Sparrow

Sadly, many of us are too familiar with that notion.

Your juxtaposition of the real/not real with the claim of a false dichotomy was what irked me. Unless you're positing some new definition of 'not', real/not real is a valid dichotomy. The extant evidence might lead you and I to conclude differently among these two choices. Perhaps you meant that from the evidence available, a number (greater than two) of plausible scenarios could be envisioned. It would be a logical fallacy to choose two of them and force a choice among only those two.

Again, two individuals might examine the available evidence and reach differing conclusions. JohnTheApostate merely used obvious (to him) contradictions in Gmatt to realize he needed to reassess the rest of the document more critically. Perhaps Gmatt alone was enough evidence for him to conclude neither Jesus nor gods exist. Perhaps there was additional evidence he needed. YMMV

There's still the problem, both for the exodus story and historical Jesus, of there being little or no supporting evidence external to the documents controlled by the primary claimants, evidence we would expect to see and don't. Wait, I know! maybe those years Jesus spent wandering in the desert he was really out there vacuuming up the piles of shit from the exodus. Although it would have been a big job, maybe he could get his dad to help.

yummyfur

Bob Brier (not Bryer) is not an expert in the Bible's historicity, he is an "egyptologist" which is a not very meaningfull and largely self-appointed title. his Doctorate is in Philosophy, while an admirable degree, it's not really one that gives you the requisite skills in archeology and history to be a decent expert on the historical accuracy of the Bible. All his books are non-academic press, and I would call them popular history, not a bad thing, but I can't find any scholarly academic books by the guy. While he is probably quite knowlegable about ancient Egypt and he seems to have some expertise on mummies, this is hardly relevant to anything.

Amenhirkhepeshef is considered the oldest son of Ramses II, the remains of what might be this son, were discovered recently, the skull was bashed in, a not unexpected form of death for someone who served as his father's main general. I'm not sure how this is consistent with a divinely imposed death.

There is absolutly no certainty this is Amenhirkhepeshef skull, it is merely educated speculation, because KV 5 served as a large tomb complex for the 96 year old Rameses II sons, many of the 50 or so he had, he outlived. The skeletal remains of four persons were found in a pit in the main part of the entrance to the complex(not a proper burial chamber), and it is thought that these were dragged by looters to get nearer to the light, and then dropped the scavanged bodies in this pit. All three skulls show strong facial similarities to Ramses II mummy, but that is hardly that meaningfull in a tomb that is clearly filled with Ramses II offspring. Also Canopic jars from Mery-Atum as well as Amenhirkhepeshef were found in the pit as well.

The excavation of KV 5 are still at the early stages, it is premature to say anything with any certainty, especially since it is not clear yet how many of Ramses II sons were buried in the complex.

Asha'man

The skull was bashed in? Wow, it must be a miracle! We all know that only the Holy Ghost is capable of bashing in skulls, and only if you don't mark your doorway with blood. What an amazingly capable being this Holy Ghost must be.

Asha'man

I'm glad you enjoyed that one, but I can't claim it's mine originally. It's remembered from another posting on II somewhere.

The logistical arguments against the Exodus are all very interesting, and floating around here somewhere. Trying to keep 2 million people alive in a desert is amazingly difficult. (That’s why they don’t live there normally) If you think the shit is an issue, look at how much water people need. Now imagine the line of people waiting to drink at an oasis out in the desert. (Assuming one existed, and had enough water flow to provide for the crowd) If each person spends 30 seconds at the oasis drinking a day’s worth of water, and then immediately gets in the back of the line again, it will be 1.9 years before he gets back to the front of the line to drink again.

You can also look at the famous crossing of the Red (Reed) Sea. How long would it take for 2 million people to cross a 6 mile long lakebed? I can’t find the original posting, so I’m going to just throw some generous numbers out. The most efficient infantry unit in the ancient world was the Roman Legion, which typically had 5-6000 men, and was capable of marching about 10 miles a day. A single legion formation was around 2,000 yards wide and 220 yards deep.

Now here is where it gets fun. The Israelites were commanded to leave Egypt in orderly ranks. (Ex 13:18). Lets assume that they packed themselves in a very efficient manner, matching the Roman Legions, and could move amazingly fast, also matching the Legions. 2 million people then form a column that is over 44 miles long. It would take about 5 days for the guys in the back to get across (assuming nobody slipped in the mud). I’m amazed that Pharaoh’s chariots had such a problem catching these guys…

Oh, did I forget to add in livestock into the marching column? Maybe we need to double the length of the column just for that…

Asha'man

You seem to have a problem understanding big numbers. The exodus is supposed to be 2 million people. Do you realize that the City of Atlanta isn’t that big? (It’s bigger than that once you add in the suburbs, however.) We have water shortages every summer, and we live in a temperate climate with a river running through the middle of the city!

As for dinosaur dung, again, it’s a problem of numbers. Do you have any idea how long 65+ million years is? Australia could have become a tropical rainforest a dozen times in that amount of time, drying out to parched desert in between. And do you know what happens to dung in most areas of the world? Topsoil. Look around, do you see any topsoil near where you live? Do you see any plants growing in the topsoil?

The real point of the shit example, which you utterly missed, is that large events invariably produce a measurable impact on the surrounding environment. If you are going to claim that a large event occurred, you need to be able to point to at least one example of such an impact. If you can’t point to one, then your claim is unsupported. Logically, unsupported claims should be rejected.

You also continue to ignore the positive evidence that no significant cultural shift occurred during the supposed conquest of Canaan.

Before you make any more claims of us ignoring logic or coming to biased conclusions, I strongly recommend some deep introspection.

Anat

Also, consider that these wanderers supposedly spent some 38 of the 40 years in Kadesh Barnea, waiting for the generation that had come out of Egypt to die out. Well, Kadesh Barnea was found to be a 7th century BCE city (from the days of king Manasseh, who expanded Judah's settled area to the south). No signs of an early encampment, no graves of all those hundreds of thousands.

Chris Weimer

Colombo - one question I see that you dodged the entire time: where's your proof?

Columbo

Can you quote where it says that - I'm not being an ass, I just can't remember it saying it. Or can you provide just the chapter and verse. Again, just for my knowledge, thanks.

I see my points have basically been ignored, so I shall refrain from postages. I don't know why you put me on your ignore list PLP, but as can be seen - I can't possibly answer all these posts without someone from my own side helping. It's atleast three against one constantly and I haven't the time to post to everyone.

johntheapostate

The extrapolation of 2 million people is quite reasonable considering Exodus 12:37 " there were about six hundred thousand men on foot besides women and children"

johntheapostate

I certainly do not envy the position that you find yourself in, debating us heathens all by yourself. I don't mean this as an insult but you seem to be having difficulty defending the Bible partly because you seem to be less informed about its contents than we are.

I would like to post something that I wrote for a different forum. The tone of it may appear a little antagonistic, but originally it was not written as a reply to anything you have posted. So don't take offense to it.

I just want you to have a glimpse into the mind of a believer who has renounced his faith. the passages in the post are the ones which shattered my rather naive notion that god had taken precautions to ensure that his revelation was immune to the compromise of its integrity by all the people who's hands it passed before it became the Bible

I would like to show you how the meaning of a text and the doctrine that it conveys can be profoundly altered at the hand of people who are not afraid to alter a word or two here and there. Here is the post.

2 Samuel 24:1 " Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and he incited David against them saying Go and take a census of Israel and Judah"

1 Chronicles 21:1 " Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel"

Both stories are the same, practically word for word. But in one god is the instigator and in the other satan is. It would be very easy to deduce from the plain reading of the texts that the Bible indicates that god and satan are in fact the same entity.

Of course if you come across a Christian who is familiar with the apologetics for these verses, you will be informed that they simply mean that satan works under the authority of god, which in itself is quite something for most Christians to admit to, but is based on the presupposition by the believer that god could not satan and and not by a clear interpretation of the text.

The fact of the matter is that the first and original text as recorded in the book of Samuel dates from a time when The Jews had not yet adopted a belief in an evil opposing entity for god

But when such a belief was adopted, probably from outside cultures, the idea that god would be the instigator of some behavior which he later punishes by killing 70 000 Israelites became an embarrassment for the theologians of the day and they simply substituted satan in gods place

And by the way taking a census was a legitimate practice according to the Law of Moses.

Exodus 30:13 "Then the Lord said to Moses, When you take a census of the Israelites to count them,each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them"

God must have suppressed this knowledge as well as incited David to take the census. And though it seems that he gives David a choice of punishments for taking the census, it is interesting to note that David picks the plague, which is also the exact thing that the book of Exodus names as the affliction for taking a census and not collecting the ransom.

There is one other thing that is changed in the two stories, and that is the price David payed for the piece of land which eventually became the site of the Temple.

2 Samuel 24:24 " So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them"

1 Chronicles 21:25 " So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site."


Although David originally only sacrificed oxen on the site it later became the site for the temple. I suppose the paltry sum paid by David in the book of Samuel became an embarrassment as the price goes from about a quarter pound of silver to fifteen pounds of gold.