krosero

May I suggest the eruption of Thera c. 1630 B.C.E.?

That eruption was considerably more powerful than the one of Vesuvius. And since one objection about Vesuvius is that it only effected one city, the Thera eruption effected the entire Meditteranean, due to its location, greater force, and by virtue of its producing a secondary category of disaster (tsunamis).

Another objection about Vesuvius is that it did not destroy an entire civilization. The Thera eruption is thought to have crippled or severely weakened a civilization (the Minoan).

Also, it is closer in time to the Biblical Exodus, in a time period when fewer records have survived as compared to Vesuvius.

In the Wikipedia article I link to, I saw no mention of a written account, even though it probably counted as the (natural) event of that millenium.

I am not by any stretch an inerrantist, and I am not trying to support the Biblical account.

Nor do I subscribe to the argument that the Thera eruption caused the 10 plagues or was in some way connected to the Exodus.

My interest in this is also not about the archaeological evidence, for which I agree that none exists for the Exodus.

My interest is the same as Don's: how do we calculate the number of historical accounts that we should expect to see? Do we go on a subjective calculation -- on whatever sounds reasonable -- or is it better to work by analogy and precedent?

That's a question that touches on a lot of issues I do happen to be interested in, particularly the question of how many historical witnesses we should expect for the historical Jesus (which I do not want to bring into this thread; I'm just explaining my interest).

Johnny, I've read most of the thread (scanning some short parts), looking for the number of expected witnesses to the Exodus that you calculate. You mention the probability of millions of eyewitnesses, which I think is a reasonable number to float for events like the Biblical Exodus or the eruption of Thera. You go on to suggest that "many historians would have recorded the news" (without raising the next question, which is how many such accounts should be expected to survive). The use of "millions" made your "many" sound like more than 7 or 8, but something like dozens, or hundreds (that's what it sounded like to me).

But then I see that no surviving accounts record the Thera eruption -- the single greatest natural catastrophe of the millenium -- and I have to wonder whether millions of eyewitnesses really should produce "many" historical accounts still extant in our time.

Kevin Rosero

Johnny Skeptic

One of your problems that there are not any recorded natural disasters in history that stopped exactly at the borders of a single country. Such unprecendented events would have been much more newsworthy than any volcano that affected people indiscriminately. Another one of your problems is that Egypt would essentially have been destroyed as country, but it wasn't. Possibly the best arguments against the plagues and the Exodus are philosophical arguments, and against the Bible as a whole. It is a ridiculous notion that a loving, compassionate, all-powerful God would discriminately protect Jews from their enemies on some occasions, on other occasions allow Jews to be murdered by Nebuchadnezzar, the Philistines, and the Egyptians, allow them to be enslaved for centuries, indiscrimately make people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, discriminately kill the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, including babies, punish people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, discriminately kill Ananias and Saphira over money, and indiscriminately kill people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, an example being Hurricane Katrina. God is much too much like sinful, hateful, vengeful humans to convince rational people that he exists as he is described in the Bible. The Abrahamic religions are particularly detestable.

You aren't by any chance an inerrantist, are you?

Johnny Skeptic

You still don't get it. If the plagues occured, the result would have been the utter destruction of the powerful nation of Egypt. Any reputable archaelogist or historian will tell you that that if Egypt was destroyed to the extent that it would have been destroyed if the plagues occurred, the Egyptians would not have been able to accomplish many of the things that history attributes to them. There would have been a notable gap in Egytian history.

Do you believe that the plagues occured? How about the global flood? How about the talking donkey?

You joke about eating babies, but I don't know why since God routinely kills babies with hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and earthquakes. He also make people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. He also punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. Even in the New Testament, which is supposedly a better covenant, reference the book of Hebrews, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, fear spread among the people. Fear of what? Obviously, fear of not giving money to the church. Paul criticized the Corinthians for doing things that even the Gentiles did not do, but he still called them brothers, and he most certainly would not have killed any of them for withholding money from the church. Now would you like to make a case that what the Corinthians were doing was not worse than Ananias and Saphira withholding money from the church? It is interesting to note that people like you think that you can find God in copies of copies of ancient texts and completely discount all of the extra-Biblical evidence that reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist as he is described in the Bible. The Bible depicts God as being a moral and perfect being. That cannot possibly be true as judged by God's own standards.

If God is able to create planets, why doesn't he show up and create a new galaxy? Why is he so bashful? Isn't he trying to prove to people that he exists? If you are trying to prove to people that you exist, the last thing that you would do would be to require faith. Requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will believe that you exist, with no possible benefits for yourself or for anyone else. Requiring faith decreases the number of people who will go to heaven, and increases the number of people who will go to hell. It is God's obvious intention to increase the number of people who will go to hell, and decrease the number of people who will go to heaven. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish. That is a lie.

Assuming that God opposes slavery, would you like to tell us why he did not inspire the Bible writers to clearly oppose slavery in terms that could not be easily misinterpreted?

GakuseiDon

So, you would expect there to have been zero accounts? Is that what you are saying?

No. No. Given some of your comments in this thread, I'm starting to consider it possible...

I think it would be interesting to see how many references to ancient events survived in the literature. Kevin's example of Thera is very interesting. I think we'd need to include factors like the percentage of texts that survived transmission from generation to generation, and reasons why they mightn't have survived. It would be a huge study, though.

Johnny Skeptic

Since I am not making as much progress as I wanted to make about the ten plagues, perhaps it is best if I revise my arguments as follows: Can we agree that there is not suffcient evidence from archaeology or history that the ten plagues occured, and that the story is of little or no value to Christians?

Ok, here are some other questions: Can we agree that there is not suffcient evidence from archaeology or history that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Can we agree that there is not suffcient evidence from archaeology or history that Jesus never sinned? Can we agree that there is not suffcient evidence from archaeology or history that Jesus ever healed anyone? Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then? Can we agree that there is not suffcient evidence from archaeology or history that Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind?

GakuseiDon

I'd agree to all that.

krosero

No, but thanks for doubting what I told you in detail and in sincerity. That does a lot to inspire dialogue.

You seem far more interested in issues that I did not even touch upon, and that seems to be the (benign) reason that you’re skipping over my questions, so I’ll try one more time.

My question was about how many historical texts we can expect to find for any given event. My chief problem with your approach is that you offered not a single analogical event, not a single precedent, but only the reasonable-sounding rhetoric to the effect that millions should have seen such-and-such and that “many” historical accounts should back it up.

But suppose you had used the following language about the eruption of Thera:

This all sounds reasonable. In fact the physical evidence for the eruption (which does not exist for the 10 plagues) would just encourage someone in their conviction that historians must have recorded the event and that we should be able to read their accounts today.

So the conclusion above, about "many" historical accounts, sounds perfectly reasonable; it seems to be based on logic. But it's not actually true, is it? We don’t have “many” historical accounts of the eruption; we seem to have none.

That’s what I’m saying, and I’ll borrow Don’s word: we need a “control” here. A control in the form of arguments from analogy; arguments from precedent; not arguments from personal conviction and incredulity (even conviction and incredulity that proceed from skepticism and that sound rational).

Johnny, would you consider, every time you argue against a Biblical story, finding an analogical event for it, a precedent? I guarantee it will make your arguments more interesting and you will get more people listening.

Kevin Rosero

Johnny Skeptic

I did not pursue the approach that I started with because I knew that I wasn't getting anywhere with it. The ten plagues is just one of hundreds of examples of things that a rational person expects to find if the Bible is true but doesn't find. Regarding "Johnny, would you consider, every time you argue against a Biblical story, finding an analogical event for it, a precedent?", yes I would. A web definition for the word "analogy" is "an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others". Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

33 And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude?

34 And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.

35 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.

36 And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.

38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

Johnny: Ok, if Jesus actually had compassion on those people "lest they faint in the way" due to a lack of food, a group of people who were not likely starving to death, he would have been much more compassionate towards people who were starving to death, and yet, one million people died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians, because God refused to have compassion on them and give them food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry brother or sister, he is vain, and his faith is dead. If Jesus was actually compassionate towards people who were hungry but not likely starving to death, and if God inspired James to write what he wrote about giving food to hungry brothers and sisters, a logical analogy cannot be made between what Matthew and James said, and God's lack of compassion towards one million people who starved to death.

Today, do you believe that a logical analogy can be made between God's presence and the distribution of tangible benefits? If God distributes tangible benefits, he does so in exactly the same way that they would be distributed if he does not exist. What I mean is that if God does not exist, all tangible benefits would be distributed indiscriminately according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs or worldview. How is that scenario any different from the scenario that we have today? You have confidence in making anologies based upon copies of copies of ancient texts, but today, what valid PRESENT analogies regarding God's existence, presence, and compassion can you make other than subjective claims regarding spiritual/emotional benefits? I assume none at all. Loving human parents have compassion towards their childrens' spiritual AND tangible needs. It logically follows that a loving God would have compassion towards peoples' spiritual AND tangible needs. Many Christians who are sick ask God to heal them, and when they recover, they thank God for their recoveries, but do you know of any amputees who have asked God for a new limb?

It is my position that you worship a God who exists in copies of copies of ancient texts, but nowhere else, a mythical God who just like the Gods of all other religions can always be depended upon to provide subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, but not always depended upon to provide the tangible necessities of life. When biblical evidence regarding God's existence and character are compared with extra-biblical evidence, the extra-biblical evidence easily discredits the biblical evidence, that is, unless you wish to throw principles, morals, and compassion right out of the window.

2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish. Can you give us an analogy between that verse and some examples in the world today that show that God is not willing that any should perish? It is my position that God is willing that some will perish.

This forum is about biblical criticism, not faith, but still, Hebrews 11:6 says "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Are you not aware that if you want people to know that you exist, and what you want them to do with their lives, the last thing that you would do would be to require faith? Requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will accept you, with no possible benefits for yourself or for anyone else.

Johnny Skeptic

Good. Will you also agree that if you want people to know that you exist, and what you want them to do with their lives, the last thing that you would do would be to require faith? Requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will accept you, with no possible benefits for yourself or for anyone else.

rhutchin

What constitutes "sufficient evidence"? We do have several, allegedly, eyewitness accounts and accounts from those who talked to people who alleged to be eyewitnesses. The accounts circulated among the churches in the first century and were later collected into a book that we know as the Bible.

I have no problem if you define "sufficient evidence" such that the collection of writings in the Bible do not meet your standard. However, it would seem that there is not much in the way of "sufficient evidence" for much of history if this is the case.

So, what does that prove? Nothing from what I can see.