The Exodus

[Kenny'sID]

You would be wrong, then.

Another claim you cannot verify.

 

[HitchSlap]

Another claim you cannot verify.

We seem to be talking past each other here; There is no evidence to suggest the exodus story is anything other than myth - therefore it's my opinion there's no good reason to believe it's literal history.

You have reasons, other than evidence, for believing in a literal exodus story as told in the OT, and I really don't care. You're free to believe what you'd like to.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ignoring just means that you're choosing not to take notice of; it doesn't mean you've disproved it.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, as you claim the exodus story, as told in the OT is literal history. The reason I believe the OT exodus story to be a myth is because I actually have looked at the evidence, and am unwilling to ignore it's implications.

 

[Strong in Him]

None of the stuff in either the new or old testament were written by "eye witnesses", by the way.

It was, actually.

As I said, the first 5 books of the Bible are accredited to Moses, who was present when he led the nation out of Egypt. The prophets recorded the words that they themselves received from God.
Matthew and John were disciples. John-Mark wrote Mark's Gospel but it is widely acknowledged that he was the scribe for Peter, another disciple. Acts was written by Luke who accompanied Paul on his travels. If you read Acts you'll notice that every so often he writes, " then we did ......" or then we went .......".

Even if some of these books were physically written by a scribe, or kind of secretary, these people would have been recording the events told to them by those who saw them.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You have reasons, other than evidence, for believing in a literal exodus story as told in the OT, and I really don't care.

If you don't care why are we even talking, or for that matter, why are you even here?

I have evidence that suites me just fine, however you would not consider it as such any more than I would your empty claims.

Again...

So far, Exodus appears to be no less provable than a lot of what your average Atheist might consider provable history or at least viable evidence that history existed..

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, as you claim the exodus story, as told in the OT is literal history. The reason I believe the OT exodus story to be a myth is because I actually have looked at the evidence, and am unwilling to ignore it's implications.

I do believe the Biblical account of the Exodus is true, but I didn't actually claim that this account proves it. If you re read my first post I said that I don't know about archaeological evidence, but surely the account in the OT, and the writings of historians like Josephus, must count for something?

Even if you dismiss the Bible, because it IS the Bible, Josephus was Jewish and a historian. What reason would he have to make this up?

 

[HitchSlap]

I do believe the Biblical account of the Exodus is true, but I didn't actually claim that this account proves it. If you re read my first post I said that I don't know about archaeological evidence, but surely the account in the OT, and the writings of historians like Josephus, must count for something?

Even if you dismiss the Bible, because it IS the Bible, Josephus was Jewish and a historian. What reason would he have to make this up?

Why does anyone make anything, up? The most parsimonious answer is the best one.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why does anyone make anything, up? The most parsimonious answer is the best one.

The most parsimonious answer is best? Then you should deny that all science, Evolution, religion etc. can ever be supported as the most parsimonious answer is always 'I don't know'.

 

[HitchSlap]

The most parsimonious answer is best? Then you should deny that all science, Evolution, religion etc. can ever be supported as the most parsimonious answer is always 'I don't know'.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever floats your boat.

-- This gave me a chuckle, in view of a previous conversation I had with someone interpreting a remark I made in a modern way, despite the fact I said it was hippie talk.

Science at its best.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The OT is documentation. Just because the Book it comes from is the Bible doesn't make it any less a documentation than say, Darwin's notes or the story of evolution. If you disagree...why?

The point isn't that it is a book from the Bible but the Bible itself is a book from antiquity and shown to be accurate in historical content. The Old Testament has been more accurately transmitted to us than any other ancient writing of comparable age. The textual evidence is greater for both the Old and New Testaments than any other historically reliable ancient document.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The point isn't that it is a book from the Bible but the Bible itself is a book from antiquity and shown to be accurate in historical content. The Old Testament has been more accurately transmitted to us than any other ancient writing of comparable age. The textual evidence is greater for both the Old and New Testaments than any other historically reliable ancient document.

Good to hear that.

The point to my statement was, to an Atheists possible way of thinking, it comes from the Bible, it can't be true, but that the Bible is a history book just as any history book, and because one doesn't believe in God, is no reason to discount it as as good a documentation of history as any.

But then again, to believe it's a viable recording of history would mean there is a God so, in the end, it's just not going to be seen as such by many Atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

The point isn't that it is a book from the Bible but the Bible itself is a book from antiquity and shown to be accurate in historical content. The Old Testament has been more accurately transmitted to us than any other ancient writing of comparable age. The textual evidence is greater for both the Old and New Testaments than any other historically reliable ancient document.

This isn't true at all, and would be great if you would support this claim with evidence.

The bible is horribly inaccurate on topics of geography, science, world events and just about everything else that can be verified.

 

[HitchSlap]

-- This gave me a chuckle, in view of a previous conversation I had with someone interpreting a remark I made in a modern way, despite the fact I said it was hippie talk.

Science at its best.

Groovy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good to hear that.

The point to my statement was, to an Atheists possible way of thinking, it comes from the Bible, it can't be true, but that the Bible is a history book just as any history book, and because one doesn't believe in God, is no reason to discount it as as good a documentation of history as any.

But then again, to believe it's a viable recording of history would mean there is a God so, in the end, it's just not going to be seen as such by many Atheists.

Oh I agree. I just wanted to point out that while they dismiss the Bible as if it were not a work of antiquity as any other, it is and has been established as such.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This isn't true at all, and would be great if you would support this claim with evidence.

The bible is horribly inaccurate on topics of geography, science, world events and just about everything else that can be verified.

You do realize that the OT has been shown to be accurate by many archaeological discoveries. Other books of antiquity have been incorrect in terms of scientific findings and the like.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh I agree. I just wanted to point out that while they dismiss the Bible as if it were not a work of antiquity as any other, it is and has been established as such.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This isn't true at all, and would be great if you would support this claim with evidence.

The bible is horribly inaccurate on topics of geography, science, world events and just about everything else that can be verified.

Depends what part of the bible you are referring to. The later descriptions of the fall of Israel and Judah to Assyria and Babylonia fit the historic narrative almost perfectly from our other sources. In fact the Bible mentioned Belshazzer who was considered mythical by Assyriology until we later discovered he actually existed (a son of Nabonidus) from clay tablets and had ruled Babylon as regent just before its fall.
Likewise the new testament is very accurate on historical matters such as Pilate's title which the Bible has as prefect, but Tacitus as Procurator. History trusted Tacitus until an inscription of Pilate's was discovered in Palestine bearing the biblical title and History acknowledged the biblical title had been right all along. Later further corroborating evidence on this line was also discovered from a record of reorganisation of the eastern provinces.
On science, geography etc. it is not less accurate than other texts of its time.
The problem with the Bible as a historical source is only evident for the earlier portions up till Solomon, and we have a paucity of sources for this period anyway as it corresponds to the bronze age collapse, so it is expected and anyway the chronology isn't definitive for the period.

The other point you would make on the miraculous in the Bible, doesn't apply as all accepted historic texts of the period also record miraculous events and gods in a similar manner. As a history text portions of the Bible are quite good sources, well backed up by other sources. This is why Archaeology continues to investigate the possibility of the other portions in spite of limited evidence found so far.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We seem to be talking past each other here; There is no evidence to suggest the exodus story is anything other than myth - therefore it's my opinion there's no good reason to believe it's literal history.

You have reasons, other than evidence, for believing in a literal exodus story as told in the OT, and I really don't care. You're free to believe what you'd like to.

That is not necessarily true. As I've shown you there is evidence of the plagues and then there is this:

https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/2-patterns-of-evidence-exodus-facing-the-facts/

 

[HitchSlap]

You do realize that the OT has been shown to be accurate by many archaeological discoveries. Other books of antiquity have been incorrect in terms of scientific findings and the like.

Right, just like Tom Clancy novels mention the CIA and Washington DC.