Freethought & Rationalism Archive

driver8 · 10-29-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

As for things like Jesus walking on the water, the 10 plagues, etc. we have no visible effect from which to infer possible causes. All we have is a written report. But we can evaluate the likelihood of the author being reliable and this we do.

Since this thread is not really providing any illumination on the subject matter, a small derail seems acceptable. I'll play.

Since you brought up walking on water, let's see what the author (in this case Mark) has to say:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/r...1&byte=4697892

Quote:

[45] Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while he dismissed the crowd.
[46] And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray.
[47] And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land.
[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;
[50] for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[51] And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded,
[52] for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
[53] And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennes'aret, and moored to the shore.
[54] And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized him,
[55] and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.
[56] And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

So, let's evaluate the "reliability of the author" based on these passages. Firstly, this author is unidentified, is presumed to not have been an eyewitness, and makes no claims to ever having known an eyewitness. With these qualifications, he makes statements that (1) he knows jesus' intent to go alone and pray, (2) he knows what jesus, being alone, was able to see, at some time between evening and the fourth watch of the night, across the distance of the Sea of Galilee, (3) jesus saw this and decided to come to them, though his concern was such that he waited until the fourth watch of the night, (4) he claims to know jesus' intent to pass them by (jesus here sounds both conflicted and inept) even though he was spotted, (5) the disciples, close confidants, did not recognize him and were afraid (who did they expect?), and (6) he gets in the boat and stops the wind in order to rescue them (I guess they were in a row boat?).

Now, I'll ignore the term "fourth watch of the night" as a colloquilism. Regardless if they were sailing or rowing at night across such a large body of water, everyone on the boat would have been awake and engaged in crossing the lake, especially if they were battling a headwind. If you've ever sailed you'll know that you can always reach your destination even sailing into the wind. Lack of wind is the killer, so we should presume they were rowing across the Sea of Galilee at night at the instruction of jesus. I know better than to start out on a journey like that, why doesn't jesus?

You give this story as an example of an author being reliable. I would give this story as an example of myth-making, and poorly done at that. How does the author know jesus' intent? If jesus could see them from a distance, why would he have to make the trip across the water to check up on them? Was it to impress upon them his divinity? If so, why does the author say his intent was not to be noticed? If his intent WAS not to be noticed, why was he observed? If his solution was to stop the wind from blowing, why did he have to do it from the boat instead of the shore where it is claimed he witnessed this event? None of this adds up. And then of course the story concludes with the hordes recognizing the miracle healer, as if these supposed hordes also represent some kind of testimony.

This story is nothing more than a fabrication of a so-called supernatural event. Do you really believe this fairy tale? THIS is the basis for the walking-on-water powers of the miracle man jesus? I'm surprised there aren't claims of flying through the air. That would have been much more impressive in my opinion.

Lugubert · 10-29-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

4) The abrupt end of the 13th Dynasty (Dudimose) followed by foreign occupation ... exactly what we would expect if Dudimose's entire army was destroyed as recorded in Exodus

What is the exact source? Velikovskii?

Spin, please make a "Please swallow any fluids currently in your mouth before reading" warning before a comment like that.

Quote:

7) Evidence that Egyptians had horses confirming the Exodus account of Egyptian chariots (some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses)

It is an anachronism. Horses were introduced by the Hyksos. (And horses are evidence of an Indo-European component amongst the Hyksos.) Besides the Hyksos the first truly Egyptian users of horses were the 18th dynasty and they needed Mitanni experts as there was not a local tradition of horse use.

That's the first time I've seen this take on Kikkuli's treatise. Much appreciated!

azidhak · 10-29-2007, 11:00 AM

The only Exodus confirmed is the one from IIDB.

gregor · 10-29-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Spin, I don't know enough details of Rohl's claims to defend him formally. . .

Did I read this statement earlier, only to see AllFibDave again tell someone to read and rely on Rohl??

Surely that didn't just happen.

Dave Hawkins · 10-29-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

7) Evidence that Egyptians had horses confirming the Exodus account of Egyptian chariots (some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses)

Sorry. Should have added "at that time" ... i.e. "some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses at that time."

VoxRat · 10-29-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

7) Evidence that Egyptians had horses confirming the Exodus account of Egyptian chariots (some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses)

Sorry. Should have added "at that time" ... i.e. "some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses at that time."

Who are "some", and what time are they talking about?

Pappy Jack · 10-29-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

....SOME archaeological evidence for the events of Exodus includes ...

1) Egyptian chronology being out by several centuries thanks to a mistake by Champollion, perpetuated uncritically by people like Kitchen
2) Evidence of many things we would expect to find once we begin looking in the right time period, such as ...
3) Large numbers of Hebrew slaves
4) The abrupt end of the 13th Dynasty (Dudimose) followed by foreign occupation ... exactly what we would expect if Dudimose's entire army was destroyed as recorded in Exodus
5) Evidence of mass burials at the end of Dudimose's reign (10th plague?)
6) Manetho's statement about a "blast of God" during the reign of Dudimose
7) Evidence that Egyptians had horses confirming the Exodus account of Egyptian chariots (some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses)
8) Corroboration of Artapanus' statement that Moses was born in the reign of a pharoah called Khaneferre ... Rohl's New Chronology DOES place a ruler called Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV at the time of Moses' birth as determined from Thiele. This is the ONLY king named Khaneferre throughout the whole of pharaonic civilization. (Rohl, p. 283)
9) Evidence for the palace and cult statue of the Vizier Joseph

I'm sure there is much more. We just need more scholars to look in the right time period.

Read Rohl, Lucretius. You'll learn some interesting things.

Dave, you have dealt with none of the serious points that have already been raised concerning the questionable, debatable or simply erroneous nature of your listed 'evidence'. Simply ignoring these points and reposting your 'evidence' as if that in some way makes it irrefutable in no way enhances either your credibility or the value of that evidence. Either address the points that have been raised or admit that you can't.

BTW, regarding point (8), if you think this is credible confirming evidence for Exodus, PMWIFOMCL.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-29-2007, 05:56 PM

Dave still doesn't get it. If he cannot reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, all that he has to discuss is ordinary secular history.

Pappy Jack · 10-30-2007, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Dave still doesn't get it. If he cannot reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, all that he has to discuss is ordinary secular history.

Proof? JS, I'd settle for some mildly persuasive evidence that the plagues may have occurred. For instance, there are records of famines as far back as the Third Dynasty reign of Djoser, but the ten plagues of the much later period of Exodus were left unremarked.

Lucretius · 10-30-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Having re-read this thread I see that Dave's "archaeological evidence" of the Exodus still seems to consist of :-

"In the past some people lived in Egypt ,there were some slaves who may or may not have been Semitic in origin,some people died and were buried in a mass grave,Exodus was written about in a book "
Not ONE of these actually says anything at all about the Exodus.

Following that line of logic I can now show "archaeological evidence" that King Arthur existed :-
"In the Middle Ages some people lived in England,there were some knights who wore armour,some of them were killed in battle and the Knights of the Round Table were written about in a book"

No. SOME archaeological evidence for the events of Exodus includes ...

1) Egyptian chronology being out by several centuries thanks to a mistake by Champollion, perpetuated uncritically by people like Kitchen
2) Evidence of many things we would expect to find once we begin looking in the right time period, such as ...
3) Large numbers of Hebrew slaves
4) The abrupt end of the 13th Dynasty (Dudimose) followed by foreign occupation ... exactly what we would expect if Dudimose's entire army was destroyed as recorded in Exodus
5) Evidence of mass burials at the end of Dudimose's reign (10th plague?)
6) Manetho's statement about a "blast of God" during the reign of Dudimose
7) Evidence that Egyptians had horses confirming the Exodus account of Egyptian chariots (some have said Exodus is fictional because Egypt didn't have horses)
8) Corroboration of Artapanus' statement that Moses was born in the reign of a pharoah called Khaneferre ... Rohl's New Chronology DOES place a ruler called Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV at the time of Moses' birth as determined from Thiele. This is the ONLY king named Khaneferre throughout the whole of pharaonic civilization. (Rohl, p. 283)
9) Evidence for the palace and cult statue of the Vizier Joseph

I'm sure there is much more. We just need more scholars to look in the right time period.

Read Rohl, Lucretius. You'll learn some interesting things.

Dave with the exception of your "new claim" about horses(Number 7 in your list) all of these have been dealt with in previous posts both by me and others IN DETAIL ,perhaps if just for once you actually read and actually THOUGHT about other people's posts you would see exactly how we have completley destroyed this specious argument, that "archaeology has proven Exodus".
Simply repeating your previously demolished claims does not make them any more true this time around .
You have signally failed to provide any evidence at all that stands up to even minor scrutiny ,but as usual seem to be so "Anti scholarship "that you will accept any crackpot's ideas so long as they attack "secular science or history",which you somehow see as an attack on your beliefs .
WE have the evidence that the secular science and secular history is correct, you have NOTHING

Just as Walt Browns nonsensical Hydroplate wild idea is wrong scientifically, so Rohls "revised" (for revised read completely messed up, unverified & "unhistoric") chronology is wrong historically
How can I say this in a way you may understand :-

DAVE THEY ARE NONSENSE THAT'S WHY NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIST/HISTORIAN ACCEPTS THEM AS TRUE, NOT SOME VAST CONSPIRACY

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

10-29-2007, 11:00 AM	#273
azidhak Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 818	The only Exodus confirmed is the one from IIDB.

10-29-2007, 05:56 PM	#278
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Dave still doesn't get it. If he cannot reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, all that he has to discuss is ordinary secular history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.