Freethought & Rationalism Archive

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...
This is not a safe argument as it relies on the proposition that a very large number such as 600,000 in a text of that date is intended to convey what such a number would today, rather than "12 lots of 5 groups of 'many'". In view of the dual use of the word 'myriad' even today -- meaning either 'lots' or '10,000' -- this is unsound.

Likewise it relies on the idea that numerals are transmitted without error from texts of that period. This would be a bold presumption, in my humble opinion.

As a rule it is unsafe to argue from numbers in this way. The arguments all make one look naive.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hey Dave!
Roger's thrown you a life-line here on the 2 = 14 head-scratcher.
Are you going to grab it?

And Roger - if he does grab it - are you use it to rescue him?

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Uh, Dave...why didn't you KNOW about the avaris dates BEFORE you claimed they supported exodus? That's the REAL question.

Uh ... no. The REAL question is what makes you so sure of your dates? What case can you present to disassociate this find with the events described in Exodus? I told you I'm open to hear it.

-Jay- · 10-06-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

MODERN SCHOLARS THINK EXODUS IS A MYTH
Many modern scholars (including liberal Christian scholars) believe that the epic events described in the Book of Exodus and depicted in the excellent movie starring Charlton Heston, The Ten Commandments, are simply myths.

Yes, that's right.

They think there was no oppression of the Israelites, no 10 plagues, no Passover, no mass exit during the night, no miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, no wandering in the desert, no conquest, no miraculous deliverance at Jericho, etc.

<...snip...>

Yet, that's what they think and many scholarly(?) papers have been written to defend this view.

WHY DO THEY THINK THIS?
Well, there are probably many reasons, but one key reason is that no one could find any archaeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites in Egypt ...

UNTIL RECENTLY ...

Turns out that the following evidence for Israel's activities DOES exist ... scholars were looking in the right places, but they were looking in the WRONG TIME PERIOD!!

Does this look familiar to anyone else? Where have we seen material like this before? Maybe here?

Dave, this line of discussion has had all the meat picked off of its festering carcass for months. For goodness' sake, go back and read the that thread and the tangents it spawned before you start regurgitating this dreck. Whatever you do, please don't throw that blasted Tel Rehov dating chart up again...

regards,

NinJay

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Spin ... Hmmm ... interesting. Tell me a little about your background ... education, current work, etc.

I put forward the possibility of a debate on the value of Rohl's work, not a male bonding session.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Also, may I ask ... do you agree with Rohl's identification of Champollion's mistake discussed inthe OP?

Do you agree that Champollion has nothing to do with modern Egyptological chronological analyses?

spin

I didn't ask for a male bonding session. I asked about your background. No. Of course I do not agree. Champollion has A LOT to with Egyptian chronology. Read the OP.

-Jay- · 10-06-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I put forward the possibility of a debate on the value of Rohl's work, not a male bonding session.

Do you agree that Champollion has nothing to do with modern Egyptological chronological analyses?

spin

I didn't ask for a male bonding session. I asked about your background. No. Of course I do not agree. Champollion has A LOT to with Egyptian chronology. Read the OP.

Careful, here, Dave. Don't try to make the case that spin's (or anyone else's) background disqualifies them from having valid opinions or from doing quality research. Those are categorically not valid arguments, and they will destroy what tiny bits of credibility you have left here.

regards,

NinJay

Mike PSS · 10-06-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

suddenly decided that it's NOT historical with absolutely no external evidential basis for this radical shift whatsoever.

"suddenly"? I don't think so. The impossibility of a 6000 year old earth, of animals being "poofed" into existence from dirt, of global floods, of parting seas... all this has virtually limitless "external evidence", as has been recognized by sane scholars of many unrelated fields (history, archeology, geology, etc... there's that dang consilience thing trying to get your attention again). That's why scholarly books dismiss - or, more to the point, ignore - such nonsense, with no reference to your religious documents whatsoever.

Has Dave ever heard of Copernicus or Galileo? Why SURE he has. In fact Dave has invoked Galileo's historical struggle against oppression as an example of his own struggle against the EAC.

Except here Dave forgets WHAT Galileo was struggling against? What was that Dave? Ehhhh....? Couldn't hear you.

Why, Galileo was struggling against the church to publish his account of the observable universe and it just so happens that Galileo's account ran counter to the innerent text of the Bible.

So in DaveWorld, suddenly means at least 450 years. Glad we got that straight.

Anyone want to pony up another example to stretch Dave's meaning of suddenly?

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Uh, Dave...why didn't you KNOW about the avaris dates BEFORE you claimed they supported exodus? That's the REAL question.

Uh ... no. The REAL question is what makes you so sure of your dates? What case can you present to disassociate this find with the events described in Exodus? I told you I'm open to hear it.

Radiometrics, Dave. Carbon dates and Thermoluminescence and seriation on pottery as well.

The entire Tell El-Da'ba complex is nicely dated, and you'll also find that the epidemic burials are not "all over" Avaris, but found in the east and central parts.

Now that I have answered you... why did you use that Avaris burial material without knowing the dates, Dave? Credulity? Stupidity? Which?

By the way, Dave...since you have asked spin for his credentials, I'd like to know what classes you have taken on archaeology , ever. How many books about archaeological method and theory have you read? What's your expertise in this area, Dave?

BWAHAHAHA. Poseur.

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Why not just address the evidence given in the OP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Confirmation from archaeology of events in the Bible means that the naturalistic events in the Bible are accurate. No, it doesn't prove that the supernatural events described are ALSO accurate. The reason I believe that the supernatural events are true is because I have first examined the Bible as a whole -- the historicity of the non-supernatural events, the fulfilled prophecies, the accurate portrayal of mankind, etc., and concluded that the BIBLE ITSELF IS SUPERNATURAL. Thus, there is strong likelihood that the supernatural events described really happened. Do you see? The chain of logic is very important.

Ok, as evidence you used 1) the historicity of the non-supernatural events, 2) the fulfilled prophecies, 3) the accurate portrayal of mankind, and 4) etc. Regarding item 1, there is nothing at all unusual about the writers of religous texts recording secular events that occur where they live. This has been pointed out to fundamentalist Christians by skeptics many times regarding the secular history in the book of Acts. Regarding item 2, I am not aware of any credible evidence that one single Bible prophecy was inspired by God. If God wanted to prove to everyone that he can predict the future, it would be easy for him to show up in person and do so. His refusal to do so certainly does not benefit him or anyone else. At any rate, you are not making any sense regarding prophecy. Secular archaeology does not reasonably prove that supernaturally inspired prophecy is true. If supernaturally inspired prophecy is true, that alone would be sufficient evidence for many people, including me, that the rest of the Bible is true, meaning partly that if you can reasonably prove that prophecy is true, you would not need to discuss archaeology or anything else. Regarding item 3, if you are portraying men as sinners, I agree that every man makes mistakes, but what is your point? Who ever said that making mistakes is sufficient grounds for sending people to hell for eternity without parole, especially if you deprive some people of having evidence that they would accept if they were aware of it? If a God exists, he needlessly withholds evidence that would convince some people to accept him if they were aware of it. What evidence do you have that God is not a sinner. He supposedly inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that? Since God refused to give food to hundreds of thousands of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, it is not likely that God inspired James to tell people to do that which he refuses to do. Regarding item 4, will you please tell us what kinds of evidence you mean by "etc"?

Johnny ... You raise many good issues ... I will have to deal with prophecy and the other items on a different thread ... This thread is about refuting skeptics who say the events in Exodus have no support from archaeology ...

They are wrong. Scholars have been looking in the wrong dynasty because of Champollion's mistake which has caused the Conventional Chronology to be out by several centuries.

What part of this do you not agree with? Do you not see how misreading the name ring was a key mistake?

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

This thread is about refuting skeptics who say the events in Exodus have no support from archaeology ...

They are wrong. Scholars have been looking in the wrong dynasty because of Champollion's mistake which has caused the Conventional Chronology to be out by several centuries.

I think Deadman's question is relevant if you're going to make such authoritatively categorical statements about scholars being "wrong".

Quote:

since you have asked spin for his credentials, I'd like to know what classes you have taken on archaeology , ever. How many books about archaeological method and theory have you read? What's your expertise in this area, Dave?

What's your basis for lecturing the rest of us with such confidence? We know you're fond of preaching about how all biologists are wrong, without ever having read a single book by a single non-creationist biologist, and fond of preaching about how all geologists are wrong, without ever having read a single book by a single non-creationist geologist... have you ever read a single book on archeology that's not deemed fringe nonsense by mainstream archeologists?

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 12:44 PM

The evidence you gave FOR events in the exodus is non-existent, Dave. At best all you have done is offer claims that Semites might have been in Egypt.

The Avaris burials are not support for anything in Exodus until you show it and you have failed miserably

I like that

VoxRat's point above is well-reasoned, Dave...all you are is a parrot, a ventriliquist's dummy for the ramblings of Rohl and any other nutter you happen to select as supporting your preconceptions

YOU personally Know nothing about archaeology, and I have seen that many times.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2007, 12:44 PM	#60
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	The evidence you gave FOR events in the exodus is non-existent, Dave. At best all you have done is offer claims that Semites might have been in Egypt. The Avaris burials are not support for anything in Exodus until you show it and you have failed miserably I like that VoxRat's point above is well-reasoned, Dave...all you are is a parrot, a ventriliquist's dummy for the ramblings of Rohl and any other nutter you happen to select as supporting your preconceptions YOU personally Know nothing about archaeology, and I have seen that many times.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.