians believe in Jesus, Jewish religion doesn't, children of Abraham: Muslim and Jew, etc.).

Ion · 08-02-2001, 06:45 PM

This is for E_muse's post August 2, 2001 at 5:51 p.m..

Finkelstein's position after considering all archaeological data up to 2001, is that Exodus was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th. century BC -600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred. Finkelstein wrote his position with its proofs so far up to 2001, in the book "The Bible Unearthed". (I already mentioned this, here, in an earlier post).

As for carbon dating, I can go along with erroneous history dates by a few hundred years at most, but not by millions of years, since finding fossils of many tyrannosaurs 100 million years old or so happen, but the Bible's antagonist claim is of a human history holding in 6000 years.
The Bible, also claims extraordinary ages for Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and many more, lots of people to find skeletons for, proving their remarkable age, but nowhere to dig for in archaeology; archeology keeps discovering opposite proofs of this: ordinary life-expectancy hominids from millions of years ago.

E_muse · 08-04-2001, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Finkelstein's position after considering all archaeological data up to 2001, is that Exodus was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th. century BC -600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred. Finkelstein wrote his position with its proofs so far up to 2001, in the book "The Bible Unearthed". (I already mentioned this, here, in an earlier post).

The Biblical Archaeology Society site makes the following statement regarding The Bible Unearthed:

Quote:

"The Bible Unearthed has some strong points. It attempts to provide a much-needed modest "revisionist" history of ancient Israel, avoiding the extremes and the rhetoric of both the maximalist and minimalist schools on the question of how much reliable history the Bible contains."

However, it also goes on to say of the book:

Quote:

"Little, however, is really new here, certainly not enough to justify the rather grandiose title and the revolutionary rhetoric throughout. Even the popular media have recently aired these controversies. Finkelstein and Silberman have added little to the discussion. They mention few scholars by name and include not a single footnote or specific reference that leads the reader to the relevant literature or, especially, to the archaeological evidence that is so crucial (there is only a general reading list at the end)."

Emphasis mine.

Certainly the points you raise are mentioned in a book in my possession which was first published some six or seven years ago.

The review goes on to say:

Quote:

"What we have in The Bible Unearthed is an ideological manifesto, not judicious, well-balanced scholarship. Even the non-specialist deserves better. The discussion of exceedingly complex matters is often simplistic and therefore misleading, even contradictory. For example, the authors' insistent downplaying of the United Monarchy depends largely upon their down-dating of key archaeological data (such as the city walls and gates at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer; see 1 Kings 9:15-17) from the tenth to the ninth century B.C. Yet nowhere do they inform the reader that Finkelstein's idiosyncratic "low chronology" is not supported in print by a single other ranking archaeologist."

Forgive me if I don't rush out and buy it!

Quote:

[b]As for carbon dating, I can go along with erroneous history dates by a few hundred years at most, but not by millions of years, since finding fossils of many tyrannosaurs 100 million years old or so happen, but the Bible's antagonist claim is of a human history holding in 6000 years.
The Bible, also claims extraordinary ages for Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and many more, lots of people to find skeletons for, proving their remarkable age, but nowhere to dig for in archaeology; archeology keeps discovering opposite proofs of this: ordinary life-expectancy hominids from millions of years ago.[/i]

This seeks to widen the debate once again and would raise such questions such as, 'How literally should we take Genesis chapters 1 and 2?'.

Personally I feel that this is too ambitious for one thread and why a whole forum has been given over to Biblical Criticism and Archaeology.

It seems better to tackle these subjects issue by issue.

As far as I understand, and taking into account certain factors, nothing in archaeology would directly contradict the Biblical account of the Exodus - although the Biblical account may focus in on key events and be an over simplified history.

As for your comments on Carbon dating, margins of hundreds of years strongly influence archaeolgists' chronology of the events in Exodus and their accuracy - which is my whole point.

What I do find disturbing is the idea that the conclusions of a rationalistic approach can be used as 'proof'. This is lauding rationalism itself - a hangover from the enlightenment era.

What we do see in archaeologist's writings is a high degree of honesty in explaining the factors which hinder a full understanding and the limitations of the archaeological method itself. We also see divided opinion within the discipline.

I think that we also see the way in which a particular methodology limits the conclusions which one is able to reach and the idiosyncratic nature of research, especially when the 'proofs' can lend themselves to an ambiguous interpretation.

Ion · 08-04-2001, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by E_muse:

As far as I understand, and taking into account certain factors, nothing in archaeology would directly contradict the Biblical account of the Exodus - although the Biblical account may focus in on key events and be an over simplified history.

As for your comments on Carbon dating, margins of hundreds of years strongly influence archaeolgists' chronology of the events in Exodus and their accuracy - which is my whole point.

...

What we do see in archaeologist's writings is a high degree of honesty in explaining the factors which hinder a full understanding and the limitations of the archaeological method itself. We also see divided opinion within the discipline.

I think that we also see the way in which a particular methodology limits the conclusions which one is able to reach and the idiosyncratic nature of research, especially when the 'proofs' can lend themselves to an ambiguous interpretation.

E_muse:
1) Archaeology, biology, empirical common-sense in recorded human knowledge directly contradict the Bible with its
1)a. inconsistencies (one passage in Exodus says the bodies of the pharaoh's charioteers were found on the shore, the next verse says they sank to the bottom of the sea);
1)b. mythic mofifs (babies by royalty found in the water, are common sources to the Bible from Near Eastern ancient fables) with disregard to practical life and uncorraborated scientifically, make the story unfounded;
1)c. the ancient desert at the time could not support hundreds of thousands of nomads carrying equipment (heavy weapons that still work over 40 years, medications against sun and desert parasites like the guinea worm, heavy containers, etc.), while the Egyptian state keeping tight security when guarding the area by fortresses, didn't record the feat of about a million nomads in the desert at that time.

I think, believing literally in Exodus, barring unexpected future discoveries, is not the truth about that past.

2) Regarding carbon dating, the Bible claims about 6000 years of Earth history, while archaeology keeps finding fossils from more than a million of years ago: big conflict.

3) Regarding the truth about the past by means of archaeological search, William Dever says:
"The Hebrew Bible writers were not writing objective history. For them, the word truth meant religious truth. Archaeology cannot legislate belief. The archaeologist can tell us what happened. The biblical writers can tell us what they think those events meant.".
Dever agrees that Genesis 1-11 is myth, that the patriarchal tales are of dubious historicity, that there is hardly a shred of evidence for the Exodus, that Moses is as historical a figure as Odysseus, etc. Yet, Dever asserts that the Bible contains many real historical data which are clearly supported by elements of the material record.

The point I make in this thread is that literal belief in the Bible is the unlike way for the truth.
Bible believers who tried to tell me Adam lived 900 years, remains of Noah's Ark were found on the shores of the Black Sea, books "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell, and "The Revised and Expanded Answers Book" by Ham, Sarfati, Wieland prove the Bible literally, take note:
barring unsuspected discoveries supporting the Bible, the truth is something else than what the Bible claims when promoting some people.

E_muse · 08-05-2001, 05:21 AM

Quote:

You said:

1) Archaeology, biology, empirical common-sense in recorded human knowledge directly contradict the Bible...

Does it? This is a generalized statement about a collection of writings and again drifts away from the part of Israel's history currently under discussion:

I used to find the following miracle attributed to Jesus as totally bizarre:

Quote:

"When they had come to Capernaum, those who recived the temple tax came to Peter and said, 'Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?'
He said, 'Yes.' And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What do you think Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?'
Peter said to Him, 'From strangers.' Jesus said to him, 'Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.'

Matthew 17:24-27

Once I would have met this with an opening statement like your own.

However, the story is set around the Sea of Gaililee, in fact a fresh water lake.

One type of fish know to be living in this lake is of a variety known as cichlidae which is made up of a number of species.

Whilst uncommon amongst fish, this variety is dominated by an unusual method of parental care known as mouth brooding. This quote from Dr. Jim Fleming, who, at the time of writing, taught classes in archaeology and historical geography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

Quote:

"The female keeps her eggs in her mouth until they hatch. As the brood begins to grow she lets them out from time to time on an 'outing', but quickly scoops them up when danger is near. The mother will fast until near starvation in order not to swallow her young. These strong instincts have given the Hebrew name of the fish 'The Mother-Fish'. After the young are off on their own the mother often keeps a substitute in her mouth. They are sometimes caught today with pebbles or coke bottle caps in their mouths! The popular name for the fish is 'St Peter's fish' because of the gospel story in Matthew...."

If, rationally speaking, the only mythical aspect of the story which can be argued, is knowing that the coin would be in the fish's mouth prior to Peter catching it, I would ask you to provide evidence that precognition is not a part of recorded human knowledge.

Let's consider the reasons you offer:

Quote:

You said:

1)a. inconsistencies (one passage in Exodus says the bodies of the pharaoh's charioteers were found on the shore, the next verse says they sank to the bottom of the sea);

This goes back to the part of Israel's history under discussion.

I have looked for the inconsistency you mention but was unable to find it. Could you point out chapter and verse so that I can examine it for myself?

Quote:

1)b. mythic mofifs (babies by royalty found in the water, are common sources to the Bible from Near Eastern ancient fables) with disregard to practical life and uncorraborated scientifically, make the story unfounded;

This raises a number of questions.

Do the Near Eastern ancient fables you mention post-date or pre-date the story of Moses?

Can we argue that an alleged fable has no basis in truth?

Are these fables found in Egyptian writing?

Could the knowledge of these near Eastern Fables have informed the action taken to protect Moses?

Allow me to explain. The actual passage reads thus:

Quote:

"But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds, by the river's bank.
And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done with him.
Then the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river. And her maidens walked along along the riverside; and when she saw the ark among the reeds, she sent her maid to get it."

All we read here is that a Hebrew woman, wishing to protect her child, makes a basket with limited waterproofing, hides her child in it and places it in some reeds on a river bank.

The Bible does not say that she placed the basket in the river itself but simply by the side of the river and supported by reeds.

All the mythological images we have of a baby drifting down a raging river, tossed by waves and surrounded by snapping crocodiles have all been added in by people wishing to make the story more dramatic than it really is. There is no suggestion of this in the Biblical text. In fact, my reading of it suggests that Pharaoh's daughter found the basket exactly where it had been left - in the reeds by the river. I would also suggest that the basket had been left in an area where it was known that Pharaoh's daughter would find it - an area where she often went to bathe and which would therefore have been free from danger.

Does this have the same hallmark of myth as the surrounding stories?

Quote:

You said:

1)c. the ancient desert at the time could not support hundreds of thousands of nomads carrying equipment (heavy weapons that still work over 40 years, medications against sun and desert parasites like the guinea worm, heavy containers, etc.), while the Egyptian state keeping tight security when guarding the area by fortresses, didn't record the feat of about a million nomads in the desert at that time.

Again, this relates to dating.

However, what terms do the Egyptians use for Nomadic groups? Do they assign them specific names or do they apply a general umbrella term?

Were there a million nomads? How many people were there?

Quote:

You said:

I think, believing literally in Exodus, barring unexpected future discoveries, is not the truth about that past.

And this is your right. But so far we have little evidence to go on in support of your claim - only lack of evidence which can be explained.

Quote:

You said:

2) Regarding carbon dating, the Bible claims about 6000 years of Earth history, while archaeology keeps finding fossils from more than a million of years ago: big conflict.

This is broadening the discussion again. I think that there are three options to be explored on this one:

1. The Bible is myth and inaccurate.
2. Carbon dating is not as accurate as we think.
3. Our interpretation of what the Bible is saying is inaccurate.

I feel that these would require a different thread to do them justice.

Quote:

3) Regarding the truth about the past by means of archaeological search, William Dever says:
"The Hebrew Bible writers were not writing objective history. For them, the word truth meant religious truth. Archaeology cannot legislate belief. The archaeologist can tell us what happened. The biblical writers can tell us what they think those events meant.".

I wouldn't have a problem with this! Theological embellishments superimposed on historical events without needing to alter the events themselves.

Quote:

You said:

Dever agrees that Genesis 1-11 is myth, that the patriarchal tales are of dubious historicity, that there is hardly a shred of evidence for the Exodus, that Moses is as historical a figure as Odysseus, etc. Yet, Dever asserts that the Bible contains many real historical data which are clearly supported by elements of the material record.

The late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Princeton professor, Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, mastered forty five languages and dialects in order to study the reliability of the Old Testament. As a student in seminary, he would read the New Testament in nine different languages including a Hebrew version which he had memorized!

Where many students went to Germany to take in higher critical theories of the day, Wilson declared that he studied in Germany so that there would be no professor on earth who could lay down the law for him.

He said:

Quote:

"I've seen the day when I've just trembled at undertaking a new investigation, but I've gotten over that. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Whenever there is sufficient documentary avidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original texts, have stood the test."

Dever or Wilson? We both present an arguement from authority. Both are pointless without examining the reasons behind their claims.

Quote:

You said:

The point I make in this thread is that literal belief in the Bible is the unlike way for the truth.

But must still be examined if it is to be approached with an open mind.

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Ion · 08-05-2001, 11:04 AM

E_muse, I am addressing your points from August 5, 2001, 6:21 a.m.'s post.

E_muse's quote
"Does it? This is a generalized statement about a collection of writings and again drifts away from the part of Israel's history currently under discussion:
I used to find the following miracle attributed to Jesus as totally bizarre: ...",
has my reply:
Extraordinary Biblical claims relating to Israel's history, have as much support outside of the Bible, as my extraordinary claim that I was born 600 years ago, and I was soon after that in a basket on the Danube River in Europe: zero support in archaeological remains, in outside accounts, so why making the effort to believe?

E_muse's quote
"I have looked for the inconsistency you mention but was unable to find it. Could you point out chapter and verse so that I can examine it for myself?",
has my reply:
Exodus 14:15, "Crossing the Red Sea", reads in 26 "...the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, on their chariots...", reads in 27 "So the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.", reads in 28 "Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, and all the army of Pharaoh...", and inconsistently it also reads in 30 "...and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.".
Such an extravagant claim of this feat is not corroborated by any archaeological find, by any account other than from the Bible, especially by an amazed Egyptian account of Egyptians having sent an army that disappeared when pursuing Israelites. Again, why believe it?
"New Testament Contradictions" by Carlson, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" by Merritt, "Biblical Inconsistencies" by Morgan, list inconistencies galore across the entire Bible, so again why believe?

E_muse's quote
"Do the Near Eastern ancient fables you mention post-date or pre-date the story of Moses?",
has my reply:
look on this site, for myths about Mithra for example, preceding Biblical stories, etc.. There is an apparent inspiration from these myths to the Bible. One myth (the Biblical one) won more popularity over others in time, but to me this is because of other reasons than intrinsic truth, it is similar to my experience of being a Romanian born, then studying in France, and that had to put up with outside reasons of French promoting the quality of their writers (Voltaire, Moliere, Balzac, Hugo, Rousseau) because of nationalistic reasons, while I feel many Romanian writers are way better than that.
So again, why believe in myths?

E_muse's quote
"However, what terms do the Egyptians use for Nomadic groups? Do they assign them specific names or do they apply a general umbrella term? Were there a million nomads? How many people were there?",
has my reply:
The Biblical figure is of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including womwn and children.
Your star witness E_muse, archaeologist Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, argues that 600,000 was mistranslated and the real number amounted to a more plausible 20,000. Even so, Egyptian accounts, would marvel at such human feat, in spite of the Egyptian differnt culture. By having Egyptian accounts missing the extrordinary Exodus, Exodus appears as a fabrication by a group of people claiming a divine destiny.

E_muse's quote
"And this is your right. But so far we have little evidence to go on in support of your claim - only lack of evidence which can be explained.",
has my reply:
Lack of evidence, implausibility of Biblical claims, why believe in the Bible?
(My claim of being age 600, drifting as a baby on the Danube River, etc., is as good).

E_muse's quote
"1. The Bible is myth and inaccurate.2. Carbon dating is not as accurate as we think.3. Our interpretation of what the Bible is saying is inaccurate.",
has my reply:
1. Likely. 2. Unlike (carbon dating, dates fossils more than 100 million years old, Bible says history is 6000 years old, again why bother to stretch at any price and push for the Bible, why it is worth it?). 3) Science works in millions of examples every minute, every day. Why is the Bible, not working anything, worth anything?

E_muse's quote
"Theological embellishments superimposed on historical events without needing to alter the events themselves.",
has my reply:
the extravagant events of the Bible should be out, as unsupported.

E_muse's quote
"But must still be examined if it is to be approached with an open mind.",
has my reply:
I am ready to do it further, if hard evidence will present. Right now, it's myth.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2001, 06:28 PM	#82
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	(In my post above, the editor cut me. I reprise.) E_muse, William Dever, Zelev Herzog, Israel Finklestein, Carol Meyers, Neil Asher Sielberman, etc., people I mentioned in an earlier post,with a scientific education and that I trust for their full-time occupation in examining the credibility of the Bible because they follow the same standards I am myself held upon when I have an Engineering problem-solving puzzle in my full-time occupation, write in archaeology: "...archaeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible." With extravagant claims in the Bible galore, unsupported outside of the Bible by outside accounts and by archaeological objects, I think the lack of Biblical fossils knocks-out the Bible as unfounded, but otherwise explained by superstitions and different historical scenario. So, what knocks-out theists is the lack of proofs: theists believe in uncorroborated Biblical claims, that are inconsistent too, they have faith on a book supported by air and nothing more.

08-02-2001, 06:45 PM	#86
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	This is for E_muse's post August 2, 2001 at 5:51 p.m.. Finkelstein's position after considering all archaeological data up to 2001, is that Exodus was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th. century BC -600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred. Finkelstein wrote his position with its proofs so far up to 2001, in the book "The Bible Unearthed". (I already mentioned this, here, in an earlier post). As for carbon dating, I can go along with erroneous history dates by a few hundred years at most, but not by millions of years, since finding fossils of many tyrannosaurs 100 million years old or so happen, but the Bible's antagonist claim is of a human history holding in 6000 years. The Bible, also claims extraordinary ages for Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and many more, lots of people to find skeletons for, proving their remarkable age, but nowhere to dig for in archaeology; archeology keeps discovering opposite proofs of this: ordinary life-expectancy hominids from millions of years ago.

08-05-2001, 11:04 AM	#90
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	E_muse, I am addressing your points from August 5, 2001, 6:21 a.m.'s post. E_muse's quote "Does it? This is a generalized statement about a collection of writings and again drifts away from the part of Israel's history currently under discussion: I used to find the following miracle attributed to Jesus as totally bizarre: ...", has my reply: Extraordinary Biblical claims relating to Israel's history, have as much support outside of the Bible, as my extraordinary claim that I was born 600 years ago, and I was soon after that in a basket on the Danube River in Europe: zero support in archaeological remains, in outside accounts, so why making the effort to believe? E_muse's quote "I have looked for the inconsistency you mention but was unable to find it. Could you point out chapter and verse so that I can examine it for myself?", has my reply: Exodus 14:15, "Crossing the Red Sea", reads in 26 "...the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, on their chariots...", reads in 27 "So the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.", reads in 28 "Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, and all the army of Pharaoh...", and inconsistently it also reads in 30 "...and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.". Such an extravagant claim of this feat is not corroborated by any archaeological find, by any account other than from the Bible, especially by an amazed Egyptian account of Egyptians having sent an army that disappeared when pursuing Israelites. Again, why believe it? "New Testament Contradictions" by Carlson, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" by Merritt, "Biblical Inconsistencies" by Morgan, list inconistencies galore across the entire Bible, so again why believe? E_muse's quote "Do the Near Eastern ancient fables you mention post-date or pre-date the story of Moses?", has my reply: look on this site, for myths about Mithra for example, preceding Biblical stories, etc.. There is an apparent inspiration from these myths to the Bible. One myth (the Biblical one) won more popularity over others in time, but to me this is because of other reasons than intrinsic truth, it is similar to my experience of being a Romanian born, then studying in France, and that had to put up with outside reasons of French promoting the quality of their writers (Voltaire, Moliere, Balzac, Hugo, Rousseau) because of nationalistic reasons, while I feel many Romanian writers are way better than that. So again, why believe in myths? E_muse's quote "However, what terms do the Egyptians use for Nomadic groups? Do they assign them specific names or do they apply a general umbrella term? Were there a million nomads? How many people were there?", has my reply: The Biblical figure is of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including womwn and children. Your star witness E_muse, archaeologist Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, argues that 600,000 was mistranslated and the real number amounted to a more plausible 20,000. Even so, Egyptian accounts, would marvel at such human feat, in spite of the Egyptian differnt culture. By having Egyptian accounts missing the extrordinary Exodus, Exodus appears as a fabrication by a group of people claiming a divine destiny. E_muse's quote "And this is your right. But so far we have little evidence to go on in support of your claim - only lack of evidence which can be explained.", has my reply: Lack of evidence, implausibility of Biblical claims, why believe in the Bible? (My claim of being age 600, drifting as a baby on the Danube River, etc., is as good). E_muse's quote "1. The Bible is myth and inaccurate.2. Carbon dating is not as accurate as we think.3. Our interpretation of what the Bible is saying is inaccurate.", has my reply: 1. Likely. 2. Unlike (carbon dating, dates fossils more than 100 million years old, Bible says history is 6000 years old, again why bother to stretch at any price and push for the Bible, why it is worth it?). 3) Science works in millions of examples every minute, every day. Why is the Bible, not working anything, worth anything? E_muse's quote "Theological embellishments superimposed on historical events without needing to alter the events themselves.", has my reply: the extravagant events of the Bible should be out, as unsupported. E_muse's quote "But must still be examined if it is to be approached with an open mind.", has my reply: I am ready to do it further, if hard evidence will present. Right now, it's myth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.