Freethought & Rationalism Archive

vsop44 · 07-06-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Taking the supernatural out of the story makes the accounts much more difficult to reconcile. Of course atheists will have a hard time believing anything in the Bible, because they take out the main ingredient that makes everything work...God. :wave:

Yeah. Same thing with the fairy tales , take the fairy and her magic wand out, and Cinderella is stuck forever in her kitchen , being the maid to her 2 stepsisters .

DanBZ · 07-06-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

I would not assume that they would want to record such an event. Did they not mainly (perhaps only) record their victories (or at least spin things as victories)?

Let's say that the Exodus did happen. Then we shoudl expect to find certain things, such as Egyptian records of having Israelite slaves, records of the plagues, etc. However, not all of that is humiliating to the Egyptians. For example, if these events are true, we should expect to find records of the Egyptians HAVING Israelite slaves, even if they cover up the plagues.

And if the plagues did happen, the Egyptians would have either had a famine or would have had to import food from other countries (the plagues killed the animals and the crops). If there was a famine and the economy collapsed, there would be other evidence besides writings (such as mass graves). If the Egyptians bought crops and animals from other countries, those other countries would have written about it. The fact that none of these things exist (records of having Hebrew slaves, evidence of a famine, or records from other countries of mass agricultural exports to Egypt) is pretty strong evidence that the Exodus did not happen.

Haran · 07-06-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanBZ

The fact that none of these things exist (records of having Hebrew slaves, evidence of a famine, or records from other countries of mass agricultural exports to Egypt) is pretty strong evidence that the Exodus did not happen.

Lack of good evidence from 3500 years ago is not the same as strong evidence that the Exodus did not happen. As I mentioned earlier about Israel, I would imagine the same goes for Egypt though I have never visited. Who knows what we will discover in the future.

There are Egyptian reliefs portraying semitic peoples (some could be Hebrew). There is also the Merneptah stele. Who knows what else is out there. I am not particularly well versed in Egyptology, so I do not know what evidence may possibly exist.

Finally, If the numbers were smaller than represented in the texts today, the event may not have been as spectacular to the Egyptians as it was to the Hebrews.

Details in the accounts make me believe that they are historical.

Haran · 07-06-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

You might want to try actually reading Finkelstein and Silverman. It's difficult to explain an entire book in just a few post.

The book does not explain the problem well.

Go ahead and just try to explain it...

Ever hear of Occam's Razor??

Haran · 07-06-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsop44

Yeah. Same thing with the fairy tales , take the fairy and her magic wand out, and Cinderella is stuck forever in her kitchen , being the maid to her 2 stepsisters .

Something some atheists miss in all of this is that the Bible claims to be a revelation from a God. Fairy tales are intended as fiction and we know it. There an entire world of difference.

Clivedurdle · 07-06-2006, 01:54 PM

God was feeding everyone on manna - no need for animals, seeds, cooking utensils and there were no human wastes! The fire by night kept them warm so no camp fires or dwellings required!

Or

Quote:

Amazon.com's Best of 2001
The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah." Yet the authors deny that their arguments should be construed as compromising the Bible's power. Only in the 18th century--"when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life"--did readers begin to view the Bible as a source of empirically verifiable history. For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community." --Michael Joseph Gross

(I knew I had got the idea of the Historical Jesus being an enlightenment concept from somewhere!)

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Sven · 07-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

The book does not explain the problem well.

Does this mean you have read it? From cover to cover?

Quote:

Go ahead and just try to explain it...

Ever hear of Occam's Razor??

I wonder if there's a veteran poster here who has not.

And Occam's razor tells me that people inventing stories and embroidering them over several hundreds of years is far more likely than miracles which leave no shred of evidence.

Sven · 07-06-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Something some atheists miss in all of this is that the Bible claims to be a revelation from a God.

Where, please?

You could also address the fact that the bible claims we do know right from wrong - see my post above.

Quote:

Fairy tales are intended as fiction and we know it. There an entire world of difference.

So adding the claim that the story is true to a fairy tale somehow makes it more believable?

Johnny Skeptic · 07-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Fairy tales are intended as fiction and we know it. There an entire world of difference.

Well, as I showed in my post #26, which you did not reply to even though I replied to your post, if all of the evidence were exactly the same, except that it promised to send everyone to hell, out of your own self-interest, you would surely believe that it was a fairy tale, or at the very least you would hope that the evidence was not true.

All that you are after is a comfortable eternal life, and you don't really care who provides it to you. Your self-interest does not really require that God be omnipotent, omnipresent, or perfect, just nice.

Clivedurdle · 07-06-2006, 02:17 PM

Researchers are even now trying to recreate manna - apart from not creating human wastes, it also healed all aches and pains and no one died, no blisters for walking all that distance!

Kraft foods and Pizza Hut intend to keep the recipe secret as it would destroy hospitals, farming and markets worldwide.

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

07-06-2006, 02:17 PM	#50
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Researchers are even now trying to recreate manna - apart from not creating human wastes, it also healed all aches and pains and no one died, no blisters for walking all that distance! Kraft foods and Pizza Hut intend to keep the recipe secret as it would destroy hospitals, farming and markets worldwide.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.