Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Apologiaphoenix]

I just get the message and ignore it. Gary hasn't said anything remotely troubling and doesn't read books.

[Mikeenders]

Incidentally if the mods haven't they might check Gary for spamming PM. He seems to be sending out PMs to people to get around not getting his stuff posted. I am not even remotely interested . If you can go 300 pages in a forum and offer mostly copy and paste nonsense in that time its not likely to improve in PM.

[Mikeenders]

Can we possibly open another thread on this, or some debate topic? I think this thread has long gone off topic, and the subject of the Exodus is best discussed in another thread.

Thing is its been off the original topic for at least 300 pages and has been more or less a thread charging the Bible and Christianity with all kinds of things. IF you thought that it was off topic then why make several pronouncements of near fact and only invoke it being off topic when someone asks you to back your claims? Not to, as the American phrase (I think) goes, bust your chops but in a thread where a skeptic is claiming the Bible is made up for a Christian to waltz in and claim as fact the things you did of Kings, Chronicles , Exodus, Joshua and Daniel and kind of duck for like a week or two giving any hard facts to back up the claims reeks of irresponsibility. Worse still no answer to the BAR article I referred you to or to the other data Nick has referred you to.

As a thread that for weeks has been more about how to deal with skeptic claims against the Bible the issue of exodus is a pretty big related issue (favorite of online skeptics as well) one so though yeah at getting to 400 pages its probably time to wind down its not really off topic to what the thread became looooooong ago.

So at bare minimum can you at least answer me as to what you think of the BAR article. Perhaps I am reading it wrong but they seem to be suggesting Kadesh might actually have some evidence.

[tabibito]

Hi Tabby,

You could be right. When the passage talks about "all" Pharaoh's army and "Pharaoh's entire army" it could mean what you say: it was only part of the army that chased after the Hebrews, and only part of the army of foot soldiers that followed the chariots drowned.

Where does it mention foot soldiers.

However, I think one has to really stretch the reading of the text to get to that interpretation. I believe that if one sits down and reads the entire Book of Exodus, one will walk away with the impression that the entire nation of Egypt and her entire army were brought down to utter defeat and destruction by the God of the Hebrews.

Such an interpretation would ignore the logistics involved. Or perhaps the entire Egyptian army was garrisoned in the capital, with no-one on deployment?

I think that is the entire point of the whole story: Obey and place your complete trust in Yahweh and Yahweh will bring even the most mighty and powerful of your enemies to his knees in utter desolation.

That would be the point of the exercise in all probability - once the point had been demonstrated, that is as far as matters need to go.

Why would Pharaoh stop his pursuit of the Hebrews if all he lost were just a division of charioteers? I think an unbiased reading of the text clearly indicates that God (or at least the author of the Exodus story) wanted to completely desolate the mighty Egyptians. Just drowning a few charioteers and a few squadrons of foot soldiers who followed them seems very anti-climatic.

With no means to pursue available, it would be a matter of falling back to regroup and consider a future course. What would be militarily and politically expedient? Claiming that he had expelled a group of troublemakers from the land and calling it a victory would be advisable. Loss of face gets avoided, and no-one asks the inconvenient questions.

But, yes, you could be right.

In regards to Pharaoh summoning his entire army from all over the country, think about this: Who would move at a faster pace to reach the Red Sea (or Reed Sea): Soldiers in chariots or even soldiers on foot, or, a mass of people with old people, young children, their sick, livestock, tents, cooking utensils, and other supplies with a large percentage of them most likely walking on foot.

Logistics of troop movement result in a large loss of time on a daily basis in striking and making camp. Civilian groups don't have that problem and spend a lot more time per day in travel. [GUESS]The outcome would result in a faster pace by the soldiers by less than 20% - it would take a week to recover one day's head start by the civilian group.[/GUESS] Meanwhile, Egypt's borders would be left vulnerable - and allies would be stripped of obligatory support, and your fugitives would be gaining more and more distance while Pharaoh sat around waiting for messengers to get to the troops and for the troops to organise and travel to Pharaoh's location. The whole scenario of all Egypt's army taking off in pursuit, even on logistical grounds, is as crazy as anything you have accused Christians of believing. So also would be sending 600 chariots (or if we are to accept a possible alternative reading of 6000 - 7200 [600 chariots under captains, each with a squad of 10-12]) in pursuit of 600 000 men in an age range suitable for fighting. Chariots of that time would be hard pressed to take on 10 to 1 odds, 100 to 1 simply wouldn't be considered. Chariots were also high cost and high maintainence equipment. 600 is at the high end of what might be reasonably ready to hand ... in the ordinary course (i.e. not the king's own) 400 would be more likely. From memory, the only time Egypt fielded more than 500 chariots in one campaign was when they managed to capture a few hundred of the enemy's chariots.

[tabibito]

One of the key pieces of evidence for me in my deconversion from Christianity was the discovery that there is zero evidence for the Hebrew Slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, or the Forty Years of Wandering in the Sinai. None. Nor is there any evidence of the great Egyptian defeat at the hands of their fleeing slaves. None.

Christians will often argue that the Egyptians did not erect monuments to their defeats, and that this is why there is no mention in Egypt of this Egyptian disaster. This may be true, but what about the surrounding nations? Egypt was the most powerful nation on earth at that time. Are we really to believe that the God of the Hebrews drowned the entire Egyptian army in a sea while in hot pursuit of their runaway slaves...and no one in the ancient world thought it was of enough significance to record it??

At this point, Christians will sometimes say: "Well, it wasn't the entire Egyptian army. It was just his charioteers" or "It was just one of many Egyptians armies, so it wasn't that news worthy". Let's see what the Bible says:

Quite - let's see what the Bible has to say about it, and ignore interpretations based on expections - whether the expectations of atheists or theists (of whatever stamp).

Then the Lord said to Moses: 2 Tell the Israelites to turn back and camp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon; you shall camp opposite it, by the sea. 3 Pharaoh will say of the Israelites, “They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has closed in on them.” 4 I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, the minds of Pharaoh and his officials were changed toward the people, and they said, “What have we done, letting Israel leave our service?”

There is some time elapsed between the departure of the Israelites and the decision to pursue. Will Pharaoh recall his entire army from every point in Egypt and every hotspot in the land and among allies to give pursuit? Will he simply assemble the nearest and fastest available troops to give pursuit, or assign foot-soldiers (by far the most numerous complement of his army) to travel with his chariots? True, this does go to expectation, but a certain amount of logic needs to be exercised. Remembering that it will take no less than a full day to muster even a smallish complement of six hundred troops and a lot longer to muster and equip a full army of horse and foot, how long would it take for soldiers on foot to close with a quarry that has a significant head start?

6 So he had his chariot made ready, and took his army with him; 7 he took six hundred picked chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them. 8 The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the Israelites, who were going out boldly. 9 The Egyptians pursued them, all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots, his chariot drivers and his army; they overtook them camped by the sea, by Pi-hahiroth, in front of Baal-zephon.

Six hundred picked chariots - or, chosen chariots - with captains over each. The "republican guard" so to speak, or the "king's own". The six hundred are Pharaoh's troops. the "and" of "and all the chariots", bolded, isn't in the original text, nor is "other". Again the question needs to be asked - "Did Pharaoh recall every chariot from every far flung corner of Egypt and beyond before he took up pursuit? How long would it take to send messengers to the troops concerned, and recall not only his chariots but his every foot soldier?

... Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, so that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and chariot drivers.”

?? What about all the foot soldiers? Why wasn't the sea expected to close over them as well?

27 So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at dawn the sea returned to its normal depth. As the Egyptians fled before it, the Lord tossed the Egyptians into the sea. 28 The waters returned and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers, the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not one of them remained. 29 But the Israelites walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left.

And here, no extraneous "and" or "other" has been slapped into the translated text. The waters covered - the CHARIOTS and CHARIOT DRIVERS, the entire army that had followed them (the Israelites) into the sea.

Gary; So unless you are Bill Clinton, "all" and "entire" mean exactly what the dictionary says they mean: all Pharaoh's army; the entire Egyptian army; was drowned in the sea. Christians can try to wiggle out of this dilemma by pulling a "Bill Clinton", claiming that words don't really mean what we all know they mean, but the facts are clear: The Holy Bible claims that the entire mighty Egyptian army drowned in the sea chasing after their runaway slaves...

As is shown, that is nothing like what the Bible says. NOT "the entire army", but, "the entire army that followed."

...but no one in the entire world bothered to document the greatest Egyptian defeat in history!

Conclusion: The absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence. But, the absence of evidence for a couple million people allegedly exiting Egypt in one great exodus to wander around the small geographical area of the Sinai for forty years...but not leave one shred of archeological evidence, nor any mention of their shocking, miraculous defeat of the mighty Egyptian Pharaoh and his entire army in the annals of any nation on earth, is strong evidence that this story is nothing more than a nationalistic, ancient Hebrew fable.

No evidence of anyone being in that region during that time frame exists. Where did the native inhabitants go? Or are the Egyptian records of people living in that area in that time a fabrication?

Having dealt with the matters raised concerning the army of Pharaoh by Gary in his private message, I'll forego the balance of that private message's rant about Gary's opinion (based on some very strange applications of the meaning of "study") of how false Christianity is.

With all that said though, I would not be surprised to find that the number of Israelites who fled Egypt has been overstated. Archaeological findings from the areas around Israel pre-kingom don't tend to support the idea that millions of people suddenly entered the region. A few hundred thousand, perhaps even several hundred thousand, but not millions.

[psstein]

The problem is you keep alluding to things that are "damning" and when we hear them they are not anywhere near what you claim. Worse some of it just doesn't even make sense. How you re going to talk about "what we know of Iron age Canaan" without a focus on archaeology is beyond me.

Can we possibly open another thread on this, or some debate topic? I think this thread has long gone off topic, and the subject of the Exodus is best discussed in another thread.

[Mikeenders]

I understand the focus on archaeology, but I think there are more damning issues with the traditional Exodus story, largely based around what we know of Iron Age Canaan and Ancient Israelite religion.

The problem is you keep alluding to things that are "damning" and when we hear them they are not anywhere near what you claim. Worse some of it just doesn't even make sense. How you re going to talk about "what we know of Iron age Canaan" without a focus on archaeology is beyond me.

[psstein]

I understand the focus on archaeology, but I think there are more damning issues with the traditional Exodus story, largely based around what we know of Iron Age Canaan and Ancient Israelite religion.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I also think that in archaeology, we are said to usually have 1% of 1%. I can understand bones and metals and such surviving some, but clothing isn't of the same material always. Furthermore, the Scythians were a larger group and roamed for a thousand years and all we have are the tombs of their kings, which they built to survive.

[Mikeenders]

It's strange because, if you spend 38 years in one place, you generally provide some evidence of your being there.

Thats quite an if considering the most consistent description of what the Jews were doing during that time is wandering not parked in one spot. to be honest I am not even sure the term refers to one place but to a general area. We do that to this day. People go and come bacck from Miami / los angeles that never technically entered the city limits

[psstein]

Oxford Encyclopaedia

Despite textual attestations to a Bedouin presence throughout South Sinai during the pharaonic and later periods, archaeological surveys have uncovered only traces of a few seasonal campsites in South Sinai during Early Bronze Age IV (Egypt’s late Old Kingdom through First Intermediate Period: 2300 – 2040 BCE).

Bedouins were present in the southern Sinai for centuries, their presence attested by Egyptian records - and almost nothing has been found except for a few traces dating to (roughly) 500 to 1 000 years before the exodus. What would be strange about not finding archaeological traces of a people's presence that spanned a mere 40 years.

First, the Bedouins are nomadic. They rarely stay in one place for long periods of time. I don't know much about Bedouins beyond that, so I can't really speak as to their burial customs.

It's strange because, if you spend 38 years in one place, you generally provide some evidence of your being there. Presumably, the Ancient Israelites would've offered sacrifices, and would have had to dispose of the bones. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers have massive numbers of people dying. You'd expect some sort of burial ground near the site. The Exodus may have some basis in reality. I can easily believe that a group of Semitic slaves escaped Egypt and came into what was known as Canaan. YHWH is not part of the Canaanite pantheon, so YHWH had to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else seems to be NW Arabia, where (if Sinai exists) it's likely Sinai actually is.

[tabibito]

Oxford Encyclopaedia

Despite textual attestations to a Bedouin presence throughout South Sinai during the pharaonic and later periods, archaeological surveys have uncovered only traces of a few seasonal campsites in South Sinai during Early Bronze Age IV (Egypt’s late Old Kingdom through First Intermediate Period: 2300 – 2040 BCE).

Bedouins were present in the southern Sinai for centuries, their presence attested by Egyptian records - and almost nothing has been found except for a few traces dating to (roughly) 500 to 1 000 years before the exodus. What would be strange about not finding archaeological traces of a people's presence that spanned a mere 40 years.

[tabibito]

I have never included EGYPTIAN records of the Exodus in this discussion as I know that Christians are absolutely certain that Egyptians would never record such a defeat. Let's assume that is true. It doesn't explain why the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Greeks, or the Libyans say nothing of this massive Egyptian defeat at the hands of their runaway slaves.

What massive defeat? All of six hundred chariots. (I have checked).

[Gary]

thats fair enough so why be dogmatic in an area you are not as conversant on? Remember this IS and WAS my point. IF people want to go with a theory and even one they think supports the evidence they see then fine but we can do that while still admitting that set conclusions cannot be drawn. Without saying this didn't happen like we have the certainty of science when we do not.



Stein its better to just admit you don't know what you are talking about and have not read through on the issues. Many scholars do not even accept those years opting for dates more in 1200s. The dating is critical because you have to know what you are looking for and when. Depending on that you can have no correlation or some interesting correlations. This is the entire point that Rohl and others are making. Trying to fudge dating is of little consequence is just utter nonsense




OF course....VILLAGES..where people build homes and infrastructure and settlements persists for hundreds of years continuously or intermittently and yet it would be poppycock to proclaim because we find some that some have not vanished from our knowing. You are somewhat off point. Just because we have some does not mean that we are able to find everyone that actually existed and it should be obvious to all the difference between a village and a nomad's rest point.

Did you even read the BAR article or are you just switching now to a particular evidence that must show itself rather than no evidence being shown at all as true?

"Stein its better to just admit you don't know what you are talking about..."

Why are you so rude and nasty, Mike? Is that what having Jesus in your "heart" does for "true Christians" like yourself?

[Gary]

Wrong. There was a subjugated people, called the hyksos, who during the Second Intermediate Period had held strong positions in Egypt. Egyptian records show that they were expelled in 1539 BC, but not that they were expelled from the country. These people (at least a proportion of them) were thereafter a subjugated race. True enough, they were not slaves in the technical sense.
Nomadic peoples do not generally leave lasting traces of their presence. Not that there have been extensive searches of the Sinai for such remains - in part because no remains can be reasonably expected to exist.
Egypt had a habit of expunging records that became embarrassing, and not recording events that were embarrassing. - Record of the pharaohs Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare, were lost to history until the 19th century. They didn't appear on any lists of the kings. and the location of Tutankhamun's tomb was not recorded.
The Bible does not record that the entire Egyptian army was lost at the Red Sea - it records that the entire pursuing army was lost.
Relying on memory of the Biblical texts without double checking, that was about 600 chariots and others. By no means a significant proportion of the entire army.

As more evidence comes to light, this absence of evidence that you are so fond of shrinks.

Does The Hyksos Expulsion Account For The Exodus Story?

Manetho, 3rd century BCE Egyptian writer, using unnamed "sacred books" and "legend", describes a brutal invasion by foreigners from the east called Hyksos meaning "foreign rulers". The Hyksos reportedly made Avaris their capital and allegedly ruled Egypt 500 years. Excavations by Manfred Bietak, Univ. of Vienna, discovered Hyksos pottery, architecture, and tombs dating from 1800 BCE at Tel ed-Daba (Avaris) indicating the Hyksos were Semites (Canaanites, but no mention of them being Israelites), and that their migration had been a gradual process over many years rather then at a specific date in time.

Egyptian manuscripts recount the 18th Dynasty Pharoah Ahmose sacking the Hyksos in 1570 BCE and chasing the Hyksos to their citadel Sharuhen (Jerusalem?) in southern Canaan. These manuscripts indicate the Canaanite influence terminated at this time.

Though some parallels to Israel’s Exodus story are present, there are obvious anomalies such as: brutal invasion, 500 year rule of Egypt, and the Hyksos being defeated and chased by the Egyptian army into southern Canaan. Thus, the Hyksos expulsion is disqualified as the bible’s Exodus by Israel.

Source: http://articles.exchristian.net/2002...t-actually.php