E_muse

Further to my comments above - Genesis 39 records the account of Joseph being sold into Egypt.

However, once again, the term slave is never used (did the Jews have such a term?) and it would appear that Joseph soon took on significant responsibilites, not least becoming Pharaoh's right hand man, which made him much more than a slave.

Genesis 39 seems to indicate that Joseph was very well treated by his master. I would suggest that it could even be argued from this one incident that slaves were bought by the Egyptians to give them a quality of life but I cannot give any textual evidence for this except that which I have mentioned above.

I still concur with the comments made above - that the commonly held view of the Egyptians as hard taskmasters may be forced to change in the light of new evidence. It seems they treated people extremely well. The incidents in Exodus 1 are the actions of one particular pharaoh and cannot be viewed as part of a regular pattern of treatment of workers.

However, the Bible records that the people of Israel were engaged in building supply cities, not the pyramids.

[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Les Benton

e muse, I don't know if my kind of symbolism is taught or not. The writer of Hebrews probably did not have a clue anymore than bible studiers do today. The wilderness(desert) was leaving god. The 40 years was leaving god until all the older generation died. The return was going back to the god of their forefathers. Parting the Red Sea meant the Isrealites escaped a bloodbath.

E_muse

Thanks for the reply Les.

I do think that the author of Hebrews did treat the OT accounts as literal history as did other writers such as Josephus mentioned above.

None of this validates the texts but seems to suggest that the culture had no other opinion than what was written was their history - and probably had no reason to think otherwise.

This seems to make any symbolic meaning we might place on the text essentially meaningless and, at worse, draw us further away from what they are attempting to communicate. I would suggest that much of the Bible would be written from a literalist paradigm and therefore needs to be considered such in reading it even if we later reject it as false.

In reading Biblical texts I suppose I apply the Aristole's Dictum principle, that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author and not arrogated to the critic by him or herself.

I am therefore much more likely to hold the view that those who are a part of the culture and nearer historically and geographically to the events they purport to record are more likely to have an accurate view of what went on than anyone else.

Of course the reports could be complete fabrications but this does seem to suggest a need to explain why the records were fabricated with some evidence to back the claim.

For someone to say that the Bible is purely symbolic without offering some textual or other evidence for the claim is no better than me saying that the text is historically reliable and expecting people to take it at face value.

Scholars have often said that the Bible is wrong - only later needing to eat their words. One example is Luke's reference to Lysanias, Tetrach of Abilene. It was known beyond doubt that Lysanias was not Tetrach of Abilene at the point in history of which Luke was writing. Scholars said that Luke was wrong. However, later, archeologists discovered an inscription bearing the name of another Lysanias, also Tetrach of Abilene, and the dates fitted perfectly with Luke's account.

This is just my opinion and, as I have seen written on another forum, I am happy for people to jump up and down on it to see how many bits drop off!

E_muse

Thanks for the reply Les.

I do think that the author of Hebrews did treat the OT accounts as literal history as did other writers such as Josephus mentioned above.

None of this validates the texts but seems to suggest that the culture had no other opinion than what was written was their history - and probably had no reason to think otherwise.

This seems to make any symbolic meaning we might place on the text essentially meaningless and, at worse, draw us further away from what they are attempting to communicate. I would suggest that much of the Bible would be written from a literalist paradigm and therefore needs to be considered such in reading it even if we later reject it as false.

In reading Biblical texts I suppose I apply the Aristole's Dictum principle, that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author and not arrogated to the critic by him or herself.

I am therefore much more likely to hold the view that those who are a part of the culture and nearer historically and geographically to the events they purport to record are more likely to have an accurate view of what went on than anyone else.

Of course the reports could be complete fabrications but this does seem to suggest a need to explain why the records were fabricated with some evidence to back the claim.

For someone to say that the Bible is purely symbolic without offering some textual or other evidence for the claim is no better than me saying that the text is historically reliable and expecting people to take it at face value.

Scholars have often said that the Bible is wrong - only later needing to eat their words. One example is Luke's reference to Lysanias, Tetrach of Abilene. It was known beyond doubt that Lysanias was not Tetrach of Abilene at the point in history of which Luke was writing. Scholars said that Luke was wrong. However, later, archeologists discovered an inscription bearing the name of another Lysanias, also Tetrach of Abilene, and the dates fitted perfectly with Luke's account.

This is just my opinion and, as I have seen written on another forum, I am happy for people to jump up and down on it to see how many bits drop off!

Ion

E_muse, Les Benton is now converted to scientific logic.
If you take up your argument with me, I write now that to my July 18, 2001, 10:14 p.m.'s post, which is applicable to your above quote, I am also adding from the same article in the Los Angeles Times:
"...the story was written during King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC -600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC- as a political manifesto to unite Isrealites against the rival Egyptian empire, as both states sought to expand their territory.".
As for your comment on scholars who had been wrong, that happens and they correct themselves in search for the truth, but in the case of Exodus (and Genesis, 'miracles', pompous Biblical ages, raising from the tomb, etc.), prove it to me: where are the Biblical fossils anyway?
I don't see any.

Ion

Thank you Les Benton. Now, both of us (and many more), think like scientist-minded people.

E_muse

Is this article available to read online and in its entirety? I find myself unable to evaluate the data myself. All I'm hearing is 'scholars say... scholars say... scholars ...' which is simply an arguemtent from authority.



I'm not making any claims, I'm asking questions.

The issue I've raised with Les is to ask him why it is necessary to place any symbolic meaning on Biblical texts.

What would be helpful is if all people debating this topic were in possession of all necessary information - links to previous discussions, access to the article which you're quoting, scholars involved etc etc.

I have read many unconvincing articles which provide alternative histories to the Biblical accounts but the alternatives provided by skeptics turn out to be as unsubstanciated as the texts which they are rejecting.

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

E_muse

Ion has started this thread to 'knock out' theists. This article has thus far been used as the main source in building an arguement.

O.K, allow me to ask some questions of the article quoted:

What the article says is that there is no conclusive evidence which proves the Biblical account true. This would suggest that there is evidence which is open to a variety of interpretations or would allow for the Biblical account. What is it? Does the article mention it and if not why not?

The article then simply mentions a 'prevailing view'. Does the fact that most people agree with something prove the truthfulness of their claim?

This would also suggest that there are other less popular alternative views. What are they? Does the article give similar attention to these alternative views and if not why not?

It is unfair to use this article simply as an attack on theists as it leads to the implication that only a theist would disagree with it.

Are there non-theists who would disagree with it? Again, are these views even mentioned or overviewed in a similar manner to the prevailing view?

This simply expands on the prevailing view but is impossible to evaluate at this stage.

In the 50's and 60's? Have there been any recent excavations? The view is built on 30 -40 year old data? Were the excavations in the 50's and 60's exhaustive? What impact has the political situation had on these excavations?

This may sound daft, but this does prove that Jericho exists! The Bible is therefore accurate in mentioning it.

I cannot possibly comment on the abandonment because I do not have access to the data which lead to that conclusion. Again, are there those suitably qualified who would view the situation differently?

Wouldn't this raise the question as to whether or not the dating of the Exodus should be reconsidered (for those who still hold it as a possibility)?

Same question here about redating.

As I've mentioned above, the Bible claims that the Egyptians expelled the Israelites, they didn't simply escape so would their presence cause a problem?

There are disputes over which sea was crossed by the Israelites which would suggest there are more theories available.

More of the prevailing view - and therefore an arguement from authority.

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

E_muse

Just to clarify, the article doesn't say that there is no evidence to place the children of Israel in the wilderness. It simply says that any evidency available is not conclusive.

However, having overviewed the prevailing opinion, we have nothing which provides an alternative opinion - which must exist.

E_muse

In what way does exposing the ignorance of your opponents validate the claims being made in the article?

It depends upon what you mean by Biblical. As I've pointed out previously, the Bible seems accurate in linking Egypt, Cannan and Israel. It seems accurate over a minor detail such as what the people of Israel would have eaten - as construction workers - in Egypt. It is also accurate in its mention of certain place names.

The Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead and then left the planet! Where do you suggest that Christians should start looking for the fossil evidence for this event? Which of Jesus' miracles would have left evidence in the fossil record.

If any of them could not be expected to leave a trace of their occurence, then to request such proof is unfair.

The discussion over Exodus is not unfair because it seems reasonable that the events which are detailed in it should have left some kind of trace.

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]