Bede

Vinnie, I meant that the idea of a smaller Exodus was hard to disprove not the Genesis myths.

But to answer your question, how much proof is required depends on one's axioms which are not usually logical but can be empirical. Our atheist friends here have there own mythologies, the hagiography of science for instance, and will need a great deal of proof to belief something that goes against them. Likewise, theists have axioms.

Put it this way, if someone said that 750 witches were burnt in one day in Munich in 1476 I would need a great deal of evidence (manuscript references for a start) as that conflicts with a good deal of what I think I know. Your standard headbanger on these boards would simply swallow such a story whole and repeat it to all and sundry as an example of Christian depravity. (Note to headbangers - I just made the story up). Likewise the Exodus: to some the numbers and time of the story make it highly improbable. To others, it is practically axiomatic.

We can all agree on pink unicorns but there are many things on which we don't. I find nothing intrinsically unlikely about a slave revolt settling in Judea and passing its stories on to the locals with which they in bred. As explanantions for the story it is as good as any.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Bobzammel

Perhaps the biggest problem in my mind is the problems with the OT and the NT. The references to the OT in the NT are mainly misunderstandings by the writers of what the OT phrases actually meant. For instance, many of the prophecies stated to be filled by Jesus were either not prophecies at all, or were fufilled--mainly by Jewish kings. Then there are a bunch of attempts to justify the abolishment of the Law, which fall flat when introduced.

Some even use some of the prophecies of Isiah and others to justify wars against other countries. A vague mention of "Gog and Magog" has led to distrust of Russians by many Christians, for instance.

Vinnie

I was responding to Celcus' post, not yours but I'll comment on it now.

Basically, theists are inclined to accept the miraculous accounts and stories in their specific Holy Book (e.g. God delivering his people from slavery aka the Exodus from Egypt) while atheists who lack belief in God's existence will obviously not accept these stories.

As one who thinks miracles are possible I have no inherent reason to assume God did or did not act according to the description in Exodus. But that text alone is simply not enough evidence that the account happened as described. There may be a solid base behind it like you describe: "I find nothing intrinsically unlikely about a slave revolt settling in Judea and passing its stories on to the locals with which they in bred. As explanantions for the story it is as good as any. " But this does not mean that a sea neccessarily parted by the hand of God, or that God decided to kill a bunch of children for their father's sins (which goes directly against some other verses that spring to mind) or for his own glory/kingdom spreading (the notion of God killing children for his own glory is quite disturbing!) or that the numbers are accurate historical descriptions.

Its axiomatically true to conservative inerrancy advocates but there are numerous problems with that hermeneutic and the Exodus account itself present us with one. I think the large numbers rule out that the event happened exactly as described in the Biblical accounts. Though not an argument it does say something that even the conservative-evangelical NIV Study notes point out this problem along with showing knowledge of the lack of anything remotely close to an adequate resolution of it. Though it certainly is possible that the story is based upon a slave revolt. With my worldview I even find it possible that God "could" have miraculously delivered his people from a situation like this. Do I believe he did? No. The OT book Exodus does not constiutute solid enough evidence for me.

My point in response to Celsus was largely about the burden of proof. Celsus said "Pretty much all of the OT up till 1 Kings is completely unverifiable (but also impossible to prove it didn't happen since you can't prove negatives)." If the text is unverifiable then there is no reason for anyone to prove a negative. If there are no positive reasons for belief then agnosticism on the issue is warranted. Generally, the burden of proof falls on pro-Exodus advocates here. Especially if the Biblical text is all that we have. If there is no positive evidence for belief then there is no reason for discussing it. I have no more reason to try to refute an unverifiable story in an ancient text than I do the existence of invisible elephants. Though I agree with your earlier sentiments: "Instead we have to say "the bible is the only evidence we have for this" which won't exactly be a killer point for a fundie. It is a fallacy to claim that when the bible disagreed with another ancient source the bible must be wrong - all sources have mistakes, biases etc. "

The question becomes, how much of the book of Exodus can we know with certainty is historically accurate? When was it written and how long after the alleged events? Was it altered or redacted over time? Which person(s) authored it? Where was it written at? Is anything in there with "double or multiple attestation" by outside sources?

It doesn't work for me to say, "As a whole the Bible is historically accurate so it should be given presumption." Aside from the fact that I'd dispute that statement itself, I think we have to look at indivudual books. A person may think that Mark may be on the whole somewhat accurate and present a rough draft of the HJ but that does not mean that the Gospel of John does. The alleged "canonical dimension" of the Bible does not apply here in this discussion. And that the account should be granted presumption because it "history written by God" is highly problematic.

The large numbers make the account as described problematic, others would argue the timing and lack of archaeological evidence (though a smaller Exodus might explain the lack of archaeological evidence). Many of the skeptics here would dispute the "miraculous nature" of the account. But could a slave revolt that settled in Judea be the cause of this story? As you say its not intrinsically unlikely. To me its not intrinsically unlikely that God could have played a role in and event like thatthat, but to an atheist it would be. All in all, I think its safe to conclude that history did not occur exactly as the Exodus account describes it.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Though not my strongest "logical argument" the final plague is probably my strongest reason for rejecting the Exodus account. My modern sense of morality finds it disturbing and revolting.

Glenn Miller's paper not withstanding, the "plain meaning" of the final verses in chapter 11 says enough: The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you-so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country." The context is (vv. 4-6) : "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again."

Miller "could" be correct that God hardening the heart can be an idiom meaning that God "let it occur". "God is said to have done because he permitted it to be done". I'm not a hebrew scholar so I don't know but Miller certainly didn't cover this point in depth so the case is certainly not shut. But despite that and his other comments, none of them or anything in that paper circumvents the problem of God murdering innocent children in this situation. Maybe Miller forgot to hit that problem there???

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html

Even if we accept Miller's positive view of the account that "God just coordinated this judgment with the good-hearted deliverance of two million people from oppressive slavery!" I see no reason for the innocent children to have needed to die.

I'd gladly accept the title "headbanger" on this one from theists. I'm not willing to compromise and accept the totally uneccessary murdering of innocent children. If God actually did this, Her and I would have to part ways. I think this is where the atheists and Christians see things most differently. The conservatives will blindly accept moral attrocities like these because their hermenuetic grants the text historical presumption. Usually their hermeneutic is framed in the context of all or nothing and that is unfortunate as it forces them to accept morally revolting notions or reject God/their faith in their mind. They of course will make attempts to try to explain away these attrocities. Unfortunately all we see are "apologizing" pat answers (e.g. Miller's noble but failed attempt).

Of some relevance the killing seems to be supported by the "plain meaning" of Dt 5:9, Ex 20:5, 34:7, Nu 14:18, "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation . "

I find the logic of Dt 24:16 much more convincing: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. " Of course I don't use the conservative hermenuetic so proof-text hunting verses like this doesn't work too well for me.

Vinnie

Dr Rick

You'll find a wealth of Biblical absurdities and contradictions catalogued at this link.

Rick

Vinnie

Hmm, on second thought I don't remember if Exodus mentions any numbers in regards to how many left Egypt. Numbers gives figures for the desert wanderings I believe. If Exodus doesn't give any numbers I would obviously have to modify some of my comments above slightly but I'm not going through them now. Either way its problematic for the conservative standpoint and the historicity of the Exodus as described would be no more historically certain if the Exodus account contained a total lack of numbers (I made a pun! Woot!).

Vinnie

Vinnie

Sorry for all the posting. Exodus does include a a partial count. Verse 12:37: "The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children."

Vinnie

thebeast

Three false claims.

1: Noah's ark is found on top of mount Ararat. Satellite pictures call it the Ararat anomaly. That kinda throws a monkey wrench on that hare brain claim.

Now second hare brain claim: Exodus.

The actual Mt.Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, surrounded by barbed wire, and guarded by muslims. The mount has been fully documented, and found to have all the elements as described in the bible, including a large split rock with a dry river bed flowing from it. Altar, stone markers, and the most interesting feature is that the top of the mountain is actually charred. The whole top of the mountain is charred...

The third claim: is absolute nonsense. There are over 17,000 texts of the new testament dated from early church era. All of which are practically identical, with some having minor discrepancies.

Radcliffe Emerson

Incorrect. All of those 17,000 copies of NT manuscripts, paypri, etc are FRAGMENTS, not complete manuscripts, and there are several discrepancies.

thebeast

False.

You're talking about the dead sea scrolls, these are fragments, but the original new testament texts are complete for the most part, with some of them in fragments.

One of the usual pagan vomit is that the bible is innacurate and corrupt, to use an islamaniacal idiom. But that is a lie, a bald face lie, that bald face liars have no problems with, parroting their idiocy shamelessly. No the bible is not corrupt, and every word in it is accurate. In fact, the bible is the most accurately transmitted document on the face of the earth, with a multitude of historical documents that attest to the exactitude of todays text. Old Hebrew literal bibles are available with Strong's dictionaries for those who seek to gain better understanding of dark passages.

But that wouldn't stop the bible haters from hating it, or accepting it, or reviling it, because truth is not what scum are looking for, they're looking for excuses to hate and to murder, and that's as good an excuse as any.