Is This Scholar Bonkers?

[cloudyday2]

It's perfectly possible that someone called Moses existed and was responsible for some people leaving Egypt. However it doesn't appear that this could have been the major source of the people of Israel.

I have wondered about the possibility that these slaves might have been serving Pharaoh at one of the Egyptian military strongholds in the Levant. This makes a mass movement of people a little easier. As Egypt lost control of its frontiers later generations of storytellers might have changed the site of the revolt to Egypt itself.

 

[Silmarien]

The traditional rabbinic explanation for the name "Moses" is its similar sound to water (in Hebrew), but I suspect that "Moses" mean "son of <blank>" as was common for pharaohs where the <blank> was left unsaid because it was the tetragrammaton. Some scholars think that Moses was originally more like a demigod who parted the Red Sea using his own innate magical powers and ascended to heaven much like Elijah. They suspect that the feats of Elijah were meant to parallel the feats of the original demigod-like Moses, so Elijah gives insight into the original form of the Exodus. I guess this is a bit off-topic LOL

Yeah... I feel like they're stretching that explanation a bit, since the only sound "water" and "Moses" have in common is "M." Granted my Hebrew is pretty basic, but I'm very skeptical. I would go with the "son of" explanation as well.

That said, I find it endlessly amusing the degree to which scholars think they can reconstruct the original versions of any of these stories. I particularly enjoyed the sea dragon in the video. (Possible vestigial references to Tiamat doesn't mean that God had to fight her to create the universe!)

 

[cvanwey]

Please do not think I'm ignoring much of what you've responded to... Just placing some of it to the side for now. I simply want to take smaller bites. See below. You can remind me later, if you feel you want/need to address other areas unaddressed.

You are correct. She doesn't really elaborate, maybe because she knows everyone can just google the biblical literary 'camel issue' and find out the details on their own, both pro and con.

True... But this is the crux I see...

If Moses actually DID exist, then all this does is to validate that the Bible got the claim for the existence of a character correct. He did exist. However, does not necessarily lend any further credence to the assertion that this claimed God, in which Moses was claimed to be in contact with, actually exists. This requires a whole other set of criteria....

But...

If it turns out that Moses did NOT exist, what might this say about later verses, written in the Bible, which make seemingly axiomatic statements, such as:

"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness"

I doubt it's very 'righteous' to lead people to believe a fictitious character actually existed.

Was the intent of the Bible to suggest that Moses did exist? If so, what say-you, to the ones whom read such stories, find they reject the book, because they cannot reconcile truth there, hence dismiss a resurrection claim without much further inquiry?

And THEN, please contrast (your) possible alternate conclusion, with that of what God will do to those whom don't believe in earnest.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Some unbelievers (like myself), reject the unfalsifiable claims of the Bible

If something cannot be falsified == "unfalsifiable" == then it is by definition TRUTH.
So do you mean as you posted, as many of your posts do show, that you reject the TRUTH!?

 

[cvanwey]

If something cannot be falsified == "unfalsifiable" == then it is by definition TRUTH.
So do you mean as you posted, as many of your posts do show, that you reject the TRUTH!?

I spirit told me to wear a blue shirt this morning. It must be TRUE.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I spirit told me to wear a blue shirt this morning. It must be TRUE.

It does not fit the definition of UNfalsifiable. So, like all other posts you delivered that are not UNfalsifiable, it may be true or false, and is not accepted until proven. (because it/they all could be FALSIFIABLE, wittingly or willingly or not (i.e. unknown to you) )

 

[cvanwey]

It does not fit the definition of UNfalsifiable. So, like all other posts you delivered that are not UNfalsifiable, it may be true or false, and is not accepted until proven. (because it/they all could be FALSIFIABLE, wittingly or willingly or not (i.e. unknown to you) )

Unfalsifiability. (also known as: untestability) Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1. unfalsifiability(Noun)
   
   The state or condition of being unfalsifiable.
   
   
   

 

[cvanwey]

1. unfalsifiability(Noun)
   
   The state or condition of being unfalsifiable.
   
   

Post #25, then post #27

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Post 45, then post 46.

Speel it out - I don't chase wild gooses.

 

[cvanwey]

Speel it out - I don't chase wild gooses.

Post #25 is not falsifiable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Post #25 is not falsifiable.

It totally is.

 

[cvanwey]

It totally is.

Go for it

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Go for it

What is a falsifiable claim?
A falsifiable claim is one for which there is some observation (or set of observations) we could make that would show us that the claim is false.Jan 31, 2007

The claim of a spirit talking this morning could be false, thus it is falsifiable. It could be untrue. That's all that is necessary for it to be falsifiable.

ADDING "It must be true" makes it even more false, more egregious, more likely to be false probably. Definitely falsifiable - possibly if not actually false.

I spirit told me to wear a blue shirt this morning. It must be TRUE.

 

[cvanwey]

What is a falsifiable claim?
A falsifiable claim is one for which there is some observation (or set of observations) we could make that would show us that the claim is false.Jan 31, 2007

The claim of a spirit talking this morning could be false, thus it is falsifiable. It could be untrue. That's all that is necessary for it to be falsifiable.

ADDING "It must be true" makes it even more false, more egregious, more likely to be false probably. Definitely falsifiable - possibly if not actually false.

Let's step back to the beginning. (i.e.) Your assertion in post #24...

"If something cannot be falsified == "unfalsifiable" == then it is by definition TRUTH."

Hence, my assertion in post #25, that 'a spirit told me to wear a blue shirt this morning.'

Also, your usage of 'we could make' may need further exploration. But not quite yet...

I again ask, how are you going to prove me wrong? How are you going to prove a spirit did not contact me this morning and tell me what to wear? And if you cannot prove me wrong, does this mean I'm correct, and providing TRUTH?

 

[cvanwey]

Most of what she said about history is well accepted, but the overall impression is misleading.

In the OT, it’s pretty clear that up to about Joshua there’s not a lot of historical content, though I suspect Moses actually did exist. That’s the period she talks about in the beginning as not happening. However starting with David, and probably Judges, it’s more plausible. The destruction of Jerusalem and the exile did happen, and she implicitly acknowledges it. While she doesn’t say anything specific that’s false, she gives the false impression that none of the Bible is historically true.

It also doesn’t discuss the historicity of the NT, though listeners probably assume it’s included in the judgement that the Bible isn’t historically true. I think what she does say is misleading. God is not absent from the NT. Jesus’ teachings are mostly about what he’s like and what he wants from us. While Paul talks a lot about Christ, his emphasis is on God's plan involving Christ, so God is at the center there as well. That's true whether you agree with her judgement about Paul or not. It's obvious that she is an OT scholar, since the terms in which she discusses Paul seem divorced from current Pauline scholarship (though it also doesn't seem that she was all that interested in informing people about current Biblical scholarship -- despite her claim to respect religious people it seemed more like making fun of the Bible than informing people about scholarship).

The thing at the end wasn’t intended as serious, I guess, but just because the people who made the toy he showed can’t tell male and female lions apart doesn’t mean that God or the Bible couldn’t.

I thank you for watching the entire video

I will start, by extending one question to you, that I also posed to @2PhiloVoid

Was it the Bible's intent to portray Moses as a real or fictitious character? Or maybe, it doesn't matter?

(i.e.) If Moses never existed, then who brought forth / presented the 10 Commandments? - Or, is 'Moses' merely a place-holder/symbolic/ethereal concept, and the story is only to suggest that at the end, it is all God?

But I still again reiterate the initial question posed to him...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hence, my assertion in post #25, that 'a spirit told me to wear a blue shirt this morning.'

No.
That is very falsifiable. i.e. easily NOT TRUTH.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I again ask, how are you going to prove me wrong? How are you going to prove a spirit did not contact me this morning and tell me what to wear? And if you cannot prove me wrong, does this mean I'm correct, and providing TRUTH?

You're posts have been wrong , admittedly so (you don't deny what you post)
in view of Scripture, all along. (being a skeptic does not ever make a false statement true, that I know of) ...

There has not even been a confession nor even a statement of seeking the truth so far as I have seen in your posts.

Posts made without any proof that they are truth, are "falsifiable" - they can more easily and more commonly be false than true, since the world is that way as well, over all.

If a demon contacts anyone on earth, it(the demon) is a deceiving spirit. (by definition)... it always tries to deceive.

Making fun of and mocking the truth, is not a healthy pursuit for anyone. (it leads to destruction of their souls, "unless they each likewise repent" (re tower of siloam) )

 

[cvanwey]

There has not even been a confession nor even a statement of seeking the truth so far as I have seen in your posts.

Falsified:

For starters:

What Was the Author's Intent Here?

Post #89

Posts made without any proof that they are truth, are "falsifiable" - they can more easily and more commonly be false than true, since the world is that way as well, over all.

Clarification is needed here. Please go back to post #27 for starters....

Another case/point....

Many unfalsifiable claims are made all the time. I.E.

"I saw a ghost last Thursday."

Or maybe what Google says:

"Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason. Example #1: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment."

I'm still waiting for you to falsify the unfalsifiable?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes I believe there is something there. Now how much is literal vs. allegorical or idiomatic remains to be seen, but I notice how you overlook the main point of my post....

You atheists, skeptics etc. always act like you got all the answers, and everything is cut and dried, but the basis of knowledge and epistemology etc. is always changing. Many things are not just black or white, true or false and when it comes to science many things boil down to how you frame the particular investigation by defining the criteria etc.

My point is that many reject this entire book, as soon as they start to find things within it, which they feel cannot be true in reality. And by untrue, I mean physical falsifiable things. Not the supernatural ones per se...

And yes, later discovery may later unearth some stuff, which turns out possibly corroborating an assertion from the Bible physically. As you eluded to in your prior response.

The person in this video, I would imagine, as she is a scholar, has studied in depth. I'm fairly confident her conclusions are warranted to her, as to why the evidence suggests these characters didn't exist. And as she shed a little bit of light towards, "I don't have any vested interested in them being true, as I'm an atheist." One might ask, why do some scholars, in comparison, view Moses as an actual character? Are the majority Christian? Does this matter? Does the actual existence of Moses matter regardless? Maybe, maybe not.......?

I guess a follow up consideration might be....

Is there a way that ALL the physical claims from the Bible, which some scholars currently deem untrue, to still later someday be verified true? And IF so, does this begin to validate that God/Yahweh had an actual hand in any of it?