Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I was about to order Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus on Amazon, and I came across a review mentioning this:



    I'm not convinced he's right, but I'd want to look more into it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by psstein View Post
      I was about to order Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus on Amazon, and I came across a review mentioning this:



      I'm not convinced he's right, but I'd want to look more into it.
      Our oldest sources, "The Song of the Sea" and "J" do not give any numbers
      From the earliest texts we have no idea how many people would have been involved (in the exodus)
      So - the whole 600 000 men of fighting age bit is a later redaction. Combing the Bible itself doesn't identify the manuscripts in question, but that conclusion is inescapable - the numbers that we see are inflated.
      Moreover, the earliest sources don't identify a time frame for the event.

      Many say, "the Exodus happened, but not in the time and manner in the text."
      Which is to say .... (yet again) the chronologies of the earlier books of the Bible are unreliable. No surprise there.

      So - the question arises, why is the focus on the time (stated in the video) of Ramses II? or later???

      In my opinion, the time of the Exodus should be in the 18th dynasty (Amenhotep III), not the 19th.

      I'll have to sift through the stuff about the archaeological findings all over again - particularly those records that deal with findings prior to the time of the exodus. Certain artifacts the pre-date the time of the exodus were mentioned somewhere, but I didn't realise that this "pre-date" is relative to the 19th dynasty. Those findings may be informative.
      Last edited by tabibito; 10-02-2015, 09:17 PM.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
        I'm far less optimistic on the historicity of the Joseph story than he is.
        Why should it matter? Are you a published author on this subject Stein. I haven't heard you refer to your own published work that we could look at. Anyway I guess some of the others here will be interested but i gather this is just going down the same path as I indicated before was a problem in biblical scholarship. My questions to you were not for you to present your views. Views are like the writings of books for which there is no end.I was asking for actually data that proves the certainty or near certainty that you claimed. I think its pretty clear now that you really don't have any such evidence and worse you are not very conversant on the various views on the subject. SO how you could come to near certainty defies rationality.

        Okay so lets say that BAR's findings could be proof of a non Jewish egyptian presence. What exactly do we expect the Jews leaving egypt to have? Non egyptian artifacts? why? and if its ambiguous as to whichgroup is represented - well guess what? that means we can't say there is no evidence. Now this is the kind of thing a section of academia loves. Put on some tea kick back in the office and swirl around variations and ideas (and yeah in the process try to sound as impressive as you can). However when you strip it to its essentials its tea leaf reading and the intellectually integrity to establish tea leaf reading to the wider church as fact is waaay too low.

        I 'll say it straight. its terribly irresponsible based on the kind of evidence you have presented to state what you have. I'd say Irresponsible and for a Christian well - flippant. IF you are wrong on such uncertain evidence then its no small thing to misrepresent God 's message to the world. Now if you should say academia should not concern itself with that then fine but then academia should concern itself with having really strong evidence that doesn't have to be built from dubious assumptions. However Biblical scholars today don't seem to want to give up being viewed as able to stat e fact or near fact like a scientists which is why probably the best thing the church can do is repudiate that kind of biblical scholarship because well its POOR scholarship.

        Finally its just not true that you have been missing. I posted the BAR article some time back and asked several times for you to address it. You not only haven't addressed it but you have continued to post in support of your position even though you are aware of data that your have not seen that may contradict one of your key claims. That just underscores another problem with Biblical "scholarship". People can even know they are not aware of all the facts but still will propagate their pet theories based on incomplete information. What kind of scholarship is that? and then before you look around not only is all the weak evidence contradicted by something else but it becomes the defacto position that has to be disproven with the defacto position was never proven to begin with.

        SO you have scholarship that not only doesn't have any certainty of science to it but lends itself to fallacious argumentation

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          So - the question arises, why is the focus on the time (stated in the video) of Ramses II? or later???
          Yeah I l iistened to about 25 minutes of it before I had to stop and take care of something and don't really see how it would negate what patterns covers. I probably do not bite hook line and sinker into documentary theory as some of you might either. The name of God basis for some of it is pretty weak and building a levite only involvement out of it is like tea leaf reading on top of tea leaf reading.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
            Yeah I l iistened to about 25 minutes of it before I had to stop and take care of something and don't really see how it would negate what patterns covers. I probably do not bite hook line and sinker into documentary theory as some of you might either. The name of God basis for some of it is pretty weak and building a levite only involvement out of it is like tea leaf reading on top of tea leaf reading.
            The DH is based on more than the names of God. There are other parts of the text that suggest different sources. The DH certainly answers more questions than it answers.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
              The DH is based on more than the names of God.

              Who exactly in this thread doesn't know that? I didn't say it was which is why i specifically said the "the name of God basis for SOME OF IT"- it IS a core component and it IS weak


              There are other parts of the text that suggest different sources
              Texts don't suggest - people do. sometimes their suggestions are wrong and sometimes they are right. Only thing the text does is change styles or use different words. then its off to theraces to determine if the change is due to

              subject or
              time (and the same author) or
              inspiration or
              employing scribes
              or hucksters creating narratives centuries later

              The DH certainly answers more questions than it answers.
              You could say that for a ton load of scientific theories through the years that have now been shown to be wrong.

              good night - Biblical "scholarship" is such a mess. In that video we have a conjecture being built on top of a conjecture as an answer to a conjecture that the absence of evidence equal evidence of absence - its self built on the conjecture the time used is right...and then we have people oohing and aahing over it like the Emperor really does have new clothes.
              Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-03-2015, 04:56 PM.

              Comment


              • Ok, welcome back everyone.

                I have been accused of not reading enough scholarship, so I have decided to read evangelical Egyptologist Dr. James Hoffmeier's, "Israel in Egypt". Here is my review of the preface of Dr. Hoffmeier's book:

                Here are the statements by Dr. Hoffmeier in the preface of "Israel in Egypt" that stood out to me:

                "I will challenge the premise that the absence of archaeological evidence can prove what did and did not happen in Bible history."

                "One of the glaring weaknesses of much of the recent literature that has questioned the historicity of the biblical records is that it has lacked serious investigation of Egyptian historical and archaeological material."

                "It goes without saying, as Gamel has reminded us, that there is no known direct evidence for Israel's presence in the Nile Delta during the second millennium. It is my contention and the purpose of this book, that in the absence of direct archaeological or historical evidence, one can make a case for the plausibility of the Biblical reports based on the supporting evidence."


                Gary: Wow! Dr. Hoffmeier admits that there is zero archeological and historical evidence for the Biblical Exodus story, and goes on to state that the purpose of his research is to prove to us that the Exodus story is [B]"plausible"![/B]

                Plausible???

                So Dr. Hoffmeier is going to prove to us that the biblical story of a large group of Hebrew slaves making a mad dash out of Egypt, defeating the Egyptian army at the Red or Reed Sea, and then wandering for forty years in the Sinai is plausible??

                I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time that a Christian apologist has told me that there is evidence for this supernatural-based biblical story, and that if I want to see this evidence, I should read the books of Dr. James Hoffmeier, a respected (evangelical Christian) Egyptologist, who can give me or anyone else who reads his books that very evidence. However, the fact is, that Dr. Hoffmeier emphatically states in the preface of his book, that no such evidence exists.

                Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

                Comment


                • Gary,

                  Just wondering, did you check out http://www.patternsofevidence.com/en/# ?
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Gary,

                    Just wondering, did you check out http://www.patternsofevidence.com/en/# ?
                    Hi,

                    Even evangelical Christian scholars see the film you refer to as very flawed. Here is one comment:

                    "While I think the film will be popular among many church-goers as a new arrow in the quiver of apologetics, I doubt many serious biblical scholars will agree with its conclusions. Indeed, those conclusions are widely connected to a historical theory which has been carefully negated in scholarship (even among otherwise orthodox biblical scholars). Because of this, I fear that the film’s popularity with churches will wind up leaving the church ridiculed for trying to fire another broken arrow at the “white tower establishment”."

                    Source: http://biblicalremains.com/another-b...s-of-evidence/

                    By the way, everyone, I'm currently in a discussion with evangelical apologist Frank Turek on the subject of the Exodus. He has fallen for the theory that the Hebrews were never in the Sinai, but crossed the widest section of the Red Sea, below the tip of the Sinai Peninsula, and walked onto dry land in Saudi Arabia! Wow! James Hoffmeier has said that this idea that the Hebrews wandered in Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai, is pure rubbish.

                    It is sad how Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy will desperately grab at any straw that seems to hold this ancient story/fable together.
                    Last edited by Gary; 10-08-2015, 05:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Seen this. Late at night. Will try to respond tomorrow if I get the time.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Hi,

                        Even evangelical Christian scholars see the film you refer to as very flawed. Here is one comment:

                        "While I think the film will be popular among many church-goers as a new arrow in the quiver of apologetics, I doubt many serious biblical scholars will agree with its conclusions. Indeed, those conclusions are widely connected to a historical theory which has been carefully negated in scholarship (even among otherwise orthodox biblical scholars). Because of this, I fear that the film’s popularity with churches will wind up leaving the church ridiculed for trying to fire another broken arrow at the “white tower establishment”."

                        Source: http://biblicalremains.com/another-b...s-of-evidence/

                        By the way, everyone, I'm currently in a discussion with evangelical apologist Frank Turek on the subject of the Exodus. He has fallen for the theory that the Hebrews were never in the Sinai, but crossed the widest section of the Red Sea, below the tip of the Sinai Peninsula, and walked onto dry land in Saudi Arabia! Wow! James Hoffmeier has said that this idea that the Hebrews wandered in Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai, is pure rubbish.

                        It is sad how Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy will desperately grab at any straw that seems to hold this ancient story/fable together.
                        Clarification: Dr. Turek gave me a link to the "research" supporting the location of Mt. Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. In it, the author, Mr. Bob Cornuke, asserts that the millions of Hebrews in the Exodus passed down the western side of the Sinai Peninsula and crossed the Red Sea at the tip of the peninsula, over to Saudi Arabia. They then wandered in Saudi Arabia for forty years, not in the Sinai peninsula. Mr. Cornuke then says that there is no way to look for the evidence in Saudi Arabia as the Saudis won't allow it. Therefore he is sure there is plenty of evidence in Saudi Arabia, but we just are never going to see it unless of course Saudi Arabia suddenly becomes an open, democratic country.

                        Very convenient.

                        So, there is a massive amount of evidence that proves the Exodus story...but we will never be able to see it because of those evil Saudis.

                        It surprises me that Dr. Turek would quote the quack who is promoting this "research". The guy is an amateur sleuth who has also claimed to have found Noah's Ark on the REAL Mt. Ararat! He has no archeological credentials whatsoever. I will post the link Dr. Turek gave me to this guys site below this paragraph. (By the way, Dr. Hoffmeier has publically called this guy's theory of Mt. Sinai being in Saudi Arabia pure rubbish.)

                        Cornuke's blog: http://www.baseinstitute.org/pages/mt_sinai/18

                        But Cornuke's (and Dr. Turek) still have a problem: If two million people traveled down the western side of the Sinai, there still should be some evidence of them. I don't think people stop to think how many people two million is: That is 2,000,000. The city of Houston is just slightly more than two million. Imagine if the entire city of Houston picked up and moved in mass, on foot, across a small piece of land, such as the Sinai Peninsula. They MUST leave some trace. Imagine how much sewage 2,000,000 people would produce in one day! It would leave a sediment layer: one long sediment layer from the moment they left Egypt until they reached the Red Sea at the end of the Peninsula. But no such sediment layer exists. No evidence exists, folks! And archeologists don't just use picks and shovels in their research these days. They use ground sonar and satellite pictures. Archeologists have found evidence of small nomadic groups in the Sinai during the time period that the Bible alleges this event occurred, but there just is zero evidence of a mass number of people marching through this geographical location. None.

                        There is no way for inerrantists to get around the lack of archeological evidence other than to try to reinterpret the text: the Hebrew word translated "thousand" no longer means "thousand": So the REAL Exodus story is this: there were only a few thousand Hebrew "clans" that left Egypt, not six hundred thousand fighting men and their families...as every Bible, ever translated, has said.

                        I will continue reading Hoffmeier, folks, because I have promised to do so in an attempt to demonstrate that I am willing to look at both sides. But I hope you all see the very big problem right off the bat: If the scholar upon whose research conservative Christians have built their hope of proving the historicity of the Exodus says that he will only attempt to prove the PLAUSIBILITY of the Exodus; he is not going to attempt to provide archeological evidence that it actually happened, because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE...that is a BIG problem!

                        If the Exodus is fiction, Jesus was mistaken, because Jesus believed that the Exodus was real. That Moses was real. That the Passover was real. And if Jesus was mistaken, Jesus was not a perfect, all-knowing God, he was only a man. And if Jesus was only a man, he is most likely still dead.

                        The lack of evidence for the Exodus story of millions of Jews escaping in mass from Egypt, is the strongest proof that the Resurrection of Jesus is very, very likely to also be just another...ancient fable.
                        Last edited by Gary; 10-09-2015, 12:49 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Yes. Historians go by plausibility often when we do not have direct evidence and there are many persons from the ancient world we have no archaeological evidence for. What evidence are you expecting from the Exodus?

                          As for Saudi Arabia not opening up for investigations, this is a perennial problem. It's been happening for some time. It's nothing new and it's not part of a conspiracy.

                          Comment


                          • There is no way for inerrantists to get around the lack of archeological evidence other than to try to reinterpret the text: the Hebrew word translated "thousand" no longer means "thousand": So the REAL Exodus story is this: there were only a few thousand Hebrew "clans" that left Egypt, not six hundred thousand fighting men and their families...as every Bible, ever translated, has said.
                            So , in addition to the wholly reliable word inspired by God, scripture contains personal opinions based on due consideration of issues, and personal observations, and sundry bits and pieces, any of which could be (and on occasion, is) flawed. The only person here that seems to be overly impressed by these facts seems to be Gary.

                            I contemplate the posts by Gary throughout this thread, and compare his posts #3774 and #3776 in this thread. I conclude - all evidence suggests that fundy is fundy, whether atheist or church man (or for that matter, any other group where fundies might reasonably be expected to exist).
                            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                            Comment


                            • An interesting issue arises from findings of archaeological digs.
                              The Merneptah Stele refers to Israel by name, which means that at the time the Stele was erected in commemoration of a military victory over various (at the least) city states. Of Israel the stele "makes reference to the supposed utter destruction of Israel in a campaign prior to his 5th year in Canaan: "Israel has been wiped out...its seed** is no more."
                              ** seed being in all likelihood, crops and grain stores. Seemingly, Egypt did not refer to people as seed.
                              This is the first recognised ancient Egyptian record of the existence of Israel--"not as a country or city, but as a tribe" or people.
                              Mernetaph succeeded Ramses II as pharaoh, in 1213 BC and ruled until 1203.

                              The stele commemorates a battle in 1208/1207 against the people of Israel, among others.

                              The exodus supposedly occurred during the time of Ramses II.

                              Ramses II held power for 67 years.

                              Nothing of the record concerning Ramses II seems to be a reasonable match for the description given in Exodus of the Pharaoh of Moses' time.

                              Why is Ramses II touted as the relevant Pharaoh?
                              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              ETA - and even more interesting information on the archaeological front. Archaeological evidence for habitation of the upper Sinai region is not regarded as absent, but as missing. All logical expectation says the evidence should be there.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 10-09-2015, 10:51 AM.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                Yes. Historians go by plausibility often when we do not have direct evidence and there are many persons from the ancient world we have no archaeological evidence for. What evidence are you expecting from the Exodus?

                                As for Saudi Arabia not opening up for investigations, this is a perennial problem. It's been happening for some time. It's nothing new and it's not part of a conspiracy.
                                “Modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world…repeated archaeological surveys in all regions of the Sinai peninsula…yielded only negative evidence, not even a single shred , no structure, not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment…there is simply no evidence at the supposed time of the Exodus.” ---Israel Finkelstein, Director, Dept. of Archeology, University of Tel Aviv

                                Finkelstein's statement represents the consensus of modern scholarship on the Exodus: It is a fable.

                                If Christians expect skeptics to accept the majority consensus on the empty tomb, they should then be consistent and accept the overwhelming scholarly consensus position on the Exodus: it didn't happen.
                                Last edited by Gary; 10-09-2015, 11:22 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X