Amaleq13

That is not automatically true. It depends on how much such evidence would be expected. With regard to the Exodus, the number of people and amount of wandering time described requires the existence of plentiful evidence supporting such a massive event of prolonged duration. IOW, that many people wandering around for that long simply must leave physical evidence behind but there is none.

That no such evidence exists is extremely problematic for anyone wishing to assert the claim.

robto

A couple of points here. For one, the fact that evidence exists does not mean that we have found it. There could be evidence still buried in the sands of Sinai, and no one has looked in the right place. Analogously, for many years there was no evidence of intermediate forms in the evolution of whales, which are required by the theory of evolution. Scientists didn't take this absence of evidence as disproof of evolution. (Tho others may have. Eventually, of course, intermediate forms WERE found. )

For another, there actually IS plenty of evidence of nomadic herders in southern Palestine in the required period. Redford (see my earlier post for reference) actually traces the origins of the Israelites to one such group, the Shasu. This is at least consistent with the idea of a period of "wandering in the wilderness" before settling down in Palestine. (I should point out that Redford doesn't make the connection that I am making.)

Rubyred asked I think it's more useful to point to definite archeological finds to answer such a question, rather than the absence of such. That's all I'm saying.

Amaleq13

Then the claim can be made when this alleged evidence is found but not before. As it stands, it is entirely reasonable to deny the event because none of the expected evidence has been found.

This is essentially an argument from silence and that means the argument is only as strong as the expectation of supporting evidence. IMO, the expectation is quite strong for the existence of physical evidence given the described nature of the event.

This is not analogous because there was ample evidence for evolution, in general, as well as the specific evidence of vestigial limbs in whale fossils to warrant the assumption.

Agreed but not in the numbers described and there is nothing to identify any given tribe as having fled slavery in Egypt. IOW, none of this evidence actually supports the story.

Sauron

Actually it does, if the claimed event in question has traceable consequences or after-effects.

Assume you claim that there is an elephant in your bedroom. But strangely, there is no evidence of it - no crushed carpet, smashed furniture, trumpeting noise, range smell, elephant dung, etc.

Then to make matters worse, every time someone asks about the discrepancy, your only response is "It's really there, just look harder" or "God is testing you"; well, I think you get the point.

Yes, I have the book. I even considered the camel issue as a possible response to the original poster. The problem, however, is that this particular claim may not be correct, Redford notwithstanding.

Britannica reports the first domestication of dromedary camels as earlier, much earlier:

These “ships of the desert� have long been valued as pack or saddle animals, andthey are also exploited for milk, meat, wool, or hides. The dromedary was domesticated c. 2000–1300 BC in Arabia, the Bactrian camel by 2500 BC in northern Iran and northeast Afghanistan. Most of today's 13 million domesticated dromedaries are in India and the Horn of Africa.

And in Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond, the first reported date is 2500 BC (on page 167).

Since Abraham is usually dated to 2000 BC, both these respected sources place domestication within that timeframe. So given the wide disparities here, I don't normally include the "camel question" on the list of biblical mistakes. It might be a mistake; but it's just too unclear at the moment.

Sauron

From The Bible Unearthed, by Finkelstein and Silberman:
That is not analogous at all, however.

1. There existed strong indications from other lines of evolutionary research that pointed toward whale evolution as a fact. However, there are no alternate lines of evidence supporting the Exodus claim;

2. There was evidence for intermediate forms in many other organisms and creatures besides whales. So unless you wanted to propose that evolution only happened to *some* organisms, but not to others, then the assumption that whales evolved, just as fish or horses did, conforms to the evidence, instead of contradicting it.

3. Whale fossils are not like archaeological evidence for the Exodus. With the Exodus claim, we know *exactly* what we should be finding, and we know *exactly* where it ought to be buried at. With whale fossils, that isn't quite true.

But not in the time period in question, in the Sinai. If you check pages 272-273 of Redford, you'll see that he identifies six lands of the Shasu: they are all east of the Suez and well into the Moab/Ammon area. Nomadic trading might have taken them to *Egypt*, but not to Sinai.

Also see Finkelstein & Silberman above, on the question of finding traces of nomads. The problem is that there are none for the time period in question (i.e., the supposed Exodus) at the required locations.

In addition, the Exodus story is preceded by the enslavement in Egypt, and the flight out of Egypt -- events for which no such proof exists, either.

freemonkey

I don't know.... is that what I'm saying....? I think I'm most concerned with the more gruesome OT stories and God's questionable actions toward his creations moreso than the "food rules".

This is why I've been asking. In listening to interviews and conversations with "average" American Christians I'm feeling as though they don't know, don't care to know and barely think about their own religion much beyond what they learned as kids in Sunday School, or what they're taught in Thursday evening Bible class. It seems many focus on the feelgood stuff or their pet ideas (a lot of them not even in the bible ), while seemingly unaware of the ugly stuff. I'm asking these questions because I'm curious to know if that's true, generally.

I want to know if someone, somewhere said: "That was the old way, this is the new way. Forget about the OT, that god is gone, Jesus is the new god." But that can't be, because the 10 C's, creation & flood stories, and the like are a huge part of Christianity. No?

CJD

No. And it is promoted in two ways.

1. First, google "Marcion". He is a good example of someone who did this explicitly. At various intersections throughout ecclesiastical history, some thinkers have followed his lead, but they are by far in the minority.

2. The second way is far more prevalent and far more implicit. A great many modern evangelicals, for example, could care less about the Hebrew Bible, treating it as entirely irrelevant to their lives. It is one thing to not have access to it (as many early western Christians probably did not), but it is another thing entirely when most of these homes have about three different versions on their shelves. My question to them is, why go on and buy into the NT? The Jesus depicted there is just an extension of YHWH: demanding, subversive, 'insensitive' to self-absorbed sensibilities, yet quick to forgive.

CJD

guy_683930

CJD-

You can buy that if you want to, but you have to ignore the contradictions inherit between the two.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2
Deuteronomy 4:2
Matthew 5:31-32
Both of them cannot be right. Maybe Marcion was right after all.

CJD

I have no respect for the limp-wristed 'tolerance' peddled by us westerners, which is where I gather your seeing these elements as 'contradictions' comes in. 'Tolerance' is the respecting of real, hard differences, not the accepting of every view. I, for one, won't succumb to such drivel, since I have respect for myself and you too. And I won't undermine that respect by capitulating to the mindset that being critical and demanding and convicted is somehow antithetical to reconciliation.

Incidentally, you forgot about Matt. 19:7–9: Upon hearing Jesus say "let not man separate" (19:6), the teachers of the law thought they might trap him with Moses (just as you think you did above). But the greater teacher simply points out that the Deuteronomic code was not giving justification for divorce; rather, it made provisions in the event of divorce.

Your desire to not go beyond the mere ripping of proof texts from one book and juxtaposing them with another, like Marcion's, is wrong-headed.

CJD

guy_683930

CJD-

You are correct in that Jesus uses Matt. 19:7-9 to justify his teachings on divorce, but it is based on reading into the past, even then. Suppose Moses actually did give the law (which I doubt) and that some of it was based on the people's hard-heartedness. Why would he give a commandment that says that nothing could be added to or removed from the law?

However, you forget all the other times when Jesus contradicts the law, like for example in Mark 2:23-28:

This is a violation of the Sabbath (cf. Exodus 20:8-10), but the basis of this story comes from 1 Samuel 21:1-6. The interesting thing about this story is that Ahimelech is the high priest, not Abiathar, and also David comes alone in the story. Also, the only potential violation of the law in 1 Samuel would have been if the men had engaged in sexual activity. So, unless Jesus was referring to an apocryphal tale, there are serious contradictions, not just minor ones, and reconciliation as you refer to it merely resorts to exceptionalism and ignoring what are still considered laws by Jews today. So, either Jesus is guilty of violating the sabbath, or removing rules from the torah. This by itself would eliminate the basis for the doctrine of substitutional atonement, which required a sinless individual based on the rules of the torah.

CJD, I can tell you are uncomfortable with this line of discussion, based on your agitated comments. You would prefer to ignore contradictions, especially when they are about Jesus.

Also, I don't think it's wrong-headed of me to bring this up, because it brings up an important concept: EVOLUTION. People's concept of God evolved over the centuries from something like a divine king with a divine council (like El and Asherah and the divine council) to a more trancendental view of God (with Plato, Heraclitus, Zarathustra, etc.). Because of this evolution, contradictions are almost inevitable. You can ignore them and dust them under the table using ad hominem attacks or ad baculum attacks, or you can consider them and realize that the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are at odds on some issues, some of them being key issues.