Continuing research into the possibility of the reality of the Exodus, and current data/conclusions.

[Neogaia777]

'Belief' would be more appropriate .. (its just a more natural fit, wouldn't ya say?)

Every great discovery ever made most usually started with a belief, most usually anyway.

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

The origin of quantum mechanics does not come from the microscopic world of subatomic particles but from a distinctly macroscopic phenomenum known as blackbody radiation where the temperature of the blackbody determines the wavelength radiated.
The classical physical law known as the Rayleigh-Jeans law was able predict the blackbody spectrum at higher wavelengths such as in the infrared range and beyond as shown in the graph.

It's amazing how you can say things that I know will go right over my head, and yet I read it anyway perhaps believing that I'll absorb some of it by osmosis alone. It's not working all that well, but unlike some people you can make me feel like a complete idiot... while at the same time making it seem as though you don't actually think I'm a complete idiot. That's a gift not everybody's got.

...led to the development of quantum mechanics which is a natural not a supernatural explanation.

I completely agree. I would also argue that whatever the source of our reality is... it's natural... it just is what it is. In which case @Neogaia777's description of 'other natural' might be more appropriate... as if there could somehow be a difference between 'natural' and 'other natural'. In this case it's the difference between things such as superposition being perfectly natural in one realm, while being completely verboten in another. They're both natural, they're just otherly natural.

My description of the quantum realm as being 'supernatural' was based solely on the hierarchical order of one seemingly being an emergent property of the other.

 

[partinobodycular]

Aww .. shucks ..
(You didn't start, then leave for 11 pages, an Apologetics thread, in a science forum .. feel free to respond if you like).

Remember, I'm an uneducated solipsist, so objective evidence is a tough bar for me to get over. Perhaps I should stick with "Ethics & Morality", the bars can be pretty much non-existent there. "Because the bible tells me so" being a pretty convenient one. Anyway no hard feelings, we'll talk again I'm sure.

 

[SelfSim]

Every great discovery ever made most usually started with a belief, most usually anyway.

The only evidenced thing that's been going on, since humans have been around, is the human mind updating human knowledge with new human meanings. There's only two known ways for that happen, either by: (i) the scientific method or, (ii) by beliefs.

We can distinguish a belief by understanding how the scientific method works to give meaning to objective (or physical) reality.

I won't elaborate further on this because we'll get too side-tracked. Suffice it to say, that's how I know the biblical Exodus is a tall story.

 

[Neogaia777]

The only evidenced thing that's been going on, since humans have been around, is the human mind updating human knowledge with new human meanings. There's only two known ways for that happen, either by: (i) the scientific method or, (ii) by beliefs.

We can distinguish a belief by understanding how the scientific method works to give meaning to objective (or physical) reality.

I won't elaborate further on this because we'll get too side-tracked. Suffice it to say, that's how I know the biblical Exodus is a tall story.

Ok.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

Remember, I'm an uneducated solipsist, so objective evidence is a tough bar for me to get over.

The 'tough bar' will simply disappear once you choose to let go of the solipsism.
You have the choice.

Anyway no hard feelings, we'll talk again I'm sure.

I find we're very closely aligned, philosophically. The philosophical viewpoint I'm always coming from, is one which releases science from belief. Many aren't quite there yet, but it'll happen eventually. Cheers

 

[Neogaia777]

It is not about the ancient Egyptian version of history but rather history reconstructed from the archaeological evidence.
Here is a video of the history of Egypt's involvement in Canaan based on that evidence.

That's a very interesting video (and yes I did watch and listen to the whole thing) (and watch and listen to the whole thing very carefully I might add) (and I think I might check out some more of his other videos, because of what he says at the end, etc) but it's very interesting, etc.

But how much evidence is there exactly to back it all up, or support it, etc? A few tablets found here or there, mostly Egyptian, and witten/recorded by the Egyptians I might add, and maybe a few other trinkets also, etc, but not many, etc, one tablet from a certain king in Cannan, etc, but not from the area that Israel was occupying, etc, because we also know that the Israelites were not occupying the whole region as well, etc, and even in some of your video, it says they were avoiding or leaving certain groups alone, etc. Now I wonder why that is, etc? Because we know Philistia was not a part of Israel, along with some other areas in that land, and so it was not all of Cannan by any means, etc, but might just be the areas Egypt was avoiding, etc. It (your video) also starts mentioning the Israelites at around 1200 BCE and the Egyptians losing hold on certain portions of that area/land (Cannan) around that time also, and having to leave it alone after that also, etc?

Anyway, I plan on checking out some other videos on YouTube by that same person soon, mainly because of what he says at the end of this one, but I'm just not going to do it right, right now, etc.

But I don't think this video, even if entirely correct, necessarily disproves the exodus, etc, but I plan to look into it more, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

That's a very interesting video (and yes I did watch and listen to the whole thing) (and watch and listen to the whole thing very carefully I might add) (and I think I might check out some more of his other videos, because of what he says at the end, etc) but it's very interesting, etc.

But how much evidence is there exactly to back it all up, or support it, etc? A few tablets found here or there, mostly Egyptian, and witten/recorded by the Egyptians I might add, and maybe a few other trinkets also, etc, but not many, etc, one tablet from a certain king in Cannan, etc, but not from the area that Israel was occupying, etc, because we also know that the Israelites were not occupying the whole region as well, etc, and even in some of your video, it says they were avoiding or leaving certain groups alone, etc. Now I wonder why that is, etc? Because we know Philistia was not a part of Israel, along with some other areas in that land, and so it was not all of Cannan by any means, etc, but might just be the areas Egypt was avoiding, etc. It (your video) also starts mentioning the Israelites at around 1200 BCE and the Egyptians losing hold on certain portions of that area/land (Cannan) around that time also, and having to leave it alone after that also, etc?

Anyway, I plan on checking out some other videos on YouTube by that same person soon, mainly because of what he says at the end of this one, but I'm just not going to do it right, right now, etc.

But I don't think this video, even if entirely correct, necessarily disproves the exodus, etc, but I plan to look into it more, etc.

God Bless.

@sjastro

I do like the video though, and plan on watching more of them just simply because I like them, etc, but I would also say that the exact history of that area around that time period is still incomplete, and that we are mainly only getting a Egyptian telling of it for the most part only, etc, which "who then really knows again with that", etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@sjastro

I do like the video though, and plan on watching more of them just simply because I like them, etc, but I would also say that the exact history of that area around that time period is still incomplete, and that we are mainly only getting a Egyptian telling of it for the most part only, etc, which "who then really knows again with that", etc.

God Bless.

If the Exodus of approximately 20,000 Egyptian/Hebrew slaves did happen in Egypt just like the Bible says, ten plagues and all of that, Red Sea, etc, I know that Egypt would want to blot that whole experience out of their history and memory as quickly as they could or can, etc, so I don't expect it to ever be written down, or written down correctly, by the Egyptians anywhere, etc. And I would also expect them to avoid another encounter with those people in the future also, unless they wanted a repeat of those events, etc, which your video says is exactly what they did, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

This may be a sidetrack, but if anyone wants to engage with it here, let me know.

Disregarding the literal truth of the exodus or other things in the Bible for a minute, did Jesus believe they were literally true?

I believe the evidence for Jesus Christ to do many quote/unquote "miraculous things" is pretty overwhelming, etc, much, much more overwhelming than some other things in the Bible are, like the literal truth of the exodus for example, etc, but let's just say it is not literally true for a minute, but that Jesus maybe thought it was for a minute, etc, then is it possible to do the kinds of things he did (the miraculous, or quote/unquote "supernatural", etc) when maybe believing a lie, etc?

Or what is the ability to either do or not do these kinds of things really truly dependent on anyway? Do you have to know the full whole truth about all before you can, or before you are able to do it? Or would it still be possible even if you didn't know all of the whole truth about all, etc, or maybe even when you are believing a lie, etc?

Anyway, just some thoughts of mine, etc.

But we can go back to discussion about the exodus now if you want, etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sick of hearing tall stories!

There's a Cure for that.

 

[Ophiolite]

The trick is to remember that when someone says something that seems totally ridiculous, somewhere inside their head is a line of reasoning that makes complete sense to that person, and your job, should you choose to accept it, is to try to find that line of reasoning.

Nonsense. You are claiming that if you don't understand what I have said it is your fault. Balderdash! Assuming you are mentally and emotionally sound then the failure is almost certainly mine. I am responsible for making myself clear. Not you. And the reverse applies - if your writing is so wooly, your thoughts so disorganised, your vocabulary misapplied, your arguments illogical, your grammar farcical, so that you are misunderstood that is not the fault of the reader. That is the fault of the writer.

 

[partinobodycular]

You are claiming that if you don't understand what I have said it is your fault.

What I'm claiming is, that your post for example, makes sense to you... or at least you tried to make it make sense. As a participant in a discussion part of my job is to do my best to try to interpret your meaning, and the thought process that went into formulating it. Now I'm not required to do that. I just choose to do that as a rational participant in a hopefully fruitful discussion.

I do this for two reasons. One, I love trying to figure out what's going on in someone else's head. But more importantly, it's the courteous thing to do. I'm aware that I'm not the most articulate of writers, and that many of my ideas are difficult to follow, no matter how clearly I try to lay them out. So I know that any beneficial discussion between us is going to require some effort on your part. As such, the least that I can do is to make the same effort on my part.

But even disregarding courtesy, I learn so much from these discussions not simply by what someone else says, but by trying to figure out the thought process that went into what they said... likewise I learn just as much by trying to make my thought process clear to them, even when it's not actually clear to me. In other words, I gain a greater insight into what I think by having to articulate it to someone else. I assume that the same is true for you.

In any case my goal is twofold... first and foremost to be courteous, and secondly to learn what the heck is going on inside your head, and subsequently, what the heck is going on inside my head.

Assuming you are mentally and emotionally sound then the failure is almost certainly mine. I am responsible for making myself clear. Not you.

I assume from the outset that you're trying your best to do that... to make yourself clear. But I'm not two years old, so part of my responsibility in any discussion is to make an earnest attempt to understand what the other person is trying to say. Or at least that's what I think... apparently you think otherwise.

And the reverse applies - if your writing is so wooly, your thoughts so disorganised, your vocabulary misapplied, your arguments illogical, your grammar farcical, so that you are misunderstood that is not the fault of the reader. That is the fault of the writer.

This may be true, and in my case often is, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a rational argument buried somewhere in that jumble of disjointed thoughts. My goal, but by no means my duty, is to try to figure out what that argument is. As I've said, that's what makes these discussions interesting to me... trying to figure out what's going on inside your head... and perhaps learning something about myself in the process.

But feel free to disagree, that's what makes these forums interesting.

 

[SelfSim]

Nonsense. You are claiming that if you don't understand what I have said it is your fault. Balderdash! Assuming you are mentally and emotionally sound then the failure is almost certainly mine. I am responsible for making myself clear. Not you. And the reverse applies - if your writing is so wooly, your thoughts so disorganised, your vocabulary misapplied, your arguments illogical, your grammar farcical, so that you are misunderstood that is not the fault of the reader. That is the fault of the writer.

Effective communication leading towards a common understanding, is a two-way process.
There can be many causes for miscommunication on both sides of any given discussion.
Ideally, it always helps for those involved, to accept responsibility for its effectiveness.

 

[Ophiolite]

Effective communication leading towards a common understanding, is a two-way process.

Certainly, but my princpal point (and my principle point, also) is that if one chooses to view it as a one-way process one had best take responsibility for any problems.

 

[SelfSim]

Certainly, but my princpal point (and my principle point, also) is that if one chooses to view it as a one-way process one had best take responsibility for any problems.

Hmm .. interesting opinion.
How would you suggest one might go about 'taking responsibility' for a listener's warped listening perceptions?
(I mean, I can think of several prime examples of this here at CFs, of which I'm pretty sure, you're fully aware).
I supppose one has to account for listening blockages by dancing around in those types of conversations(?)

 

[AV1611VET]

This paper below shows what I now believe to be the correct number of Israelites in the exodus from Egypt, etc. And instead of 2 million, it shows, and proves in my opinion, that the number was closer to 20 thousand, rather than 2 million, etc.

Does that link give us the exact number from each of the twelve tribes, like the Bible does?

 

[Ophiolite]

How would you suggest one might go about 'taking responsibility' for a listener's warped listening perceptions?

Take meticulous care to express oneself with great clarity, ensuring that the target topic of any response is clearly identified and ones argument is presented with minimum ambiguity and carefully directed emphasis. Adjust ones response on subsequent exchanges to take account of probable reasons for failure to properly communicate, until one reaches the point that it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain and a genuine desire to understand that one has been dealing with a numpty.
(At that point select at random any play by George Bernard Shaw. Read it. Reflect that at least one human could communicate with sparkling clarity, compassion and wit, so there may yet be hope for the species.)

 

[sjastro]

It's amazing how you can say things that I know will go right over my head, and yet I read it anyway perhaps believing that I'll absorb some of it by osmosis alone. It's not working all that well, but unlike some people you can make me feel like a complete idiot... while at the same time making it seem as though you don't actually think I'm a complete idiot. That's a gift not everybody's got.

You come across as a smart individual.
I know things that you don’t and vice versa and since our knowledge base differs, it would take the time and effort to understand each other’s POV.

I completely agree. I would also argue that whatever the source of our reality is... it's natural... it just is what it is. In which case @Neogaia777's description of 'other natural' might be more appropriate... as if there could somehow be a difference between 'natural' and 'other natural'. In this case it's the difference between things such as superposition being perfectly natural in one realm, while being completely verboten in another. They're both natural, they're just otherly natural.

My description of the quantum realm as being 'supernatural' was based solely on the hierarchical order of one seemingly being an emergent property of the other.

I believe our understanding of reality changes as we acquire more knowledge; in this case the difference between ‘natural’ and ‘other natural’ is the level of understanding.
Paradoxically while many physicists will state quantum mechanics, the ‘other natural’, is impossible to understand quantum mechanics does provide a deeper understanding through mathematics which makes the concept of reality through the lens of classical physics the ‘natural’, overly simplified.

In this thread the lack of evidence of the Israelites in the Sinai has been attributed to God providing the Israelites for their needs who did not require utilities such as pottery to transport water, food and for its use in cooking in a desert environment.
This is a bona fide supernatural case, not an ‘other natural’, and is impossible to confirm by archaeological evidence, while as a line of argument for the lack of evidence is a logical fallacy.

 

[sjastro]

@Neogaia777.
I will address your recent posts collectively.

The history of Canaan in the video is based on the archaeological evidence pieced together not only from Egypt but also from Israel and Syria and is not a one sided story from Egypt.
You might think there is a paucity of archaeological evidence presented in the video, but it is far greater than the zero evidence found in the Sinai for the Exodus.

As the video reveals the other problem with Exodus is dating it.
It cannot have occurred during the New Kingdom when Canaan was already part of the Egyptian empire otherwise the Israelites would have had to battle the Egyptians all the way to their final destination which is not recorded in Exodus.
The only other possibility is at the very start of the New Kingdom when the Egyptians were pursing the Hyksos out of Egypt into the Near East.
In this case the Hyksos were the Israelites but as was pointed out to you in a previous post, the Hyksos were not monotheists.
If it came after the 12th century BC when Egyptian control of Canaan collapsed, it makes the Exodus pointless as the kingdom of Israel had already been established.

As the archaeological evidence from the video reveals the Israelites were indigenous to Canaan, they never migrated to Egypt to be enslaved which led to the Exodus.
They gained independence after the Egyptians withdrew from Canaan.