Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cege · 10-06-2007, 09:32 AM

Millions of people wandering in the desert for 40 years without food and water has certainly not be confirmed by archaeology. Only biblical magic/miracles could sustain that many for that long, and the Exodus story has to provide magically supplied food and water.

What archaeological findings confirm the manna-from-heaven food and water supply the Jews would have required for such a biblically described exodus?

Roger Pearse · 10-06-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Thanks for the warning, Roger, but I think you'd be best to present it to afdave since he's the inerrantist, not me.

Nothing that I wrote has any bearing on inerrancy, in fact.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic · 10-06-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerPearse

This is not a safe argument as it relies on the proposition that a very large number such as 600,000 in a text of that date is intended to convey what such a number would today, rather than "12 lots of 5 groups of 'many'". In view of the dual use of the word 'myriad' even today -- meaning either 'lots' or '10,000' -- this is unsound.

Likewise it relies on the idea that numerals are transmitted without error from texts of that period. This would be a bold presumption, in my humble opinion.

As a rule it is unsafe to argue from numbers in this way. The arguments all make one look naive.

In your opinion, did God cause the Ten Plagues?

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 10:18 AM

The archaeology of Avaris (Tell El-Da'ba) has it's own website -- http://www.auaris.at/html/history_en.html The burials Rohl refers to as
"hurriedly" deposited were simply mass graves with no "hurry" evident except tossing them in unceremoniously.

The deaths themselves are described as the result of an epidemic, possibly tularemia. If Davey wishes to claim this evidence of a Biblical Plague, then one may fairly ask why other mass graves of the period are not found, since a localized small-scale epidemic in the upper delta region of the Nile -- is not evidence of one attacking Egypt broadly.

Trevisanato, Siro I. 2004. Did an epidemic of tularemia in Ancient Egypt affect the course of world history? Medical Hypotheses 63(5)905-910

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Why not just address the evidence given in the OP?

What evidence, secular evidence, or supernatural evidence? There is a difference you know. How does ordinary secular history help you? If a man named Moses existed, so what? It is not his existence that matters most, but what he accomplished, and how he accomplished what he accomplished. Even if the Egyptians enslaved the Jews for hundreds of years, and let them go, you cannot reasonably prove that they let the Jews go because the plagues occured. If God did not have anything to do with why the Egyptians let the Jews go, all that we have is a secular historical event. If you ask why the Egyptians would have let the Jews go, I will tell you that I do not know, and I will ask you why God would have allowed the Jews to be enslaved by the Egyptians for hundreds of years, and hundreds of other questions why God does what he does.

It is interesting to note that even though God promised Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan, there is not any historical evidence that Jews have ever occupied all of the land of Canaan. They certainly don't today.

If God really wants people to believe that the Bible is true, it is quite odd that he withholds lots of evidence that would convince more people to believe that it is true, unless he does not exist. Logically, the latter possibility is more probable than the former possibility. If there are not any reasonable motives why God does what he does, it is probable that he has not done what the Bible says that he has done. It is a ridiculous notion that God would want to reveal and conceal evidence at the same time. Withholding useful evidence could not possibly benefit God or anyone else.

Confirmation from archaeology of events in the Bible mean that the naturalistic events in the Bible are accurate. No, it doesn't prove that the supernatural events described are ALSO accurate. The reason I believe that the supernatural events are true is because I have first examined the Bible as a whole -- the historicity of the non-supernatural events, the fulfilled prophecies, the accurate portrayal of mankind, etc., and concluded that the BIBLE ITSELF IS SUPERNATURAL. Thus, there is strong likelihood that the supernatural events described really happened. Do you see? The chain of logic is very important.

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

I have first examined the Bible as a whole -- the historicity of the non-supernatural events, the fulfilled prophecies, the accurate portrayal of mankind, etc., and concluded that the BIBLE ITSELF IS SUPERNATURAL.

And when the archaeology doesn't fit, or prophecies are shown to be false, and radiometric data shows claims to be false....you ignore that in favor of your preconceived "conclusion"

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 10:33 AM

By the way, Dave, the Avaris dates on the burials are at around 1715 BC
This doesn't seem to fit your schedule for the lifetime of Moses.

Now ignore the dating methods in favor of your conclusions again.

spin · 10-06-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What evidence, secular evidence, or supernatural evidence? There is a difference you know. How does ordinary secular history help you? If a man named Moses existed, so what? It is not his existence that matters most, but what he accomplished, and how he accomplished what he accomplished. Even if the Egyptians enslaved the Jews for hundreds of years, and let them go, you cannot reasonably prove that they let the Jews go because the plagues occured. If God did not have anything to do with why the Egyptians let the Jews go, all that we have is a secular historical event. If you ask why the Egyptians would have let the Jews go, I will tell you that I do not know, and I will ask you why God would have allowed the Jews to be enslaved by the Egyptians for hundreds of years, and hundreds of other questions why God does what he does.

It is interesting to note that even though God promised Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan, there is not any historical evidence that Jews have ever occupied all of the land of Canaan. They certainly don't today.

If God really wants people to believe that the Bible is true, it is quite odd that he withholds lots of evidence that would convince more people to believe that it is true, unless he does not exist. Logically, the latter possibility is more probable than the former possibility. If there are not any reasonable motives why God does what he does, it is probable that he has not done what the Bible says that he has done. It is a ridiculous notion that God would want to reveal and conceal evidence at the same time. Withholding useful evidence could not possibly benefit God or anyone else.

Confirmation from archaeology of events in the Bible mean that the naturalistic events in the Bible are accurate.

It is endemic of your lack of knowledge of the materials you need to understand that you cite David Rohl as somehow representative of anything related to scholarship.

If you don't agree with that assessment, then please challenge me to a formal debate on the validity of Rohl's chronological endeavors. Show us all what you can really do.

While you're at it, you may as well criticize the world's leading expert on the Third Intermediate Period Kenneth Kitchen's dismissal of Rohl's work as "98% rubbish".

I will show that these assumptions have no basis in reality:

* Conventional Egyptian Chronology is out by several hundred years
* This is because of an assumption by Egyptologists that Shoshenk I = the Biblical Shishak
* But this is wrong as shown by the map below and my articles linked above
* The assumption is based upon an ERROR by Champollion, the Father of Egyptology, and has never been questioned until Rohl

Modern Egyptian chronology simply isn't based on the biblical connection with Shoshenq I whatsoever, but Rohl's audience doesn't know anything about scholarship and is willing to believe him as they were willing to believe Velikovski a few decades earlier.

Kitchen has demonstrated a chronological continuation throughout the Third Intermediate Period which you will need to fault. Rohl on the other hand works by not dealing with all the information and by massive amounts of conjecture and poor linguistics.

So afdave, if you really know that Rohl is correct, let's tango. Otherwise admit that he is just a tour leader trying through his literary efforts to make an extra buck out of a bunch of willing shills.

spin

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 10:49 AM

Kings I, 6:1 puts the Exodus at 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple (about 960-970 B.C.).

This estimation would therefore put the Exodus at roughly 1440 B.C. or so, Davey.

Now how does that match up with the Avaris burial dates of 1715 BC, Dave? Not so good, eh?

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 10:49 AM

Spin ...

Quote:

If you don't agree with that assessment, then please challenge me to a formal debate on the validity of Rohl's chronological endeavors. Show us all what you can really do.

Hmmm ... interesting. Tell me a little about your background ... education, current work, etc.

Also, may I ask ... do you agree with Rohl's identification of Champollion's mistake discussed inthe OP?

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

10-06-2007, 09:32 AM	#31
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	Millions of people wandering in the desert for 40 years without food and water has certainly not be confirmed by archaeology. Only biblical magic/miracles could sustain that many for that long, and the Exodus story has to provide magically supplied food and water. What archaeological findings confirm the manna-from-heaven food and water supply the Jews would have required for such a biblically described exodus?

10-06-2007, 10:18 AM	#34
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	The archaeology of Avaris (Tell El-Da'ba) has it's own website -- http://www.auaris.at/html/history_en.html The burials Rohl refers to as "hurriedly" deposited were simply mass graves with no "hurry" evident except tossing them in unceremoniously. The deaths themselves are described as the result of an epidemic, possibly tularemia. If Davey wishes to claim this evidence of a Biblical Plague, then one may fairly ask why other mass graves of the period are not found, since a localized small-scale epidemic in the upper delta region of the Nile -- is not evidence of one attacking Egypt broadly. Trevisanato, Siro I. 2004. Did an epidemic of tularemia in Ancient Egypt affect the course of world history? Medical Hypotheses 63(5)905-910

10-06-2007, 10:33 AM	#37
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	By the way, Dave, the Avaris dates on the burials are at around 1715 BC This doesn't seem to fit your schedule for the lifetime of Moses. Now ignore the dating methods in favor of your conclusions again.

10-06-2007, 10:49 AM	#39
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Kings I, 6:1 puts the Exodus at 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple (about 960-970 B.C.). This estimation would therefore put the Exodus at roughly 1440 B.C. or so, Davey. Now how does that match up with the Avaris burial dates of 1715 BC, Dave? Not so good, eh?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.