Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 12-17-2007, 10:50 AM

Perhaps we should allow Dever to speak for himself?

I took this from the Google.Books which does not allow cut and paste but one can take a screen shot and host it. From 2001's "What Did the Bible Writers Know....." this book is actually more "conservative" than 2003's "Who Were the Early Israelites...." (Dever has a thing for long titles!). In any case, even here, there will be little comfort for conservatives.

You may have to zoom in on the picture depending on your eye-sight.

Hex · 12-17-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch_labrat

Back to the topic:

Is there any hard corroborated evidence for the exodus story? I don’t care for Amazon reviews as much as I care for peer reviewed research (I am weird that way) or just plain facts that I can see, check and understand.

What have you got?

Me, I've got nothing.

So far as I have been able to research in the archaeological evidence, there is NO corroborating evidence for the Biblical account.

Does that help?

Dutch_labrat · 12-17-2007, 12:44 PM

Yes it does.

Thanks

Solitary Man · 12-17-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Perhaps we should allow Dever to speak for himself?

I took this from the Google.Books which does not allow cut and paste but one can take a screen shot and host it. From 2001's "What Did the Bible Writers Know....." this book is actually more "conservative" than 2003's "Who Were the Early Israelites...." (Dever has a thing for long titles!). In any case, even here, there will be little comfort for conservatives.

Oops. Wrong book. Looks like I need to read. In any case, I already pointed out in an earlier book that Sheshonq deemed to label a distraction that Dever disagreed with the Israelites in Egypt hypothesis.

Robert Byers · 12-17-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

The criticisms of why the bible is wrong on exodus was not my point.
I was saying the bible is a witness in good standinmg

No, it isn't. There are too many historical, archaeological and scientific mistakes in it.

Incorrect. The reliability of the witness must first be demonstrated by those who are putting it forth as a witness - people like you.

You have the burden of proof exactly backwards.

Also incorrect. Armies tend to use things made of bronze or iron, which doesn't decay. Instead of making stuff up off the top of your head, maybe you should spend a few hours reading a basic archaeology textbook?

A population of 2.5 million people living in a desert for 40 years - how hard do you have to think, before you can come up with "what evidence there would be"?

Quote:

Where the jews traveled is in dispute by Christian scholars as place names have changed so much.
Rob Byers

Also wrong.

No your wrong.
Anyone offering themselves as a witness is already in good standing. You can disbelieve and question them but the witness does not need to prove themselves before giving their account. I don't need to prove i'm reliable before telling someone their car is being broke into.

There have been so many armies and yet few battles or camps relatively have been found. Any number of reasons can be invoked for why old setlements aren't obvious.
Rob bYers

Robert Byers · 12-17-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

A question related to the Exodus - How large is the Sinai desert, or at least the strip that the Israelites are written to have walked around in?

Quote:

Robert Byers wrote: If your going to question the truth content of the bible you must first accept it as a witness in good standing. Then you may attack.You guys are trying to say the bible starts out as unreliable and we must first establish why it has any merit as a witness.

Isn't that exactly what happened? The Bible was treated just like that in the first place - accepting it as a witness in good standing, for about 1800 years. After more and more archeological and historical evidence was found that contradicted the Bible's account of history, it was found to not be as reliable as had been held to. The witness in good standing was shown he had not been in such good standing. This has started to point to the conclusion that the Bible has less merit as a witness than previously thought.

Or is God just continually erasing all kinds of historical records for all the claims that can only be believed if one believed that God said/did them? Why is this such a common recurrence with all faith-based stories in the Bible? Doesn't that just hint at something?

No evidence has ever been found to persuade someone the bibles not true.
By definition all(almost) historical evidence relies on interpretation of data.
Any "evidence" brought up can be dealt with by Christians in this or that field.
Don't say there is this and that evidence. Just show your top three killer points. Let the results speak for themselves.
Rob byers

spin · 12-17-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Anyone offering themselves as a witness is already in good standing. You can disbelieve and question them but the witness does not need to prove themselves before giving their account. I don't need to prove i'm reliable before telling someone their car is being broke into.

Sorry, as I pointed out earlier a lawyer can't just put up anyone on the stand. S/he has to validate the witness. No witness is simply of good standing. A judge will rule to the validity of a witness, or lack thereof. One of the indicators is whether the witness can be shown to have actually been there at the time of what they are to witness on. If you were a defendant, you'd want witnesses to be validated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

There have been so many armies and yet few battles or camps relatively have been found.

And who have gone out looking for them? The amount of active searching for exodus remains has been enormous and the result is zilch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Any number of reasons can be invoked for why old setlements aren't obvious.

Have a look at the amount of archaeological exploration that has taken place, then tell us of a number of these "[a]ny number of reasons".

spin

spin · 12-17-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

No evidence has ever been found to persuade someone the bibles not true.

Just to unpack this, it seems to contain the notion that the bible is a single unit and all of it has to be true. This means although say 90% can be verified (for argument's sake), if 10% is wrong then the bible's not true. If that is representative of the idea, then it's pretty strange.

The general claim is obviously false, for I'm sure there are a number of people on this forum who were actually christians, who have been persuaded that there is in fact material in the bible which is not true. But then, "[n]o evidence has ever been found to persuade someone" who is committed to a position that the position is not true. Commitment closes the door to objectivity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

By definition all(almost) historical evidence relies on interpretation of data.
Any "evidence" brought up can be dealt with by Christians in this or that field.

People are good at sweeping evidence under the carpet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Don't say there is this and that evidence. Just show your top three killer points. Let the results speak for themselves.

This will only take us away from Israel in Egypt. Why don't you start a new thread and make a challenge?

spin

Minimalist · 12-17-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

No evidence has ever been found to persuade someone the bibles not true.

No evidence has been found that any of it ever happened. Which, coinicdentally, is exactly what archaeologist Eric Cline stated last night in a show on the Exodus. Not a single shred of evidence exists which proves that there were ever Israelite slaves in Egypt. Not a single shred of evidence has been found in Sinai to indicate that that masses of people camped there during some trek. Evidence has been found to show that many of the sites named in the so-called Conquest narratives were not even occupied during the Late Bronze Age, Ai and Jericho being among the foremost examples. As Dever said about Jericho, "the real miracle is that 'Joshua' conquered a city that wasn't even there."

The whole thing is a later concoction.

Doug Shaver · 12-17-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Anyone offering themselves as a witness is already in good standing.

I had a question about that that you haven't answered yet. Let me recap our conversation up to the point where you left it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

It [The Bible] is a legitamate witness until proven otherwise to what it accounts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Is that true of all books or just the Bible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

until proven otherwise they are a witness in good standing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Suppose I'm looking at a book that tells of certain events that occurred during the American Civil War. What sort of evidence do you think would constitute proof that it was not a legitimate witness to those events?

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

12-17-2007, 10:50 AM	#81
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Perhaps we should allow Dever to speak for himself? I took this from the Google.Books which does not allow cut and paste but one can take a screen shot and host it. From 2001's "What Did the Bible Writers Know....." this book is actually more "conservative" than 2003's "Who Were the Early Israelites...." (Dever has a thing for long titles!). In any case, even here, there will be little comfort for conservatives. You may have to zoom in on the picture depending on your eye-sight.

12-17-2007, 12:44 PM	#83
Dutch_labrat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Leiden, The Netherlands Posts: 970	Yes it does. Thanks

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.