WILLOWTREE

Hi Lindy:

Neither did I until he started calling people "morons" and "retards" = rage.

Does the fact that you are an atheist have anything to do with the inability to link common street insults with rage ?

Regarding your P.S.

Do you have a source for your claims beside yourself ?

Is a ruler and and any map equate to a scientific method of verifying such an extraordinary claim ?

If a ruler and a map is, then how are measurements done by Rutherford and others in Egypt with modern surveying equipment invalid ?

Would you like to review measurements by secular Cole and Petrie and Rutherford and see how they match ? None of them used rulers ! LOL ! LOL !

WT

rlogan

The pieces you cited, Willowtree, do not even purport to provide evidence of the Exodus.

Cite where they do please, if you disagree.

Instead, the quote you provide refers to Exodus traditions. Not an Exodus.

The article goes on to state how the inscriptions adjacent to Egyptian mines could have led to stories about Moses having inscriptions on tablets.

It is a theory about how a myth might have started, and apparently you have not even read the article yourself. Instead, you are putting it out as something it does not claim to be.


We have Easter bunny traditions, Santa Clause traditions, tooth fairy traditions and etc.

If you point to the history of these traditions as evidence that they are real, you'd be doing the same thing.

WILLOWTREE

These facts are why the Bible was written - to preserve knowledge that would otherwise be lost.

The Bible says ancient Israel dwelt in Goshen/Lower Egypt.

Egyptologists know this yet they conveniently fail to mention these facts when asserting there is (allegedly) no evidence of Israel in Egypt.

WILLOWTREE

Does your atheism have anything to do with your conclusions ?

(my theism does)

In regards to your point about traditions:

SUPPOSE you have a point.

You are arguing that ALL traditions are lies ONLY because they disprove things precious to your worldview.

Traditions, legends, and myths all contain truth. When external evidence corroborates the former then we have the basis to believe and accept as fact those portions which the evidence supports.

But as a rule, atheists reject all traditions and legends and myths because there is nothing to gain for their worldview = convenient policy indigenous to dogma.

How is it that all the ancients lied and are confused ?

What is obvious is that modern atheism/evolution/naturalism rejects summarily everything that is seen to disprove their beliefs.

ALL of 19th century scholarship ASSUMED Homer was fictionalizing until Schliemann proved all of them wrong - wholesale.

Velikovsky proved ALL of 20th century scholars wrong.

Noah was laughed to scorn until it started raining.

The established church world in the 1st century (Pharisees) said Jesus "had a demon". (He wasn't a christian....Hi Brian !)

Catholic Church vs. Protestant Reformers

etc.

etc.

Whats the point ?

The mainstream was DEAD WRONG !

In the Bible the majority is wrong 99 percent of the time.

Why is the mainstream wrong ?

Jesus never disputed the fact that Satan controlled "all the kingdoms of the world". That control was handed over when Adam/Eve sinned.

The mainstream is wrong because Satan controls them.


WT

Vorkosigan

WillowTree, do you have anything concrete to offer in support of your position on Velikovsky and the Bible? I don't mean assertions like "Velikovsky was right!" but arguments based on evidence and reason.....

WinAce

Well, 99% of people are right about one thing:

You can't see "all the kingdoms of the world" from a mountaintop. On a round planet, at least.

rlogan

Well - no willowtree, it doesn't. If tomorrow a great archaeological discovery was made pertaining to the Bible, I wouldn't care whether it supported any particular passage or defeated some passage.

It is just interesting to me.

Now perhaps we could address the subject. What you have submitted has a word game regarding exodus traditions (myths) as opposed to an actual Exodus.

It is indeed interesting where the Exodus myth arises. But I don't even find this material compelling in view of other things we know about Hebrew Bible authorship and history.


I have argued that you have not submitted any evidence that the Exodus happened, and instead it is a theory of how the myth might have gotten started.

Evidence supports that which it supports? Yes.

?

The HB has value to them not in terms of history, but morality, politics, etc.

I'm all ears.




What do you mean, exactly? That the story of the iliad is true? That Zeus and all the Greek Gods did all of the things stated in the story? Having children with humans? participating in wars, etc.?


As Vork pointed out, so far we have your assurance on this and nothing more. Do you have some evidence to present?

BrianJ

Hi WT,

You keep failing to understand that Velikovsky does not support a 15th century Exodus.

From the second link on your first post:

'This would mean that the ruling dynasty of Egypt at the time Exodus would be the 13th dynasty, rather than the 18th or 19 dynasty as is now generally believed,'

Then you write:

How on earth do you get a mid 15th century Exodus during the 13th dynasty?

The mid-15th century Exodus would be during the 18th dynasty. The proposed 15th century date would have fallen during the reign of Thutmosis III, arguably when Egypt was at the peak of her power.

If you want to move the 15th century back in time then how do you square the 'fact' that the Exodus happened in the 15th century?

Brian.

BrianJ

I want to try an experiment out here.

Everything in that quote you posted is absolute rubbish.

Tell -el Maskhouta is not biblical Succoth, the Egyptians did not launch any campaigns from biblical Succoth, and there are abundant amounts of evidence for Egyptian military building, barracks, forts, and many other structures of the 18th and ninteenth dynasties, and no Egyptian records testify to their existence.

There you go, everything in your quote has been proven incorrect, utterly destroyed by my superior evidence. If you don't admit that I have demolished the claims of that quote it is only because you believe in God and to admit that I have made a mockery of the claims in the quote would mean that you have to admit that there is no God, and Gene Scott would be wrong about something.

My arguments against you quote are watertight, you must tell Gene to buy a lot of suntan lotion.

Brian.

Amaleq13

I think you have misunderstood rlogan's argument. He is not arguing that all traditions are lies. He is observing that your links are relevant only to dating the origin of Exodus traditions rather than to the event, itself. Establishing when the first stories about an event were likely told does not date the event except in a very vague sense that, if it actually took place, it must have taken place prior to the first stories about it.

Establishing that an actual event, especially one where specific and abundant physical remnants might be expected, requires the location and identification of that sort of evidence.

They may contain truth but determining which parts might be true requires discovering supporting phyisical evidence.

But you have offered no external evidence corroborating any specific details within the stories. You have offered external evidence relating to the dating of the stories, themselves.