Doctor X

hope's female progeny:

With all due respect, I needed the laugh:

Incidentally, it is not "the Red Sea" but the "sea of reeds" or "sea of destruction." Furthermore:

Tee! Hee!

Right, anyways, I would recommend you avail yourself of the sources suggested previously to avoid, frankly, appearing foolish. You do not have to agree with them or posters here, but at least you would know about what you write.

Now,

Confession of Faith aside then I am sure you can respond to the Five Choices? [No!! Stop him!--Ed.]

Right . . . I will not hijack this into another rendition of what unjust suffering indicates about deities, though, to quote the judge, you opened the door for the question with your assertion.

Nevertheless, to return to the topic--Exodus--I reiterate the suggestion you avail yourself of Archaeology and the Bible--linked in the Recommended Reading above. It is not a "biased towards one side" work.

--J.D.

Soul Invictus

reprise's sentiments better explain what i was trying to articulate...

Originally posted by reprise

You are claiming that the Bible - apart from being God's word, in your opinion - documents historical events. What people are asking you is on what basis you make that claim. Specifically, for which events documented in the Bible is there corroborative evidence. If such evidence does not exist, then on what basis do you accept that the Bible is a reliable historical record (whether or not it's God's word is utterly irrelevant to the question of the Bible's - or, for that matter, the Qu'ran's - historical accuracy)?

reprise

It is kind of turning into a train wreck. Pity, because it's an interesting topic to discuss if you discount the irrelevant crap which is littered throughout the thread.

reprise

Unfortunately, hope's daughter, you'll come across a lot of books and websites which state as "fact" things which are simply not true. Sometimes, the authors of those books have been lazy and simply quoted stuff as being true because they read it somewhere else. Sometimes information is quoted horribly out of context.

No-one said that verifying information is easy. It can take a great deal of time to go through a bibliography and read the referenced research - and then read any relevant work on which THAT research was based. I'm sure that you would agree - however - when the credibility of a work such as the Bible is being challenged on the basis of its historical inaccuracy, those claiming it to be something other than a work of fiction need to get working on providing evidence which is easily verifiable.

Celsus

This is a complete nonanswer. The basic premise of the Ramesses stele(?) is that it makes a connection with the 'Apiru, thus verifying the early existence of the similar sounding Hebrews in Egypt. Lemche's review should be enough to discredit that claim but I can quote more for you if you like. Here are some more comments by Lemche on the Ramesses stele:

• According to Exod 1:11, the cities of Pithom and Rameses are equally important. This is difficult to establish because the reference to a city called Pithom seems completely inconsistent with information from Egypt during the last part of the second millenium B.C.E. Pithom first appears as a city name around the Saite period (not before the seventh century B.C.E.). . . . Furthermore, the excavations at the Tell el-Maskhuta yield no data regarding Pithom's existence during the reign of Ramesses II or any other pharoah from the 19th or 20th Dynasties. The earliest evidence comes from the reign of Pharaoh Neo during the 26th Dynasty (ca. 609-607 B.C.E.0. Again we find ourselves at the inevitable crossroads--the unhistorical report in Exod 1:11 of the Israelites in Pithom. Consequently, we must conclude that the information contained in that verse is anachronistic. Pithom (and the biblical report) arises no sooner than the Saite period. Perhaps during that time, Neco incarcerated and employed Israelites (or Judeans) as prisoners of war during the campaign of 609 B.C.E. (during which, Judah's king, Josiah, died in battle). . . .
  
  Ultimately, a rock-solid historical milieu for Exod 1:11 remains tantalizingly elusive. The records discussed above support several conflicting dates for an Israelite presence in Egypt from as early as the thirteenth century B.C.E. [still a little late for a biblical Exodus] to as late as the seventh century B.C.E. In either case, these details were added to the existing story line to validate and add credibility to the literary description of Israel's sojourn in Egypt.
  
  pp. 55-6

So you have to do the following in order to convince anyone here:

1. Establish the entymological connection between the Egyptian nomenclature 'Apiru with the Hebrews.
2. Establish that the Ramesses inscription fits the correct time period for the Exodus (through a discussion of the terminus pro quem and ante quem).
3. Establish that the cities mentioned in Exodus 1:11 have evidential support in the 19th or 20th Dynasties for their very existence, let alone their construction by Hebrews (thus removing the charge of anachronism against the verse).
4. Stop citing video tapes as evidence.

The rest of your post about Romanian clergy and Communist imprisonment is a fine example of the ad hominem fallacy. I suggest you forget that as it has no bearing on the discussion.

Joel

hope's daughter

Joel,

I have no idea of what you have just said. Can you explain it to me in simple language?

reprise

hope's daughter, I get the feeling that you might not have paid much attention to the BC&H forum description and recommended reading list.

Doctor X

Indeed.

hope's daughter:

I generally do not like the "read this 4300 page tome and then you will agree with me" line of argument, but if you tread into a sophisticated subject, you have to have done some of your homework. It would be akin to me stating "Einstein sucks!" on a physics page having only just realize that heat is not caused by an odorless, colorless, weighless liquid called "calor."

You have not only been admonished thusly, you have been directed to some basic texts which would answer your questions.

Otherrwise, frankly, you descend to the ranks of troll--a brotherhood that really does not need additional members.

This does not mean you "should not post." It simply means you should exercise more care in making wild statements when you really have not considered the evidence.

--J.D.

reprise

In hope's daughter's defence, she might not have realised that Infidels provides specific fora for different levels of discussion and that this particular one uses the term "criticism" in the academic sense of the word.

hope's daughter, I don't participate in this forum because I simply don't have the professional or academic background necessary to join the level of discussion which takes place here.

I enjoy reading the discussions which occur in BC&H and learning about the more complex issues involved and asking relevant questions, but for the most part I'm an observer in relation to BC&H and only post here when I think someone isn't really understanding what is being asked of them - as was the case when I posted to you in this thread.

hope's daughter

And sometimes so do some posters. Sorry the temptation was too much for me