Hex

badger3k,

I can probably summarize the thread, for the useful parts, anyhow.

• There is no archaeological/geochemical evidence in the Sinai for the Biblical Exodus.
• Archaeology/geochemical analysis can find/identify/date remains of desert dwellers.
• There is no archaeological evidence for an Isrealite invasion of Jericho which involved the destruction of any of the series of city walls. (In fact, at the time when the Isrealites were 'invading', Jericho had had no city walls standing for nearly 200 years.)
• Even with a 'revised' scheme of dating, it is (or so far has been) impossible to rectify the physical evidence of the archaeological, geological, geochemical, geographical, and demographic remains with the storyline/timeline of the Biblical accounts of the Egyptian Slavery / Exodus / Early Kingdom 'periods'.

Robert -

If you -need- for me to go through Jericho again, I'll be pleased. It's a simple task which show 'the court' that your 'witless witness in good standing' was actually sleeping through class when a historical account was being compiled. Further, it will show 'the court' that your 'witless witness' account' was merely an attempt to make it look like they were present for the occasion rather than back asleep in their dorm.

Just raise the arguement and let me know. :wave:

Ninjay - Thanks for bringing that up. It was a fun/painful thread, and I'm glad folks got something useful from it and Lars' frivolity.

- Hex

Johnny Skeptic

What a deist told you that the claims of deism are a legitimate witness until you disprove them?

On the contrary, all trials are separate. No witness who establishes crediblity in one trial is automatically trusted in another trial. This trial is about Israel in Egypt. Is it your position that there is reasonable secular historical evidence that the Ten Plagues occured, or that everyone should automatically believe the claim just because the Bible says so?

Not at all. Discussions are taking place in this thread based upon the Bible being a witness who has declared that the Jews were in Egypt, and the the Ten Plagues occured. Why should anyone believe that the Ten Plagues occured? If they occured, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. As history shows, that did not happen.

Please be advised that even if the Jews were in Egypt, and even if the Ten Plagues occured, and God caused them, that is not even close to being an adequate defense of Christianity. There are many valid philosophical and moral arguments against Christianity. Many of those arguments have been posted in the GRD Forum, the MF&P Forum, and the Philosophy Forum. Do you wish to discuss the character of God at the General Religious Discussions Forum?

-Jay-

Thanks for the summary. This subject seems to come up a lot, so it's good to have a refresher posted now and again.

regards,

NinJay

Robert Byers

This is just not so. Perhaps your cops are too cold to take witnesses seriously. If a cop has someone tell them theres a guy robbing some women behind the building the cop will go immediately based on this witness word. If its obvious the 'witness" is drunk well ok but mostly the person is in good standing on thier word alone.

Fine about the attorney. We christians are the attorney and are satisfied with the bible as a witness. However this is missing the point that the bible itself makes claims and so its integrity is to be accepted as a part ot the Christian case.
It is a vanity to say that the bibl is wrong without first putting it on the stand as a legitamate witness. How thinketh thou thus?
Robert byersi

spin

More confusion. Cops basically have to listen to everyone. Very few of those they listen to make it into court.

I don't know about all christians, but you certainly aren't a lawyer. A lawyer has standards that you won't adhere to.

I gather this won't sink in, but legitimacy is earned by a witness. You can't assume it, just as you can't assume guilt, until proven differently.

Can you think of any piece of the bible that you could put on the stand knowing that the writer was a witness of the events they are testifying to? You'd have to wipe out most of it without further ado. Gone goes Genesis. Gone goes Moses, Joshua and the judges. Gone goes David. The rest you might have to sift through and perhaps you'd be lucky.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Good, please tell us why God broke his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre.

What a deist told you that the claims of deism are a legitimate witness until you disprove them?

On the contrary, all trials are separate. No witness who establishes crediblity in one trial is automatically trusted in another trial. This trial is about Israel in Egypt. Is it your position that there is reasonable secular historical evidence that the Ten Plagues occured, or that everyone should automatically believe the claim just because the Bible says so?

Not at all. Discussions are taking place in this thread based upon the Bible being a witness who has declared that the Jews were in Egypt, and the the Ten Plagues occured. Why should anyone believe that the Ten Plagues occured? If they occured, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. As history shows, that did not happen.

Please be advised that even if the Jews were in Egypt, and even if the Ten Plagues occured, and God caused them, that is not even close to being an adequate defense of Christianity. There are many valid philosophical and moral arguments against Christianity. Many of those arguments have been posted in the GRD Forum, the MF&P Forum, and the Philosophy Forum. Do you wish to discuss the character of God at the General Religious Discussions Forum?

Amaleq13

Prove it. Find a detective who is willing to identify himself as such and agree that he would accept an alleged witness as legitimate for no other reason than their claim to be a witness. I contend that such an individual simply does not exist because that sort of utterly naive approach is guaranteed to result in losing their job.

The correct phrase is "too experienced" to be so naive as to assume a witness can be trusted without any good reason to think so.

All witnesses are only potential witnesses until it has been established that they are actual witnesses. That's just Law Enforcement 101, Robert.

That you feel compelled to break the analogy only shows the weakness of your position. The possibility of an ongoing crime certainly outweighs the possibility the witness is lying but that isn't even close to what we are discussing. A true analogy involves a crime that has already taken place and an alleged witness to the crime. In that circumstance, no detective will accept them simply at their word. They will ask questions and seek good reason to believe them.

Yes, you have faith and faith only. That is where you depart from the analogy and from rational thought. Good attorneys know they need more than faith in their witness before they put them on the stand.

I fully agree that it is just as foolish to assume a witness is lying without good reason and I've never suggested otherwise. The only rational approach to a witness is neutral prior to consideration of the evidence supporting his/her reliability.

Doug Shaver

How do we do that? What kind of evidence is required to prove that the Bible cannot be used as a witness?

Hex

I've often wondered this. When Archaeological Evidence, Historical Documentation (other than the Biblical Text), and Geological Strata -all- 'conspire' to 'prove' that the Bible cannot be used as a witness for -all- the 'historical' events it purports to record, why do people like Robert ignore such evidence?

Robert, might I ask how many other sources it takes to prove your witness isn't a 'good witness'?

Sheshonq

Yes, it is. No matter what you *think* you know, you are wrong. Witnesses don't get to take the witness stand until after they've been demonstrated to be reliable.

But nobody cares if the attorney is convinced. Are you confused again?
You're not making your case to yourself. Your making it to the jury. Who gives a flying rip about what the attorney thinks?

If that is your point, then your point is wrong.

Yes, the bible is part of your case.
But no, the integrity does not have to be accepted. The integrity has to be proved, before it gets accepted.

It is your claim that it is *right*. Your claim - your job to prove your claim.

1. Because witnesses don't get to take the stand until AFTER they've been shown to be reliable. You are not going to be permitted to skip this step, no matter how many times you try to do so.

2. Oh, and you can put the badly worded King James English away; nobody is impressed.