Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 01-07-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha'man

Don't get distracted by mdd's blindness. Archeology has two complementary statements about the Exodus. The first statement is that there is absolutely no evidence that it happened, and such evidence should be trivially easy to find given todays techniques.

But mdd desperately wants to ignore the second, and more important statement: the evidence we do have shows that the Exodus is utterly impossible, it paints a historical picture that completely rules out the possibility of an Exodus as described in the OT.

They couldn't have left Egypt in the 13th century to settle in Canaan because we know they never arrived in Canaan (at least not in mass, or as conquerers). There can be no exodus of Hebrews in the 13th century BCE because the Hebrews didn't exist in that century, the monotheistic worship of YHWH was born from native residents of Canaan centuries later.

Hi, Asha'man.

Yes. I read your post earlier. I was attempting to stay focused on the fact that we have a specific claim of the Bible that has been unequivocally discarded by archaeologists, based upon the "argument from silence" that is too loud to ignore. Sauron made a terrific analogy, I thought, of how the "argument from silence" can be quite valid reasoning.

Quote:

Given a conflict between the Bible and reality, reality always wins.

You're just showing your bias.

d

Isolde · 01-07-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha'man

Given a conflict between the Bible and reality, reality always wins.

<channeling Stephen Colbert> Reality has a well-known atheist bias!

I just wanted to thank you all for sticking it out this long. It's been a fascinating discussion, and I've learned a lot.

The Evil One · 01-07-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isolde

I just wanted to thank you all for sticking it out this long. It's been a fascinating discussion, and I've learned a lot..

A useful reminder that while the person on the other end of the debate might not actually take any notice of your points, someone else almost certainly will.

rlogan · 01-07-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha'man

But mdd desperately wants to ignore the second, and more important statement: the evidence we do have shows that the Exodus is utterly impossible, it paints a historical picture that completely rules out the possibility of an Exodus as described in the OT.

They couldn't have left Egypt in the 13th century to settle in Canaan because we know they never arrived in Canaan (at least not in mass, or as conquerers). There can be no exodus of Hebrews in the 13th century BCE because the Hebrews didn't exist in that century, the monotheistic worship of YHWH was born from native residents of Canaan centuries later.

mdd passed over my post from earlier today, and I'll bet he will continue to ignore my point. He cannot address it, because it destroys his world view utterly. The OT is contradicted, conclusively, by reality in the form of the archaeological evidence that we do have. (Not to mention that it's utterly destroyed again and again by astronomical, biological, and geological evidence).

It's a studious ignoring of what he cannot contend with.

We have archaeological sites up here from 12,000 years ago where a dozen or fewer nomadic Alaska Natives camped occasionally.

It's a pretty awesome level of dishonesty to deny two things simultaneously - the existing archaeological record of continuity in the Caananites, along with the claim that a record of millions is just waiting to be found that will vacate the Caananite record we acutally have.

It's like expecting Juilius Caesar to vanish from history as soon as we find evidence for the easter bunny.

Pwnz0r3dBySatan · 01-07-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

In no other walk of life do I encounter anyone who claims "there is no evidence of X, therefore X must be true." Just apologists. No evidence of Israelites in Egypt? 2.5 million, you say? In a specific area? Not a scrap of evidence? They must have been there!

No body in the tomb? No evidence there even was a "Jesus" in the first place? The empty tomb proves he existed, was crucified, and he arose!

That's like me saying, "No dogfood in the house? No leash? No poop in the back yard? No barking? No whining? No hair on the furniture? You must have a dog!"

No evidence? No problem!

d

I'm only posting to let you know that I have just fallen in love with you and I'll probably be taking measures in the near future to make you my wife. Please carry on with the discussion, don't mind me.

gdeering · 01-07-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

It's a studious ignoring of what he cannot contend with.

It's a pretty awesome level of dishonesty to deny two things simultaneously - the existing archaeological record of continuity in the Caananites, along with the claim that a record of millions is just waiting to be found that will vacate the Caananite record we actually have.

But he can tell you one bit of history, he can trace his pastoral lineage to 29 a.d......

Back to the observation deck.

Gregg

Jack the Bodiless · 01-08-2007, 03:05 AM

mdd344:

I note that you have completely ignored my point about the Genesis Flood being disproved by ancient Egyptian records.

This is not an argument from silence: it's exactly the opposite. If Ancient Egypt HAD been destroyed by the Flood, there SHOULD have been "silence": but there wasn't. Nobody noticed, and life continued as usual.

Despite what you may have been told, the genealogies DO allow us to date the Flood. And according to the Masoretic (the Septuagint differs), this happened right in the middle of Egypt's "Old Kingdom" period, when the Pyramids were being built.

Of course, there is also abundant evidence that directly contradicts the Genesis creation story too. And yet I note with interest that, despite your tendency to sprinkle brief snippets of creationist falsehood throughout your responses, you have actually posted only once in the "Evolution/Creation" forum (and that was a single sentence posted yesterday). The only other posts you have in that forum were on a thread which was started elsewhere and then moved there by an administrator: whereupon you apparently abandoned it.

Previous thread on dating the Flood: Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood?

hatsoff · 01-08-2007, 06:04 AM

He has completely ignored a lot of points in favor of nonsensical drivel. I think Sauron was right<edit>, after all. The alternative seems even worse at this point.

diana · 01-08-2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

He has completely ignored a lot of points in favor of nonsensical drivel. I think Sauron was right: He seems to be intentionally dishonest, after all. The alternative seems even worse at this point.

What's the alternative?

d

Kosh · 01-08-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

He has completely ignored a lot of points in favor of nonsensical drivel. I think Sauron was right: He seems to be intentionally dishonest, after all. The alternative seems even worse at this point.

I think scariest part of it all is... people look up to this guy as a leader and follow him, rely on him for guidance, advice, etc.

Baaaaaaahhhhhhh

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

01-08-2007, 03:05 AM	#407
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	mdd344: I note that you have completely ignored my point about the Genesis Flood being disproved by ancient Egyptian records. This is not an argument from silence: it's exactly the opposite. If Ancient Egypt HAD been destroyed by the Flood, there SHOULD have been "silence": but there wasn't. Nobody noticed, and life continued as usual. Despite what you may have been told, the genealogies DO allow us to date the Flood. And according to the Masoretic (the Septuagint differs), this happened right in the middle of Egypt's "Old Kingdom" period, when the Pyramids were being built. Of course, there is also abundant evidence that directly contradicts the Genesis creation story too. And yet I note with interest that, despite your tendency to sprinkle brief snippets of creationist falsehood throughout your responses, you have actually posted only once in the "Evolution/Creation" forum (and that was a single sentence posted yesterday). The only other posts you have in that forum were on a thread which was started elsewhere and then moved there by an administrator: whereupon you apparently abandoned it. Previous thread on dating the Flood: Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood?

01-08-2007, 06:04 AM	#408
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	He has completely ignored a lot of points in favor of nonsensical drivel. I think Sauron was right<edit>, after all. The alternative seems even worse at this point.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.