YEC is physically impossible

[sjastro]

What, for example, would you expect to see?

The lack of archaeological evidence means you would see nothing.
If Exodus did occur it would have ranged from 1500 BC at the start of Egypt's 18th dynasty when the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, down to 1200 BC to the 19th dynasty pharaoh Merneptah where the Egyptians engaged in military campaigns in the Canaan region as attested by inscriptions found in Egypt.

Yet the map of archeological sites of the Sinai during this period reveals absolutely nothing.

 

[sjastro]

You disappoint me.

Start a thread, and I'll be glad to explain Deuteronomy 22:22-27.

Like a few posts ago you seem to be so desperate for me to start a thread on Deuteronomy yet post #553 makes it perfectly clear how you violated your prime directive in black and white or more precisely red and green.
I'm not going to waste my time in starting a new thread because post #553 amounts to a confession you don't practice what you preach.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like a few posts ago you seem to be so desperate for me to start a thread on Deuteronomy yet post #553 makes it perfectly clear how you violated your prime directive in black and white or more precisely red and green.
I'm not going to waste my time in starting a new thread because post #553 amounts to a confession you don't practice what you preach.

I'm genuinely disappointed.

 

[Neogaia777]

Like a few posts ago you seem to be so desperate for me to start a thread on Deuteronomy yet post #553 makes it perfectly clear how you violated your prime directive in black and white or more precisely red and green.
I'm not going to waste my time in starting a new thread because post #553 amounts to a confession you don't practice what you preach.

Your statement about their being no archeological evidence of any campsites being the reason for the exodus never happening is pretty thin, etc, because they were nomads who moved daily and never set up a permanent camp ever anywhere, and who also took everything with them when they did move, which was daily, etc. Anyway, that evidence or line of reasoning for disproving the exodus is pretty thin, etc.

And as for back to your comments about dueteronomy, about rape, etc. The woman who would not cry out, or who would not at all try to resist a rape, etc, was not the kind of woman you would want thriving or flourishing in any kind of country or society where you were trying to eliminate sin from it, so that was the reason for that, etc, and for killing the man who lied with her as well, etc. It was decided that those two types, must not be allowed to live, etc.

And as for the virgin, back then, God thought it more important that she be able to live, and be taken care of at least, rather than what her state would be if the man didn't marry her, etc, and this was what was more important to God back then, etc. It was a controversial decision to be sure, but it was deemed as what was more important for a woman who was virgin that experienced that back then, rather than what the alternative would be for her back then, etc.

And I'm betting you disagree, or may ask why the man wasn't just killed, etc, but God was always making certain temporary provisions for the wickedness that was within man back then, etc, and for the Patriarchtical rule, or patriarchtical ways of still primitive societies back then, etc.

But, you can keep going on thinking your morality would have been superior back then, without at all understanding what God the Spirit was trying to do or make happen back then, and we will see who falls where in the end, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

The woman who would not cry out, or who would not at all try to resist a rape, etc, was not the kind of woman you would want thriving or flourishing in any kind of country or society where you were trying to eliminate sin from it,

So eliminating sin is to take total precedence over the rights of a terrified, physically abused and threatened woman, who is being sinned against. Thank you for your clarification. I had mistakenly thought there might be a valid justification.

 

[Neogaia777]

So eliminating sin is to take total precedence over the rights of a terrified, physically abused and threatened woman, who is being sinned against. Thank you for your clarification. I had mistakenly thought there might be a valid justification.

Consider what her fate would have been back then if the man wouldn't have been obligated to take care of her, etc, which many women were very aware of, and were very afraid of back then, etc.

But yes, taking the entire world back to the original plan took greater presendence over a lot of things back then.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

Consider what her fate would have been back then if the man wouldn't have been obligated to take care of her, etc, which many women were very aware of, and were very afraid of back then, etc.

But yes, taking the entire world back to the original plan took greater presendence over a lot of things back then.

God Bless.

That is still transferring the blame to the victim.
Presumably you have never been in a situation, so terrifying, so life threatening, that you were effectively "struck dumb". In the midst of such an attack, you are expecting the victim to think of the implications for her future if she does not cry out, when her entire focus is on surviving the next few minutes. And the solution, one you seemingly approve of, was "well, she's not going to have much of a future, we'd best just kill her".

 

[Neogaia777]

That is still transferring the blame to the victim.
Presumably you have never been in a situation, so terrifying, so life threatening, that you were effectively "struck dumb". In the midst of such an attack, you are expecting the victim to think of the implications for her future if she does not cry out, when her entire focus is on surviving the next few minutes. And the solution, one you seemingly approve of, was "well, she's not going to have much of a future, we'd best just kill her".

The type of woman spoken of as "not crying out" in that passage is obviously the type of woman you don't know about, but she's not the type of woman you want anywhere if you are trying to eliminate sin, for it is also speaking of the type that is not against it, or who would not at all resist because she is not against it, etc, which is why it was commanded that both of them be put to death, etc.

And you don't at all know anything about me at all, or what I've been through either, etc, but you just need to know that I have, and still do experience "fear" on a level that none of you will ever be made aware of, or will ever know exists, etc.

I've been so paralyzed with fear for a period of time in my life that I was made mute, and I couldn't even look up, or look at anybody, or talk to anybody, and it was this way for me for quite a while, or for quite a long time in my life, and it still sometimes is sometimes, etc. I was this way in a mental hospital for a while, which didn't help at all, but only made things much, much worse, as I'm pretty sure some of them only tried to mess with me in there, etc. I've also been homeless, and had nothing but the clothes I was wearing on my back, and slept under bridges and freeway overpasses all by myself on the street, and been in jail for a few extended periods of time as well all while I was this way, or was still struggling with this also, etc. Several suicide attempts that didn't work also due to what was causing this, etc. So I am no stranger to fear on a level that most of you will never know, etc. I'm a paranoid Scitzophrenic, and I hear voices and things, etc, so don't you talk to me about "fear", etc, because I am much more familiar with it than most of you will ever know, etc. Being raped physically would almost be a relief compared to what I go through, etc. For it is a "rape/violation" of the kind and type that most of you will never know, etc.

That aside, this passage is not referring to a rape victim who is trying to survive the experience by remaining silent, etc, but is talking about a whole kind of different woman who will not resist because of "other reasons", etc. Think Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, where rape was common and accepted by all as a regular and common behavior and practice, both at home, and in their religious temples, and in the streets, etc.

In Sodom and Gomorrah they not only "kept it in the family", but there was no reason to even keep it to just that, or to just only keep it in the family, etc, as all kinds of all of the dark side of sexual activity was commonly known by all, and all were fully participating in doing it everywhere, etc, even the children were, etc, as it was common knowledge/practice everywhere, etc, and wasn't considered a "big deal" by anybody, etc. They were just being "humbled", or "woken up to the reality of man", or "human", etc. And this included all of the very, very young children there as well, etc. All were made fully aware, and all were fully participating in it, etc. Talk about a childhood, eh.

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

Ingenious speculation, but I trust archaeologists to know something real about how ancient campsites like that can be detected.

Charcoal.

 

[Neogaia777]

Charcoal.

You don't always have fires when you are camping, etc, and there is not much firewood in a desert, etc, and they also had a pillar of fire at night, and were being fed by mana each day, etc, which means you don't need fire, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

The type of woman spoken of as "not crying out" in that passage is obviously the type of woman you don't know about, but she's not the type of woman you want anywhere if you are trying to eliminate sin, for it is also speaking of the type that is not against it, or who would not at all resist because she is not against it, etc, which is why it was commanded that both of them be put to death, etc.

And you don't at all know anything about me at all, or what I've been through either, etc, but you just need to know that I have, and still do experience "fear" on a level that none of you will ever be made aware of, or will ever know exists, etc.

I've been so paralyzed with fear for a period of time in my life that I was made mute, and I couldn't even look up, or look at anybody, or talk to anybody, and it was this way for me for quite a while, or for quite a long time in my life, and it still sometimes is sometimes, etc. I was this way in a mental hospital for a while, which didn't help at all, but only made things much, much worse, as I'm pretty sure some of them only tried to mess with me in there, etc. I've also been homeless, and had nothing but the clothes I was wearing on my back, and slept under bridges and freeway overpasses all by myself on the street, and been in jail for a few extended periods of time as well all while I was this way, or was still struggling with this also, etc. Several suicide attempts that didn't work also due to what was causing this, etc. So I am no stranger to fear on a level that most of you will never know, etc. I'm a paranoid Scitzophrenic, and I hear voices and things, etc, so don't you talk to me about "fear", etc, because I am much more familiar with it than most of you will ever know, etc. Being raped physically would almost be a relief compared to what I go through, etc. For it is a "rape/violation" of the kind and type that most of you will never know, etc.

That aside, this passage is not referring to a rape victim who is trying to survive the experience by remaining silent, etc, but is talking about a whole kind of different woman who will not resist because of "other reasons", etc. Think Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, where rape was common and accepted by all as a regular and common behavior and practice, both at home, and in their religious temples, and in the streets, etc.

In Sodom and Gomorrah they not only "kept it in the family", but there was no reason to even keep it to just that, or to just only keep it in the family, etc, as all kinds of all of the dark side of sexual activity was commonly known by all, and all were fully participating in doing it everywhere, etc, even the children were, etc, as it was common knowledge/practice everywhere, etc, and wasn't considered a "big deal" by anybody, etc. They were just being "humbled", or "woken up to the reality of man", or "human", etc. And this included all of the very, very young children there as well, etc. All were made fully aware, and all were fully participating in it, etc. Talk about a childhood, eh.

God Bless.

And about Sodom and Gomorrah, many people think we are there, or might be there already yet, etc, but we're not there yet, etc. But we might be going there, or headed there if any of our Jeffery Epstien followers/leaders have anything to do with it, because it's a paradise to them, etc. Or those ones most definitely have an agenda that is trying to take us there, etc, because it would be a paradise for them, etc. Don't tell me they are not trying to "normalize it" already, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

The lack of archaeological evidence means you would see nothing.
If Exodus did occur it would have ranged from 1500 BC at the start of Egypt's 18th dynasty when the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, down to 1200 BC to the 19th dynasty pharaoh Merneptah where the Egyptians engaged in military campaigns in the Canaan region as attested by inscriptions found in Egypt.

Yet the map of archeological sites of the Sinai during this period reveals absolutely nothing.

If you want someone to find that kind ot
bible- provin' rchaeology, you need Ron Wyatt.

 

[BCP1928]

You must have a lot of faith in them then.

I have faith that if they spin a scenario like you did they will go out and dig around for evidence before they say it's plausible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your statement about their being no archeological evidence of any campsites being the reason for the exodus never happening is pretty thin, etc, because they were nomads who moved daily and never set up a permanent camp ever anywhere, and who also took everything with them when they did move, which was daily, etc. Anyway, that evidence or line of reasoning for disproving the exodus is pretty thin, etc.

I totally agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ingenious speculation, but I trust archaeologists to know something real about how ancient campsites like that can be detected.

I made a mistake.

I said:

Leave it behind for ... say ... one tenth of the time they wandered in the wilderness (4 years).
Come back in four years, and see if you can find a trace of your large campsite anywhere.

I should have said:

Leave it behind for ... say ... one tenth of the time that has elapsed since then and come back in about four hundred years, and see if you can find a trace of your large campsite anywhere.

 

[BCP1928]

Your statement about their being no archeological evidence of any campsites being the reason for the exodus never happening is pretty thin, etc, because they were nomads who moved daily and never set up a permanent camp ever anywhere, and who also took everything with them when they did move, which was daily, etc. Anyway, that evidence or line of reasoning for disproving the exodus is pretty thin, etc.

Of course, archaeologists are fully aware of all of the difficulties you mentioned and have investigated many ancient campsites under similar conditions. That gives them some confidence when they say that they have found no evidence so far despite considerable skilled investigation. Of course that doesn't "disprove" the Exodus, just makes it more and more unlikely as the search continues that if an exodus did occur it was literally and accurately described in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, archaeologists are fully aware of all of the difficulties you mentioned and have investigated many ancient campsites under similar conditions. That gives them some confidence when they say that they have found no evidence so far despite considerable skilled investigation. Of course that doesn't "disprove" the Exodus, just makes it more and more unlikely as the search continues that if an exodus did occur it was literally and accurately described in the Bible.

Wow.

I applaud their tenacity.

How may years now is it they've been searching?

You make it sound like they're bound and determined to find something, come what may.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Neogaia777]

Of course, archaeologists are fully aware of all of the difficulties you mentioned and have investigated many ancient campsites under similar conditions. That gives them some confidence when they say that they have found no evidence so far despite considerable skilled investigation. Of course that doesn't "disprove" the Exodus, just makes it more and more unlikely as the search continues that if an exodus did occur it was literally and accurately described in the Bible.

Well, considering that the were nomads, and never had any permanent campsites, or places they specifically camped at/stayed at regularly, and dwelt in tents, and not ever any more permanent structures that they would leave behind, and took everything with them each morning, and each night, and more than likely had no firepits ever at those campsites, as there was no need for that due to the way God was providing for them, not to mention there would be never enough firewood in that area for that many people anyway, etc, they are probably never going to find any evidence today of them wandering around in that particular wilderness around 3500 years ago, as there would be no evidence left behind for them to find today, as that is typically how they find evidence of camping, or those campsites, etc.

Anyway, in light of all of that, what do you expect them to find some 3500 years later, etc?

God Bless.

 

[BCP1928]

Wow.

I applaud their tenacity.

How may years now is it they've been searching?

You make it sound like they're bound and determined to find something, come what may.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

That's because you have a tendency to misrepresent their motivations. Some of those archaeologists are Jews and Christians who would like to find evidence of an exodus--if that's what the science shows them. They just don't care very much about a biblical literalist interpretation of scripture.

 

[BCP1928]

Well, considering that the were nomads, and never had any permanent campsites, or places they specifically camped at/stayed at regularly, and dwelt in tents, and not ever any more permanent structures that they would leave behind, and took everything with them each morning, and each night, and more than likely had no firepits ever at those campsites, as there was no need for that due to the way God was providing for them, not to mention there would be never enough firewood in that area for that many people anyway, etc, they are probably never going to find any evidence today of them wandering around in that particular wilderness around 3500 years ago, as there would be no evidence left behind for them to find today, as that is typically how they find evidence of camping, or those campsites, etc.

God Bless.

You seem to know quite a bit about what it was like for a guy who doesn't really know very much about what it was like. More than some stupid archaeologists who have experience investigating ancient campsites, evidently

I think you are hoping that no evidence will be found. And you're right. Looking for evidence of biblical events is very dangerous for biblical literalists. If evidence of the exodus was discovered, the entire world of Abrahamic faith would rejoice. If evidence of the exodus was found and it revealed that the exodus differed even only slightly from the biblical account then Christians Jews and Muslims would still rejoice but the faith of biblical literalists would be destroyed.