My Ten Tribes Challenge

[Tom 1]

What's going on here?

Therein lies the root of these endless rambling threads…you dodge anything that might get you beyond them. What’s going on, my point, the point, is that you mistakenly take the book of exodus to be a book of literal, historical, fact, full of numbers and other facts and figures intended to be taken as literal facts. Your reason for this, when you give it, amounts to ‘just because’.

If you have any interest in addressing this misunderstanding of yours, about the nature of the text, that leads you to waste so much of your valuable time on these specious challenges, you could start with the questions raised before, to whit (I know you like these fancy phrases) who, when, why vis-à-vis the writing of said book.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have any interest in addressing this misunderstanding of yours, about the nature of the text, that leads you to waste so much of your valuable time on these specious challenges, you could start with the questions raised before, to whit (I know you like these fancy phrases) who, when, why vis-à-vis writing of said book.

If you haven't done it, why should I?

 

[Tom 1]

If you haven't done it, why should I?

AV - what is the point? You never answer a straight question, I’ve never once caught you exhibiting something like an honest curiosity for the truth of a matter (although it’s true I haven’t read all of your threads), and yet you continue to churn out these pointless, circular challenges. Is there any point to them other than to try and confirm some notion you already have? If you are completely unwilling to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, then why bother?

 

[Kylie]

If science says there was no Exodus, and the Bible devotes a whole book to the Exodus, what am I misunderstanding?

The evidence from reality that shows that there was no Exodus.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If science says there was no Exodus, and the Bible devotes a whole book to the Exodus, what am I misunderstanding?

The role of allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever you mean by ‘things’ in the post of yours I replied to, where you say you ‘reject things’.

If science says there was no Exodus, and the Bible devotes a whole book to the Exodus, what am I misunderstanding?

The evidence from reality that shows that there was no Exodus.

What evidence exactly? and be specific please, because I don't think there is any evidence I'm misunderstanding.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

What should we see? a tent? a toothbrush? a skeleton? a shovel? pop can? Bic pen?

What exactly?

 

[AV1611VET]

The role of allegory.

So scientists went out onto the Sinai Peninsula to look for an allegorical story?

Or did they overlook the role of allegory in the Bible as well?

Is this how science works?

Go look for something, and if they can't find it, claim it was an allegory?

That saves face, doesn't it?

That way they don't have to admit they didn't find anything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So scientists went out onto the Sinai Peninsula to look for an allegorical story?

Or did they overlook the role of allegory in the Bible as well?

Is this how science works?

Go look for something, and if they can't find it, claim it was an allegory?

That saves face, doesn't it?

That way they don't have to admit they didn't find anything.

In the early days of the State of Israel, some Israeli archeologists took seriously (they weren't the first) the ancient story of the origin of their people -- a mass exodus from Egypt and invasion of Canaan -- and used modern archeological methods (developed in the early--mid 20th century) to examine those claims.

They did comprehensive surveys of the Sinai and found lots of stuff, but did not find what they expected to find from the story given in Exodus. The conquest of Canaan was trickier, because there are ancient cities that fell at various times, but ultimately they are not evidence of a conquest. Additionally, Egyptian history and archeology do not provide any matches on that end. From a rational examination, the story -- as written in Exodus -- did not happen. It was either a much smaller (probably quicker) exodus or it never happened at all.

The scientists didn't investigate allegory, they investigated a historical claim scientifically and left allegory to the literary scholars. I wish you had the slightest clue how science works, but alas, you can only see scientific examination (and similar scholarly work in history, etc.) as confirmation of pre-existing biases. The reality is that the core of the scientific method is to *fight* against that natural human tendency. Unfortunately, religion works the opposite way where confirming dogma is considered a good thing. It is this aspect in which science and religion are opposites, not in what they know, but how they address discovery of knowledge and imperfection of knowledge. [NB: I fully expect this to be clipped out of context for dogmatic reasons. Sigh.]

 

[AV1611VET]

In the early days of the State of Israel, some Israeli archeologists took seriously (they weren't the first) the ancient story of the origin of their people -- a mass exodus from Egypt and invasion of Canaan -- and used modern archeological methods (developed in the early--mid 20th century) to examine those claims.

Okay.

Now we're halfway to the mid 21st century, and archaeological equipment has been updated significantly (I assume).

How about getting out there and looking again?

You just MIGHT find something.

But then, your whole infrastructure will come crumbling down, won't it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Okay.

Now we're halfway to the mid 21st century, and archaeological equipment has been updated significantly (I assume).

How about getting out there and looking again?

You just MIGHT find something.

But then, your whole infrastructure will come crumbling down, won't it?

This is a slightly different version of the "dogma miscomprehension" response than I anticipated, but it is very similar.

Here's the problem you're having understanding my position, AV:

I DON'T **NEED** the exodus story to be false. (or true)

My position is based on the evidence as examined by trained professionals in the appropriate fields. If they said "Yes, 2 M Israelites left Egypt in the time of Pharaoh X", I would be satisfied. If they said there was an exodus, but it was only 1/5 the size given in the Torah, I would also be satisfied. But they didn't, so I am satisfied with the "no large exodus of Israelites from Egypt" conclusion until strong evidence to overthrow that conclusion is presented. If someone finds (verifiably) that a large exodus did occur, I would change my mind.

I support and defend the "no large exodus" position on this board, *BECAUSE* it is what the evidence supports, NOT because I have some vested interest (professionally or psychologically) in that position being true.

As a non-believer, the size (or existence) of "The Exodus" is irrelevant to me. Finding out it happened (small or large) would not provide proof that Moses got the 15 (oops, 10) commandments from God, or parted the Sea of Reeds to make dry land, or cast plagues upon the people of Egypt, or saw a burning bush that did not burn, or any of the other supernatural claims in the story.

On a similar note, I am not a non-believer because I *wanted* there to be no god. (I also didn't have some desire for there to be a god. A desire I sometimes here from ex-believers.) I became a non-believer because I realized that there wasn't any actual evidence for God. This wasn't some position I took up because science told me there couldn't be god and I chose science. Nope. Everyday I sat in a science class from 3rd grade science to graduate quantum mechanics, I was a believer, and for a few years afterward. Rather, I started to realize the evidence I had assumed was solid really wasn't, and then I realized I no longer believed. I didn't choose that path, or seek it. I didn't "reject God" or "hate God", I just came to realize that I no longer believed in it. If there is some actual evidence for one of the gods, then I will accept that it exists.

Finally, I am not going to go looking in the Sinai. It is not my responsibility in the slightest. I am not an archeologist or work in any even slightly related field; I am a [sub-field redacted] physicist whose work has no applicability to the detection of ancient migrations through deserts.

If the archeologist find new evidence and change their conclusion, then I will follow their expertise.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So scientists went out onto the Sinai Peninsula to look for an allegorical story?

Did they?

Or did they overlook the role of allegory in the Bible as well?

I doubt it. I suspect somebody said "please go and find evidence to support the Exodus story" so off they went. They had a hypothesis, so they went looking for supporting evidence. When they couldn't find any they didn't conclude "Exodus must still be true because certain fundamentalist Christians require it to be true", they concluded "there is no evidence to support the story so it is unlikely to be literal history."

Did they mention allegory? No, that's not their remit. Did they say God doesn't exist? No, that's not what the evidence shows. All they concluded was that the story as written in Exodus is highly unlikely to be accurate. Nothing more.

That way they don't have to admit they didn't find anything.

Scientists have no problem having failed hypotheses. It is you fundamentalists who cannot cope with failure.

 

[Kylie]

What evidence exactly? and be specific please, because I don't think there is any evidence I'm misunderstanding.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

What should we see? a tent? a toothbrush? a skeleton? a shovel? pop can? Bic pen?

What exactly?

What we should see is an Egypt that had a massive economic and social upheaval when such a large part of the population (which was, let's not forget, a major part of their work force) left the country.

And yet we don't.

I mean, when Covid had everyone working from home, people were complaining about the impact that it was having on the economy that office workers weren't going to the café down the street for lunch. You telling me that ancient Egypt could have something even bigger than that and it had no effect at all?

 

[Mountainmike]

So you reject reality if reality isn't the way you think it should be?
.

As do you.

 

[Mountainmike]

In an article discussing lack of evidence I noted this which may have some bearing on it!

“ a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meter of sand in 40 years!”

It’s clearly unusual, but Deserts do hide stuff.
It fascinates me that in the U.K. they have found even mediaeval settlements buried under fields with no trace left.


In exodus they were nomads living in tents.
How much searching has actually been done in Sinai?

In the early days of the State of Israel, some Israeli archeologists took seriously (they weren't the first) the ancient story of the origin of their people -- a mass exodus from Egypt and invasion of Canaan -- and used modern archeological methods (developed in the early--mid 20th century) to examine those claims.

They did comprehensive surveys of the Sinai and found lots of stuff, but did not find what they expected to find from the story given in Exodus. The conquest of Canaan was trickier, because there are ancient cities that fell at various times, but ultimately they are not evidence of a conquest. Additionally, Egyptian history and archeology do not provide any matches on that end. From a rational examination, the story -- as written in Exodus -- did not happen. It was either a much smaller (probably quicker) exodus or it never happened at all.

The scientists didn't investigate allegory, they investigated a historical claim scientifically and left allegory to the literary scholars. I wish you had the slightest clue how science works, but alas, you can only see scientific examination (and similar scholarly work in history, etc.) as confirmation of pre-existing biases. The reality is that the core of the scientific method is to *fight* against that natural human tendency. Unfortunately, religion works the opposite way where confirming dogma is considered a good thing. It is this aspect in which science and religion are opposites, not in what they know, but how they address discovery of knowledge and imperfection of knowledge. [NB: I fully expect this to be clipped out of context for dogmatic reasons. Sigh.]

 

[Kylie]

As do you.

No I do not. I base my beliefs on the evidence from the real world. I do not reject evidence from the real world if it contradicts what I have already decided to be true.

I am capable of realizing that if my beliefs and the real world contradict, I have to change my beliefs, because I know that I can't change the nature of reality.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is plenty of evidence you reject a priori. I have listed some. The well authenticated healings at Lourdes, Take Eucharistic miracles. Out of body experiences and so on. The bleeding statue of Cochabamba. The hospital verified inedia of Alexandrina da Costa. Plenty more where they came from.

And plenty of beliefs you have based on far less or no evidence , like the conjecture of abiogenesis.

You like to think you are evidence based, the reality of your posting here is otherwise. It’s no shame.

It’s the all pervasive false philosophy of scientific realism at work.

it’s the difference between:
That’s alright in theory, but the evidence disagrees, so the theory is wrong.

To the all pervasive view here..
That’s alright in practice but theory disagrees, so it can’t be true, so the evidence must be false, so I won’t even look at it, before ridicule it.

So the real/ fundamental reason you accept life from abiogenesis on the basis of no actual evidence it ever happened, where or how. But you reject Eucharistic miracles despite actual forensic evidence they did -
Is your beliefs get in the way of what you will and will not accept.

No I do not. I base my beliefs on the evidence from the real world. I do not reject evidence from the real world if it contradicts what I have already decided to be true.

I am capable of realizing that if my beliefs and the real world contradict, I have to change my beliefs, because I know that I can't change the nature of reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In exodus they were nomads living in tents.
How much searching has actually been done in Sinai?

Nomads? Nomads?!? NOMADS? Really?

The Israelites described in Exodus are not nomads, they are migrants. Those are different things.

Nomads are people with a non-localized *lifestyle*. They live without fixed abode as a long-term economic solution. Nomads may adopt this lifestyle because the landscape doesn't provide the resources sufficient to sustain the group for the full year.

Migrants are relocating from one place to (hopefully) a new place. They may have initiated their journey without knowing the destination (for example: some refugees), but they don't intend to be wanderers.

What about the Israelites?

The text is very clear they left one place (Egypt) to travel to a new place (Canaan). They *are* migrants.

Did they live a nomadic lifestyle outside their travel? Nope. They were a settled people in Egypt and eventually settled into Canaan. They *are* migrants.

Finally the text claims about 2 million total people in this group. No nomadic group traveling together are anywhere near this size. They *are* migrants.

(Anticipating counter claims)

"wandering in the desert" -- This is because they were guided to intentionally "lost" in the desert for 40 years by an angry god.

"lived in tents" -- unless there were enough motel rooms to say in each night, tents are efficient and effective temporary shelter. It's perfectly normal for large migrant groups (and similarly armies in the field) to use tents for portable shelter.

[This does give me an idea for an alternative version of the story that you won't like, but is potentially more consistent with observed reality]

In the Late Bronze Age a group of Canaanites were living and working in Egypt. (Perhaps a single extended family, like that of Joseph in Genesis.) After a few generations, they had adopted some influence from the Egyptians, but maintained a significant Canaanite character, including that the largely worshiped just the Canaanite gods. They were influenced by the monotheism in the rise and fall of the Aten cult and rapidly moved toward worship of only the chief Canaanite god El. For reasons unknown they were forced to flee Egypt, hundreds or a few thousand, and became nomads in the Sinai. Their leader (let's call him Moses) claimed visions from god and the theology and laws of their new monotheistic religion rapidly developed. They came to call themselves Israelites. After a long time as nomads (the ancient Hebrew usage of '40' is often like 'bazillions', a generic large number), they emerged from the desert into the Judean hill country where a less urban version of the collapsed Canaanite civilization existed. (Probably with some religious evolution of their own.) The hill peoples found the Israelite's religion compelling and quickly adopted it with the ex-nomads as the priests. (And they created themselves as the hereditary priesthood whose ancestors all *did* flee Egypt and wander in the desert for a long time.) A new nation called Israel coalesced around this new religion and after centuries of religious reforms and revivals the waxing and waning of monotheism eventually wiped out the remnants of Canaanite polytheism among the people of Israel and they came to see themselves no longer as Canaanites, but a separate people. The story of Moses and the exodus likely grew in some versions to become a larger tale of the whole Israelite nation migrating and the Late Bronze Age Collapse of Canaan that had created the hill country settlements became mythologized into a great conquest lead by Joshua. When the scribes created a single religious text after their Babylonian captivity, the "whole-nation" migration version of the story of Moses became the only version committed to writing.

[There are almost certainly some timing issues that make one or more parts of my sketch unlikely or out of sequence, but I have even tried to be precise with the dates.]

 

[Kylie]

There is plenty of evidence you reject a priori. I have listed some. The well authenticated healings at Lourdes, Take Eucharistic miracles. Out of body experiences and so on. The bleeding statue of Cochabamba. The hospital verified inedia of Alexandrina da Costa. Plenty more where they came from.

And do you have actual scientific documentation to back these up?

The healings at Lourdes occurred between 1858 and the present The latest was in 2005, I believe), but only four of them have been since 1978. So most of them happened in times when our medical knowledge was far more primitive than what we have now.

And if you have some valid scientific source that shows a communion wafer turned into actual cardiac tissue, I'd love to see it.

There's nothing supernatural about out of body experiences. We can create OBEs at will. Out-of-body experience - Wikipedia

There have been lots of bleeding statues, so much so that the Catholic Church is very reluctant to claim them as miracles. Too often they have been found to be hoaxes or there are perfectly natural explanations. Is there some investigation which has eliminated these possibilities when it comes to the bleeding statue of Cochabamba?

And I can find very few sources regarding Alexandrina da Costa. And what I can find is that there was only one person observing her the entire time, and surely he must have been needed to sleep. One person can not maintain 24 hour observation for the 40 days or so.

So, you have made claims and provided no actual evidence to back them up.

And plenty of beliefs you have based on far less or no evidence , like the conjecture of abiogenesis.

And yet no one is claiming that they know for a fact how it happened, are they? Although if you could provide a link to a scientist who does claim to know for a fact, I'd love to see it.

You like to think you are evidence based, the reality of your posting here is otherwise. It’s no shame.

It’s the all pervasive false philosophy of scientific realism at work.

I love this tactic of trying to turn science into a religion so you can use the "Well, science is just as bad as religion is!" argument.

(By the way, I used the word "you" there in a general way, I wasn't referring specifically to you in particular, Mike, since I have seen many people use it.

it’s the difference between:
That’s alright in theory, but the evidence disagrees, so the theory is wrong.

To the all pervasive view here..
That’s alright in practice but theory disagrees, so it can’t be true, so the evidence must be false, so I won’t even look at it, before ridicule it.

I personally hold the position that when the theory and the evidence disagree, we need to examine both. Such disagreement could be caused by the theory being wrong, and it could be explained by the evidence being flawed.

So the real/ fundamental reason you accept life from abiogenesis on the basis of no actual evidence it ever happened, where or how. But you reject Eucharistic miracles despite actual forensic evidence they did -
Is your beliefs get in the way of what you will and will not accept.

You have not provided any forensic evidence for any eucharist miracle. If you would care to do so, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Let’s keep this simple. I cannot be bothered to go blow for blow.


1/You believe in abiogenesis. But you cannot say where it happened, when it happened, precisely what happened, the structure of the first self replicating evolving cell or the immediate precursors of that turned into it. So you have nothing in actual evidence.

2/ You can easily obtain the forensic reports and pathologist comments for the actual physical evidence of Eucharistic miracles, which happened at known time , place and they have been analysed by different teams in different places.
Forensic scientists are scientists. The clue is in the name

You don’t believe in 2/ despite the scientific evidence , yet you believe in 1/ in absence of evidence.

Your entire view is faith based.
It is not as you claim evidence based.

You see the world through a lens that eg - life is a chemical accident, consciousness is a chemical process etc etc. that is a faith. You won’t let anything else in, or you would have studied /2

As for the others study them first. You are too fond of generalisations.

And do you have actual scientific documentation to back these up?

The healings at Lourdes occurred between 1858 and the present The latest was in 2005, I believe), but only four of them have been since 1978. So most of them happened in times when our medical knowledge was far more primitive than what we have now.

And if you have some valid scientific source that shows a communion wafer turned into actual cardiac tissue, I'd love to see it.

There's nothing supernatural about out of body experiences. We can create OBEs at will. Out-of-body experience - Wikipedia

There have been lots of bleeding statues, so much so that the Catholic Church is very reluctant to claim them as miracles. Too often they have been found to be hoaxes or there are perfectly natural explanations. Is there some investigation which has eliminated these possibilities when it comes to the bleeding statue of Cochabamba?

And I can find very few sources regarding Alexandrina da Costa. And what I can find is that there was only one person observing her the entire time, and surely he must have been needed to sleep. One person can not maintain 24 hour observation for the 40 days or so.

So, you have made claims and provided no actual evidence to back them up.



And yet no one is claiming that they know for a fact how it happened, are they? Although if you could provide a link to a scientist who does claim to know for a fact, I'd love to see it.



I love this tactic of trying to turn science into a religion so you can use the "Well, science is just as bad as religion is!" argument.

(By the way, I used the word "you" there in a general way, I wasn't referring specifically to you in particular, Mike, since I have seen many people use it.



I personally hold the position that when the theory and the evidence disagree, we need to examine both. Such disagreement could be caused by the theory being wrong, and it could be explained by the evidence being flawed.



You have not provided any forensic evidence for any eucharist miracle. If you would care to do so, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

 

[SelfSim]

... 1/You believe in abiogenesis.

Where is your evidence supporting that obnoxious accusation?
I see exactly *none* coming from anything @Kylie has posted thus far, in her recent posts, on that topic.

You don’t believe in 2/ despite the scientific evidence , yet you believe in 1/ in absence of evidence.

Falsified by virtue of the above, unsupported, obnoxious and, thus far, totally false accusation .. made by you.