[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:

Meta => YOu really need to come to terms with the more liberal view of things.[/b]

It seems that you use the word "liberal" to suit your own views.

There is no reason to supposse that only the Bible is a link to the divine, or that God has dealt with only one culture. All cultures have some experinces of God.

It would much more accurate to say that many ancienct cultures had some experiences with superstition and gods.

Even St. Paul says this if you will look at Acts 17 and Romans 2.

I have yet to hear one good reason why anyone should place high value on anything Saul of Tarsus claimed. He was ONE man. Nothing more.

But the thing is, you first must ask what kind of document the Bible is. It is a mixture of differing genres. IT is primarily a record of a people's experiences of God, not a dictation as a business executive dictates to a secreitary.

More correctly: It is a record of what people thought and claimed. Who knows what they actually experienced?

All religions seek to mediate trascendence and all offer an ultimate transformative experince. That doesn't mean, however, that all mediate this experince equally.

This is just another way of saying religious experience is totally subjective.

Christianity offers direct solidarity with God through his Son, who was incarnated in history.

This is what many Christians claim. How do we verify this?

That doesn't preclude other religions from having their own dealings with God indirectly, though mystical expeince.

More subjective experience. How can anyone demonstrate theis experience is more than human imagination?

But it means that in one case the nature of God is communicated directly through Jesus who was in the incarnate logos.

This is what Christians claim. How do we verfiy this?

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 18, 2001).]

I wrote:
"Trying to pin down the current number of world religions is much like trying to herd cats (or argue with a theist)"

My response:
I have to apologize for the theist crack.
I have to remember not to post before my morning coffee! :0

In any event, I generalized regarding a whole group and that is not cool. Especially since there are a few fair minded theists out there!

Why can't we all get along!

Bad agnostic, bad!




[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited March 18, 2001).]

In reply to Omnedon1:
Could be... but what I've got here says Sarbut... could the name have changed recently?

Both my source plus the website name Barthold Neibuhr.

1 Kings 6:1 states that the Exodus was 480 years before Solomon's temple. As far as I am aware there is agreement that Solomon's temple was 960BC. This would place the Exodus in 1440BC, the 15th century rather than the 13th. The 13th century date was devised from what was previously believed as evidence of the exodus in 1250BC which as far as I'm aware is deemed to no longer apply. A 15th century exodus would be very close to when those inscriptions were written.

It would be nice for me too. I might have to contact my source and find out where he got the information from.

Hold the argument for now, I'll do some digging to see if I can find the actual source(s) and then I'll post the evidence on a new thread.

No. It's Arabic, so it's unlikely to have changed. It is more likely that it was copied incorrectly on your website.

It's from the Arabic root word saraba, which has the meaning of tunnel, conduit, or passage. It's hard to tell without seeing it in Arabic, but my guess is that "Khadem" is actually qadiim, meaning ancient.

So this name most likely refers to it status as an ancient passage to the old turquoise mines.


It can't be Barthold. He wasn't born yet. Barthold was born 100 years LATER than the timeframe the website suggests. And the fact that there was another man with the same last name who just happened to travel in that area in exactly the timeframe that your website indicates makes my switched name hypothesis pretty strong.

FYI - the fact that both your source and the website:

a. got the place name spelled wrong; and
b. mixed up the explorer's name

strongly suggests that the website copied from your source. Or both of them relied upon the same third (faulty) source. What that means is that in reality, you probably only have one source for this claim. Two people who quote the same source doesn't give you two sources - only one.


There is some debate over the timeframe in question, however the majority of scholars date it to the mid 1200s BCE, during the reign of Rameses II. This is from linguistic evidence, and also archaeological evidence (in the form of lcating the store cities of Pithom and Ramesses).

As to the question of dating the Exodus to the building of Solomon's temple, Coogan says in the Oxford History of the Biblical World


OK.



[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 18, 2001).]

1) Does the fact that they date it to a given date mean that there is conclusive evidence in favour of the exodus? (Just answering the question for which this thread was started)

2) Yes I know many date it c1250BC, and the other view is c1440BC. I'm not aware of the linguistic evidence. What I've heard of the archeological evidence is quite weak, but perhaps I haven't heard all of that either. Could you tell me briefly, or point me to a website on it?

The 400 years Genesis 15:13 could well be a rounding of the 430 years in Exodus 12:40. Or it could just depend on how you count it, where your starting point is (for example, does it start with Joseph or with the moving of Jacob's family?), it's only 30 years difference.
'and in Genesis 15.16, the time shrinks to three generations'
Um, is the guy who wrote this book a complete moron? It is obvious that this is not refering to the time spent in Egypt by the Israelites. (Does he really think that things 3 verses apart could be contradictory? Almost by definition things appearing so close are complementary. Although I have seen one amusing alleged contradiction in sequential verses!)

Ignoring all that, his only actual criticism of the 480 years appears to be that 480 = 12 * 40. Which although true, I don't find particularly damning.

Historians are searching to see if there is a historical core event, around which the larger Exodus narrative was written. There may have an a departure of a small band of people from Egypt; if so, historians are doing their best to figure out when that would have taken place, and under what conditions.

And of course, there is also evidence that the Israelites did not conquer Canaan so much as they slowly moved in and gradually intermingled with the natives.

So to answer your question, I guess it depends upon how you define the Exodus, and how literal you are going to be with the text.

The archaeological evidence is pretty good, actually, favoring 13th century Exodus. Again, from the Oxford History of the Biblical World:


You might also try this link. It's a much more detailed discussion, and touches on the linguistic evidence as well:

http://www.bib-arch.org/barjf98/go.html

You can't just throw out the 30 years and chalk it up to a rounding error. That's dishonest. The Exodus text is incredibly precise about the 430 years. It says:

As for "how you count it" - the Genesis text is clear: they shall afflict them four hundred years;

If you think it starts with Joseph or Jacob's family, then propose a chronology based upon those ideas.


Apparently that is what the verse means. When the text says But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full., it is speaking of using the Israelites as a tool of divine justice against the Amorites. That would be a reference to the conquest period.


You expect the writer of this verse to see the obvious contradiction and have not inserted it there. But that presupposes that the writer realized it was a contradiction, or that he would have felt comfortable changing what he considered to be a holy text.

If it does not refer to the Israelites entering Canaan, then what does the verse mean? What "fourth generation" does it refer to?

1. That was not his only criticism; see the 400 years comment (which I am not prepared to let go as a rounding error);

2. the fact that this number came up so precisely as a multiple of 12 tribes x 40 years is very suspicious.

3. The remaining evidence (linguistic, archaeological) is discussed by Coogan as well (in the new section I inserted above).


[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 19, 2001).]

That criticism wasn't related to the 480 years. He's just saying "look the Bible's wrong elsewhere, therefore I'm justified in ignoring what it says".
I don't really care whether you're prepared to let it go as a rounding error or not.

Why? Some numbers will happen to be a multiple of 40 years, one in every 40 in fact. And if the number is say, rounded to the nearest 10 years, then 1 in every 4 will be.
It's interesting that it's a multiple of 40 but it doesn't imply fabrication very strongly.

So I see... I am not impressed. I can't help but think that he is presenting a rather biased view point.

Men and Women are born, tought the beliefs of their parents, given a book by thier parents or guardians or religious leader. The book chronicles fantastic events the likes of which have never been witnessed by eithor the parents, or the parents parents and on and on. In this whole process, never is one substantial external fact or event that supports the facts of the bible revealed to the reader. The believers accept it SOLELY on the word of the people they trust.

If you disagree with this, then you are basically saying that your religion is not a faith based religion, it is fact based.

So whatever facts or information you read out of the bible is only reliable as the source. If these claims are not verifiable in any way, then your faith in the bible is only secondary to the faith in the person(s) that gave you the book. Since that person has the same dilemma of faith in their source, the whole thing is watered down, your source of the bible, though he or she may be sincere, is hearsay.

Men lie, men cheat, men steal.
Consider your source..

David

No, you said that, if we set aside certain things, Coogan only had one valid criticism left.

I'm telling you that he had more than one valid criticism left, even if we did set certain things aside.


That's OK. So far your argument is unconvincing and you haven't presented any evidence. In a situation like that, your claim of a "rounding error" is both baseless and somewhat desperate. But it is entertaining.

So your chances are 2.5%.

The reason that this is suspicious is because the 480 year figure is the product of two other well-known biblical numbers (12 and 40) that are frequently cited and used in metaphor and prophetic symbology. And considering other places where the bible force-fits a given timeframe into a specific number set (such as the genealogy of Christ being compressed), this is entirely reasonable.

You're missing the point. It's not just a multiple of 40. It's also a multiple of 12. If the number of years stated here were 360 years, then Coogan's objection wouldn't be as strong. But it's the product of two highly symbolic numbers.

That, and the fact that the actual number of elapsed years is not 480, leads one to believe that the 480 years is almost certainly a manufactured number, done for the symbolic value.

And I can't help but feel that you don't care about the data, only hanging on to your preconceived views. Where's your evidence for bias, Tercel, other than the fact that you find his views distasteful?

Tercel, if you have specific arguments, be my guest. But his view represents the majority position of both historians and archaeologists. You can ignore it if you feel like, but your position is weak and your evidence is scant.

People who persist in their interpretation, even when their evidence is weak or non-existent; well, well, that's a pretty good definition of "biased" - but in this case, it's your bias, not Coogan's.

Well, there is lack of evidence at the traditional Sinai site. The Sinai site in the Bible is in Midian, which is modern-day Northwestern Arabia. The highest peak in this region is Jabal al Lawz. There is a lot of evidence in that area that would make it the true Mt. Sinai. One very noticeable characteristic of this mountain is that it is scorched at the top going down the side. It is a non-volcanic mountain. The Bible says God descended on Mt. Sinai in flames of a furnace. Coincidence?

The traditional site on the Sinai Peninsula was picked by Costantine mother, Helena (a fortuneteller), as the real Mt. Sinai. The Sinai Peninsula has always been Egyptian territory. The Bible says the Israelites went out of Egypt. It also says that with Pharoah's army behind them, they were trapped between the mountains and the sea. So the other proposed location for the Red Sea is at the tip of the Sinai Peninsla. 'Coincidentally' there is a land bridge that comes out of the depths of the sea (but is now covered by water) and connects the Sinai Peninsula to northwestern Saudi Arabia. The Bible also says when Moses murdered, he fled Egypt and went into Midian. He could not have fled into the Sinai Peninsula because he would have ran into the Egyptain armies.

Now at Jabal al Lawz there is an altar of huge rocks, measuring around 30 feet tall and wide, with drawings of the Egyptian cow god. This in a land where there are no cows, just goats and sheep. Coincidence? But that's not all.

Jabal al Lawz is sealed off by the Saudi Arabian government as an 'archaeological site'. Why this particular mountain?

None of the historians and archaeologists have bothered to check where the Bible says Mt. Sinai is. They've blindly accepted the site picked out by a fortuneteller. It might not be a bad idea to actually use the Bible as their guide.


[This message has been edited by TrueThinker (edited March 20, 2001).]