Exodus evidence

[AV1611VET]

The rules of the forum make that impossible.

Hmmm ...

I take it you don't like the video?

Is that on principle?

 

[BCP1928]

Hmmm ...

I take it you don't like the video?

Is that on principle?

I can't even say that much without "showing contempt for Christianity" which is forbidden in this forum.

 

[BCP1928]

Uh, how about because a lot of it is literally
not true?

That would be one good reason. But even where the people described actually lived and the events actually happened, a narrative describing these people and events is not necessarily literal and inerrant even if it is relatively accurate as demonstrated by empirical evidence..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can't even say that much without "showing contempt for Christianity" which is forbidden in this forum.

Is criticizing a video really considered a form of "showing contempt for Christianity"? I'm going to have to reread the rules for this forum..........

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't even say that much without "showing contempt for Christianity" which is forbidden in this forum.

Jesus loves you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That would be one good reason. But even where the people described actually lived and the events actually happened, a narrative describing these people and events is not necessarily literal and inerrant even if it is relatively accurate as demonstrated by empirical evidence..

Well.........no Historical account is absolutely literal or inerrant, so it sort of goes without saying. It's just the nature of Ancient Narratives and of Written History (whether it's ancient or more modern).

 

[Astrid]

That would be one good reason. But even where the people described actually lived and the events actually happened, a narrative describing these people and events is not necessarily literal and inerrant even if it is relatively accurate as demonstrated by empirical evidence..

None of the supernatural events have left
any material sign detectable to anyone
but Ron Wyatt.

 

[BCP1928]

Is criticizing a video really considered a form of "showing contempt for Christianity"? I'm going to have to reread the rules for this forum..........

It depends on how you criticize it.

 

[BCP1928]

Well.........no Historical account is absolutely literal or inerrant, so it sort of goes without saying. It's just the nature of Ancient Narratives and of Written History (whether it's ancient or more modern).

Which was my point. Substantiating the events underlying an historical narrative only substantiates the accuracy of the account with respect to those events. It does not affirm the literal inerrancy of that account.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of the supernatural events have left any material sign detectable to anyone.

They're called "miracles."

Miracles are usually void of evidence by design.

Or, if any evidence happens to be generated, are short lived.

With two exceptions:

Meandering rivers and white cliffs.

... but Ron Wyatt.

What about Ron Wyatt?

He put out a video that even has me thinking that maybe there might be evidence of the Exodus crossing.

But I can't get an academian around here to comment on its validity.

I'm kinda hoping, in the back of my mind, that an academian will actually tell me where Ron is wrong, so I can stick to my belief that the Exodus didn't leave any evidence behind.

But if both of us are wrong (I and academia), then so be it.

It would only be a minor change in thinking to me; but a major change in academic circles.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends on how you criticize it.

Then criticism can take a hike.

How about just showing us where he's wrong scientifically?

Or can't science open its mouth without having to criticize, accuse, and lie?

 

[Bobber]

I believe the Red Sea split just like the Bible says. I don't maybe know the location.....a place where things like chariot wheels appear like on the bottom of a part of the Red Sea? I don't know....maybe. Still believe it took place regardless of the location. Now it seems people need the Big Seas of Doubt and Unbelief to Split to believe that it happened. I believe in just taking it boldly and joyfully by faith and believe that God can split the Big Seas of my problems making a way for me too when there is no way. I always remind myself is anything too hard to the Lord.....and the answer to that is always NO. Of course not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which was my point. Substantiating the events underlying an historical narrative only substantiates the accuracy of the account with respect to those events. It does not affirm the literal inerrancy of that account.

Yes, you're right. But I was intending, and apparently not clearly, to convey the idea that the complementary idea is relevant too: that human writing being what it is throughout history doesn't imply in some absolute way that the Biblical account of the Exodus is in all respects "false." Yet, all too often, that is what is stated, that a lack of evidence 'means' a lack of possible reality.

Then, too, if we go more steps forward in our Historiography as well as with our Critical, Literary appraisals of the Old Testament, we can bring in the Documentary Hypothesis and cause all sorts of inferential damage. But in that process, I often wonder if applying it doesn't also leave some smaller, however seemingly insignificant, implications open for the possibility of the life of Moses and the Exodus account.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe the Red Sea split just like the Bible says. I don't maybe know the location.....

I don't either, but the Bible says ...

Exodus 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea.

 

[BCP1928]

Then criticism can take a hike.

How about just showing us where he's wrong scientifically?

Or can't science open its mouth without having to criticize, accuse, and lie?

What is there to criticize scientifically? He found some stuff and drew conclusions from it. His conclusions were based on the assumption that the Exodus happened according to an ancient historical narrative taken as literal and inerrant. So what? Your position is unfalsifiable,

 

[AV1611VET]

But in that process, I often wonder if applying it doesn't also leave some smaller, however seemingly insignificant, implications open for the possibility of the life of Moses and the Exodus account.

Ya -- like how did the Israelites get into the desert if the Exodus didn't happen?

Does your philosophy handle that?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is there to criticize scientifically? He found some stuff and drew conclusions from it.

My first assumption was, "Big deal. He found a chariot wheel in the Red Sea. People drive off of cliffs all the time."

But then he pointed out that those corals seem to resemble a "junkyard."

So that's something worth pursuing, in my opinion.

 

[tampasteve]

Would someone comment on this video please?

It isn't worth the text to comment on that nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

It isn't worth the text to comment on that nonsense.

10-4

 

[Astrid]

The rules of the forum make that impossible.

So I've noticed.