Ion

E-muse, the Los Angeles Times article from April 13, 2001, "Doubting the Story of Exodus" used to be on www.latimes.com, but it's not there anymore, and I cannot post you a link to it. I kept the article however, and I believe you can find it too in libraries.
It contains this sub-title, summarizing the content:
"Many scholars have quietly concluded that the epic of Moses never happened, and even Jewish clerics are raising questions. Others think it combines myth, cultural memories and kernels of truth.".
As for your "...conclusive evidence which proves the Bible accounts...", my point is that the Bible is riddled with exorbitant claims that are not backed up by anything in archaeology, in biological sciences, in physics, in geology, in paleontology so far. I emphasize 'anything' here. Therefore, to give credence to the exorbitant claims from the Bible, at this stage oh human knowledge, is to give credence to cult beliefs.
By analogy with the common-sense empirical thinking in today's life, I can claim to a police officer when reporting a traffic accident for example, that I am an exorbitant 600 years old (like the Bible'e Moses), while my driver licence says I am 42, but I am not credible to society.
There is an abundance of still unexplainable phenomenons on Earth and in the Universe, including the history of our species. For example (from another source than the Los Angeles Times) in line with us not fully knowing the history of our species, "...how did our primitive ancestors know that the celestial dome was fixed -and that the planets revolved around the Sun? How did they know of a complicated aspect of celestial mechanics called precession -a wobbling of the Earth's axis that causes our position relative to constellations in space to change slowly over time? Western astronomers discovered this only three hundred years ago. Even more incredible is that this effect takes thousands of years to measure -25,776 years to be exact...How did the ancients even learn to measure them?...We didn't confirm the circumference of the globe until the first satellites in the fifties...".
I can only recommend caution about extraordinary claims, and a scientific approach toward understanding mysteries: be careful about what unusual things you believe in, including what proves them.

E_muse

Ion, I can only thank you for such a full and considered reply, especially your concern. I cannot reply more fully at the moment as I have other commitments but could not exit the boards without thanking you.

E_muse

Back again!

What actually concerns me most here is the term 'quietly'. Why must they be quiet about airing their reservations, doubts and what have you?

If it is because of the fear of an intolerant minority then I can only be disgusted. If people cannot share their views on such matters for fear of intolerance or hatred then the apprehension of truth becomes even more elusive.

No, I don't think that we should simply accept claims at face value - but neither should we reject them simply because they are extrodinary or exorbitant. This smacks of what is known as Hume's hangover.

David Hume (whom you've probably heard about anyway) was an eighteenth century skeptic who put forward the idea that belief may be justified by probability and that probability is based upon the uniformity or consistency of nature. What this means is that anything which is unique, which doesn't fit into normal human experience - such as a miracle - must be rejected. Guilty until proven innocent if you like.

This position is laced with problems. Not least that it dictates an omniscient a priori rejection of any claim to the miraculous which prevents it from being adequately examined. However, if something can be demonstrated authentic then it can no longer be considered a miracle (because it is then a part of normal human experience). Sounds like a guaranteed arguement winner to me!

There can always be an event which does not fit into my understanding or which I find difficult to believe. However, I find myself thinking that I cannot reject a claim because the event claimed is unique or doesn't fit into 'normal human experience'. Why? Because human experience transcends my lifetime or the lifetime of scientific understanding itself.

Simply because certain events don't occur now doesn't mean that they haven't occured sometime in the past.

You wouldn't be credible because your claim contradicts someone else's observation of your life. Someone observed you being born at a particular point in history thus contradicting your claim.

With regards to the evidence about Exodus, whether there is evidence which contradicts this account is only known to those archeologists who are studying it. All I've read so far is that the evidence isn't conclusive and so I withhold judgement.

Incidentally, the Bible doesn't claim that Moses was 600 but 120. Read Deuteronomy 34:7. This certainly does not contradict modern human experience.

There are claims of extrordinary ages but we must beware on what grounds we reject them. Not least that the Bible is honest when people don't live for a very long time.

It could be that more ancient cultures worked to a different calendar or that people really did live longer. I understand that translating ancient Hebrew numbers is a bit of a minefield anyway.

Oh mystery!!! I'm so grateful that we still have a sense of the mysterious. We don't know everything!! We can't explain it all!! This is so refreshing! Sorry, I was genuinely enjoying a moment of realisation there! Thank you Ion. Perhaps this is what motivates us.

There is not even a hint of sarcasm here Ion. Following your previous posts this is genuinely refreshing. I'm fed with hearing about what we can understand.

Human experience is not subject to human understanding but vice versa.

I'm glad you quit the Los Angeles Times posts!! This is excellent!

The problem with a scientific approach is that scientific understanding is based upon that which is testable, observable and recreateable. This would render it useless in evaluating a claimed event such as the resurrection or even most alleged miracles. The sheer nature of a miracle seems to make it unpredictable and unrepeateable.

You also make the scientific approach omnimpotent. You almost make reality subject to it.

This suggests that human experience must be subject to human understanding in order to be valid. In order for this to work human understanding must become greater than reality itself in order to fully comprehend it surely?

To put it another way, in terms of our intelllect, surely we must become greater than that of which we are a part in order to fully understand it?

I struggle to remember to put the rubbish out!!

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

Ion

To E_muse's "Why must they be quiet...?":
"But the modern archaeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public.", writes the Los Angeles Times. My take of the reason why, is that religion based on the Bible, became as of today, a world-wide industry, with power interests from Vatican to small town churches. The Los Angeles Times article strikes into this industry.
Consider also that for people of my generation, who were in their 20s when I was in France, religion based on the Bible, was never deemed to be logical, was deemed to be cultural vestiges of the past; so in France the consensus is obviously atheistic. It's in U.S. that I found beliefs, which I consider of third-world level.

To e-muse's "...any claim to the miraculous which prevents it from being adequately examined.":
The excavation sites in the article point to examinations. Note, the reserve in the tone, when it comes to appraising. For example the title of the article is "Doubting the Story of Exodus". One key word is 'Doubting', which is like saying "I did examine Exodus, it doesn't look good, and barring future surprises, Exodus is something else.".

To e_muse's "Simply because events don't occur now doesn't mean that they haven't occurred sometime in the past.":
Biblical events, like for instance Jesus raising from the tomb and leaving behind him an empty tomb, need way better witnesses than the ones from the Bible, in order to pass a today's fact-finding inquiry into what consistently happened: it needs to be these days of at least the level of consistent testimonies into a car accident for example.

To E-muse's "Someone observed you being born at a particular point in history thus contradicting your claim.":
Try "New Testament Contradictions" by Paul Carlson" (with "The Birth of Jesus" in it), and "A List of Biblical Contradictions" by Jim Merritt on this web site, to get you started about contradictory accounts in the Bible. After that, to paraphrase myself (from a few lines above) E-muse, I will say: "The Bible doesn't look good.".

To E_muse's "There are claims of extraordinary ages but we must beware on what grounds we reject them.":
No fossils for unseen extraordinary ages, while evolution has fossils. (As for different calendar, erronously translating numbers: proofs of these are missing as of 2001, so I say again "The Bible doesn't look good.").

We don't need to "...become greater than that of which we are a part in order to fully understand it..." E-muse, because in my opinion, we, humans, we don't have the intellectual abilities to fully understand the Universe. Like cows missing on what a passing train is doing, we, humans, we are missing on what the Universe is doing. I think however that we have the intellectual abilities to interpret some of the Universe, not all, by human perceptions and by human methods of thinking. For that, science as a human method of thinking, is way more coherent than religion, and achieves tangible results millions of times every minute, every day.

E_muse

On this we most certainly agree then. I do not believe that the scientific method is all embracing, yet a powerful tool as history attests - and people must be commended for their efforts.

But what of those areas of existence which science cannot explain? Must ponder further there.

I also feel that a scientific approach to understanding any aspect of universe should be pursued with enthusiasm by every expert in the field - theist or not.

This claim I must consider further. I intend to respond to your whole post but do not have time at the moment. I also look forward to reading the articles regarding Bible Contradictions which you have kindly brought to my attention.

Again Ion, I must thank you for a most enjoyable debate.

sighhswolf

In reading the exchanges in this thread, one
question/comment comes to mind. When speaking of "things we cannot understand" as humankind are we speaking of Religion, Science or Spirituality?

There are those who would make a distinction
between "Organized Religion" and "spirituality". In my own mind there is a very clear line seperating the two concepts.

Are there really things that we dont understand?
Are there really things that are outside of our mental capacity to explain?

Or are there just many areas where we have not been given sufficient time and repetitions of observations to be able to qualify and quantify the data?

Remembering that the original thought was
the lack of hard evidence from archeology
to position a group of people in a certain area in a certain time period.

So far that hard archeological evidence has not been found.
Will it at some point in the future?
If any of us could answer that question, maybe that is the person we should be praying to....Huh?

E_muse

Only sufficient time and repetition of observation can truly answer this. The pursuit of the scientific method is an excercise of faith until hard evidence proves or disproves otherwise.

Those who trust that the scientific method will answer most or all of life's questions are excercising faith (accroding to the Biblical definition). The statement goes: because the scientific method has been able to answer a, b, c, and d, it will eventually be answer e, f, g and h.

This is the substance of things hoped for, the certainty of things not seen. There are elements of existence which the scientific method has been unable to adequately resolve.

I believe that this relates to Ion's point above. A faith in the scientific method to resolve issues may be more justifiable or coherent than faith in an omnipotent being.

Ion

Yes E_muse, my gamble on the best human method to establish human knowledge is a faith in the scientific approach to further uncover nature's mysteries in tangible ways.

To sighhwolf's "Are there really things that are ouside of our mental capacity to explain?":
As of 2001, we don't fully know for example the history of species, we don't fully understand the biology of the brain, we know so little of the Universe mechanical laws to the point that we can guess close to 100% is unknown. How much of the unknown can humans uncover, how much cannot uncover, and by what methods of perception and thinking? I don't know the unknown, but I believe that science gives the best method for furthering human knowledge, based on science being the human method with tangible results. However, here is an example of human limitation in problem-solving of a concept, concept which is derived when interpreting the nature scientifically: in mathematics, humans conventionally establish symbols quantifying objects, 'numbers'; relating different objects is done by establishing equations, or 'laws', or 'formulas'; solving equations, does find-out numbers in unknown (unquantified yet) objects; for equations with one unknown object, equations that are of at least the 3rd. degree (i.e. the object to find the number for, is raised to the power of 3), a 19th. century French mathematician named Le Galois, showed that human solutions cannot be expressed in square roots.

To sighhwolf's "Remembering that the original thought was the lack of hard evidence from archaeology to position a group of people in a certain area in a certain time period. So far that hard archaeological evidence has not been found. Will it at some point in the future?":
My take on this Exodus (and other Biblical claims) is that it was written by humans with no divine inspiration in it, it was a political manifesto to affirm some people, it developed into religion with power interests, and the impartial scientific approach when examining these extraordinary claims, cannot find any trace, so science doubts it happened.

Tercel

I'm rather late to this discussion. But you will find that the historicity of the Exodus has been already discussed on this board here.
I would recommend everyone who is interested to read it. And I would also re-recommend the same book:
Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition by James K. Hoffmeier, published New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
It gives a comprehensive, up to date and easy to read summary for the beginner. The author presents the various currently held views for the Exodus and examines the modern evidence for and against those views.

E_muse

Thank you Tercel. Just the sort of link which I was hoping for.