Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have to create an account unfortunately, and to download it costs money, but it's worth at least creating an account if you ask me.
All you have to do to look is create a free account, but if you're not even going to look...?jstor just doesn't have the kind of journals worth paying money for. (And I have access to the journals I *do* care about.)
Nice cut and paste job.First, we should start with the hermeneutical questions: Does the Bible interpret the archaeological finds? Or, do the archaeological finds interpret the Bible? In 'Curious'' case, archaeology is used to interpret the Bible. That is a very dangerous precedent to follow because archaeology is not an exact science and it is always changing with new excavations and new interpretations. Views held by archaeologists today may be passé tomorrow due to new evidence.
Second, to say that there are no graves in the Sinai from the period of the Exodus / Wilderness Wanderings is very misleading. One should first ask the question: In what archaeological period was the Wilderness Wanderings (Cohen 1983:16-39; for surveys of Sinai, see Meshel 2000)? Does a preconceived idea of which archaeological period to look at happen to eliminate all your evidence?
Third, what kind of graves would Israelites have been buried in? If the Israelites buried their dead in a simple trench burial in the ground, would they have even left a marker on top of the grave? There would be no reason to mark the grave because they were heading to the Promised Land, the Land of Canaan, and not returning back to visit the graves of their ancestors as Bedouin in Sinai, the Negev, Jordan and Saudi Arabia do today, thus the markers on their graves so they can visit their ancestors!
Fourth, how do we know that most of the Israelites were even buried in Sinai? The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers that: 'But with most of them God was not pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness' (I Cor. 10:5 NKJV). 'Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert' (NIV). One gets the distinct impression from this passage that most of the bodies were just left in the Wilderness, exposed to the elements … and the vultures, hyenas and jackals! If that is the case, there will be very few graves at all, thus 'no gravesites in Sinai' would be a dead objection.
Fifth, another possibility that should be pursued is the Hebrew practice of secondary burial. In this practice, the dead would be buried in a cave for a year and then the bones would be gathered for 'secondary burial.' In the case of the First Temple period, the bones would be placed into a repository in the cave. During the Second Temple period, the bones would be placed in an ossuary. The phrase in the Bible that is connected with this practice is: 'and he slept with his fathers,' or more literally, 'he was gathered to his fathers.'
This practice began with the Patriarch Abraham when he bought a cave near Hebron and buried his wife Sarah in it (Gen. 23). He was later interned there, as was his son Isaac and his wife Rebecca. Jacob and one of his wives, Leah, were buried there as well (Gen. 49:28-33; 50:5, 13). When Jacob died in Egypt, he wanted to be gathered to his fathers in the Promised Land.
SOURCE
So, you conclude that there is absolutely no way anything in the Bible could ever be true, because you reject any kind of idea of any kind of a God at all, or of anything supernatural or "other natural" ever being able to happen, etc?Let me emphasize again the hostile desert environment cannot support long term habitation of the region for forty years.
The simplest and most logical outcome of which solves all the issues raised in this thread using Occam’s razor is there was no Exodus.
Nice cut and paste job.
How is this Christian apologetics site consistent with your explanation the Amalekites cleaned up all the evidence?
Nothing in the Bible is true if the Exodus account is not historical? I think that's your conclusion, not sjastro's.So, you conclude that there is absolutely no way anything in the Bible could ever be true,
Sjastro identifies as a Christian in this forum. You are required by the site rules to accept that, even if you don't believe it.because you reject any kind of idea of any kind of a God at all, or of anything supernatural or "other natural" ever being able to happen, etc?
Is that correct?
Because that's not what most people believe, etc. Because many people think/believe that it's at the very least "possible", etc.
Way to have an open mind though. Kudos for that, etc.
God Bless.
Groan ..So, you conclude that there is absolutely no way anything in the Bible could ever be true, because you reject any kind of idea of any kind of a God at all, or of anything supernatural or "other natural" ever being able to happen, etc?
sjastro said:Here is an example of evidence supporting the Bible in 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:1-12 which refers to a King Shisak of Egypt.
Shishak is a translation for the pharaoh Shoshenq 1 who campaigned in Canaan and left details of his campaign at Karnak in Egypt which is consistent with the Biblical account.
This is the type of evidence required to support Exodus namely the Egyptian side of the story.
Reactions:Neogaia777
It's regrettable you share the same attitude as others in this forum, if you don't believe in every single word the Bible states you can't be a Christian.So, you conclude that there is absolutely no way anything in the Bible could ever be true, because you reject any kind of idea of any kind of a God at all, or of anything supernatural or "other natural" ever being able to happen, etc?
Is that correct?
Because that's not what most people believe, etc. Because many people think/believe that it's at the very least "possible", etc.
Way to have an open mind though. Kudos for that, etc.
God Bless.
I'll rather trust God over a man. God does not lie, whereas man does.The simplest and most logical outcome of which solves all the issues raised in this thread using Occam’s razor is there was no Exodus
You think this is a problem for God? God provided both water and food.Let me emphasize again the hostile desert environment cannot support long term habitation of the region for forty years.
Most individuals would be embarrassed to be caught out contradicting themselves, for you it is water off a duck's back.Thank you.
It saved me a lot of typing.
It isn't.
But I get the idea that, even if the Amalekites hadn't cleaned up their property, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Also @SelfSim @BCP1928It's regrettable you share the same attitude as others in this forum, if you don't believe in every single word the Bible states you can't be a Christian.
@SelfSim's post #67 indicates I am prepared to believe in what the Bible states if it can be attested through archaeological evidence.
Since I don't have a literal interpretation of the Bible like the majority of most Christians, I don't have to believe in the Exodus unless there is archaeological evidence to support it.
So if there is no archaeological evidence for the ressurection of Jesus Christ, you not gona believe it? Is God's word not enough for you? It's called faith for a reason.@SelfSim's post #67 indicates I am prepared to believe in what the Bible states if it can be attested through archaeological evidence.
Since I don't have a literal interpretation of the Bible like the majority of most Christians, I don't have to believe in the Exodus unless there is archaeological evidence to support it.
I suggest you read the SOP for this forum because it is supposed to be about the discussion of science not veiled attacks against individuals you consider liars because they don't share your opinion.I'll rather trust God over a man. God does not lie, whereas man does.
You think this is a problem for God? God provided both water and food.
Most individuals would be embarrassed to be caught out contradicting themselves, for you it is water off a duck's back.
Hmm .. the back door approach, eh?@sjastro
I'm being very, very honest, and am in no way trying to be insulting at all, when I do say that I am very, very curious/interested in hearing about your Christian belief, and what you do believe sometime though. And it's not because I want to tear that down, or criticize that, or try to rip that apart either, ok.
Maybe you could PM/DM me with it sometime, etc?
And I promise to not try to tear it down or rip it apart or insult you/it, ok. I'd just really, really like to hear about your beliefs, and what you believe, and will promise to just simply listen, and give very, very little comment unless it's something constructive, or useful to you, ok. And I will keep it confidential, or just only in the private chat, ok, and won't even let anyone know that we even spoke privately if you don't want me to, ok, I would just very much like to hear them sometime, etc. So PM/DM me anytime you wish, ok.
I know I can get pretty aggressive on here sometimes, but it's a whole different matter in private, ok.
God Bless.
I greatly enjoy one on one private interactions/conversations, way, way much more than I ever do much more public ones, etc, and I wanted to offer him that in case he ever wanted to, or thought it was needed, or at the very, very least, thought or thinks it might be nice, etc.Hmm .. the back door approach, eh?
What if one's beliefs are chosen by one as being private?
I mean after all, all beliefs are private anyway, (by definition).. whether they happen to align with others', (or groups of others'), or not.
Interesting ..
Personally speaking, I don't really care about my beliefs .. they're a dime-a-dozen (ie: they're practically value-less to me).I greatly enjoy one on one private interactions/conversations, way, way much more than I ever do much more public ones, etc, and I wanted to offer him that in case he ever wanted to, or thought it was needed, or at the very, very least, thought or thinks it might be nice, etc.
God Bless.
Maybe I just figure with a person like @sjastro, they gotta be unique, etc.Personally speaking, I don't really care about my beliefs .. they're a dime-a-dozen (ie: they're practically value-less to me).
That they may be of value to you, defeats my quest to distinguish my own and then neutralise them as best I can.
Why would I share them if that would undermine my own personal quest?
Interesting.
I didn't call anyone specifically a liar, but a man in general is a liar.I suggest you read the SOP for this forum because it is supposed to be about the discussion of science not veiled attacks against individuals you consider liars because they don't share your opinion.
These are the sort of posts which lead to threads being closed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?