Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Apologiaphoenix]

And I will again ask you to answer my original question before I answer yours (go down your rabbit trail): Why do you repeatedly insist that I and other skeptics accept the majority scholarly consensus regarding the Empty Tomb, but refuse to accept the overwhelming majority scholarly consensus regarding the non-reality of the biblical Exodus of several million Hebrews from Egypt?

Because when I do that I don't just say "The majority believe it, therefore it's true." I say "the majority believe it and here's why" and then I answer the objections that are put forward by those who disagree.

I have given my reasons why I don't think the argument is valid. Saying "Majority" does not change that.

[Gary]

Because when I do that I don't just say "The majority believe it, therefore it's true." I say "the majority believe it and here's why" and then I answer the objections that are put forward by those who disagree.

I have given my reasons why I don't think the argument is valid. Saying "Majority" does not change that.

So you admit that you believe you know more regarding Near East archeology than the overwhelming majority of experts/scholars in the field.

What is your training in archeology, Nick?

[Mikeenders]

Because when I do that I don't just say "The majority believe it, therefore it's true." I say "the majority believe it and here's why" and then I answer the objections that are put forward by those who disagree.

I have given my reasons why I don't think the argument is valid. Saying "Majority" does not change that.

ahhhh.....So Gary Has been Fabricating and distorting your position all this time?

Why am I not surprised?

[Apologiaphoenix]

So you admit that you believe you know more regarding Near East archeology than the overwhelming majority of experts/scholars in the field.

What is your training in archeology, Nick?

I don't claim to know more. I just claim to have a question and it's a valid one. Your position now is just saying "majority" and without knowing why or the reasons.

[Gary]

• The idea that the "thousands" could - in the context - be legitimately translated to mean "tribes", "families", or "clans" is nonsense.
• The idea that Pharaoh would lead 600 chariots in pursuit of 600 000 fighting men is nonsense.
• The 600 000 number is inflated, assuredly - re-translating the sum derived from a census of the people as meaning other than the number of individuals is nonsense.

As to the source for the earliest known manuscripts - that information is included in the video (Stein's post #3766).

The Bible says that Pharaoh sent his "entire" army after the 600,000 Hebrew fighting men. Look it up.

Here is the problem for you, Nick, and others who want to maintain the Exodus story in the Sinai, but reduce the numbers: Even if only a couple of thousand of Hebrews left Egypt to wander in the Sinai for 40 years, there still should be some evidence of their existence, IN PARTICULAR at Kadesh-Barnea, where the Bible says the Hebrews camped for THIRTY-EIGHT years!

The is no archeological evidence of any encampment at Kadesh Barnea during the time period that the Bible stipulates this event happened!

It's a fable, folks.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The Bible says that Pharaoh sent his "entire" army after the 600,000 Hebrew fighting men. Look it up.

Here is the problem for you, Nick, and others who want to maintain the Exodus story in the Sinai, but reduce the numbers: Even if only a couple of thousand of Hebrews left Egypt to wander in the Sinai for 40 years, there still should be some evidence of their existence, IN PARTICULAR at Kadesh-Barnea, where the Bible says the Hebrews camped for THIRTY-EIGHT years!

The is no archeological evidence of any encampment at Kadesh Barnea during the time period that the Bible stipulates this event happened!

It's a fable, folks.

What evidence do we have of the Scythians?

[Gary]

I don't claim to know more. I just claim to have a question and it's a valid one. Your position now is just saying "majority" and without knowing why or the reasons.

No, Nick. What you are saying is this: I will only agree with the majority consensus of scholarship when it agrees with my preconceived belief system. That is not the attitude and behavior of someone who respects research and evidence. It is the attitude and behavior of a fundamentalist.

[Gary]

What evidence do we have of the Scythians?

I have a suggestion for you, Nick: Take up your Scythian Challenge with Finkelstein, Silberman, Herzog, and Dever. I'm sure they are aware of this argument, but regardless, still say the debate regarding the historicity of the Exodus is dead.

I am not an archeologist. I accept the overwhelming majority consensus opinion, as do most rational, educated people.

Imagine if someone came on this forum and began presenting evidence to support his belief that the sun orbits the earth. We all, Christians and skeptics, would laugh at him. Yet at one time, this was the position of all Christendom. Science demonstrated that Christians were wrong. Eventually (and grudgingly) Christians abandoned their previous position and adopted the scientific consensus position.

It is time that Christianity does the same with the story of the Exodus. The scientific consensus has proven it to be fable. It is time for Christians to reinterpret their ancient holy text once again to keep up with science.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I have a suggestion for you, Nick: Take up your Scythian Challenge with Finkelstein, Silberman, Herzog, and Dever. I'm sure they are aware of this argument, but regardless, still say the debate regarding the historicity of the Exodus is dead.

I am not an archeologist. I accept the overwhelming majority consensus opinion, as do most rational, educated people.

Imagine if someone came on this forum and began presenting evidence to support his belief that the sun orbits the earth. We all, Christians and skeptics, would laugh at him. Yet at one time, this was the position of all Christendom. Science demonstrated that Christians were wrong. Eventually (and grudgingly) Christians abandoned their previous position and adopted the scientific consensus position.

It is time that Christianity does the same with the story of the Exodus. The scientific consensus has proven it to be fable. It is time for Christians to reinterpret their ancient holy text once again to keep up with science.

Sure. They can tell me what the evidence is. Last I saw, you had said you'd answer my question when I answered yours.

But since you don't know the issues, you can't and then you just have to throw out fundamentalist.

Every time Gary accuses someone of being a fundamentalist just insert "I can't answer your question and I want to try to save face instead of discussing the data."

[Gary]

Sure. They can tell me what the evidence is. Last I saw, you had said you'd answer my question when I answered yours.

But since you don't know the issues, you can't and then you just have to throw out fundamentalist.

Every time Gary accuses someone of being a fundamentalist just insert "I can't answer your question and I want to try to save face instead of discussing the data."

Ok, I'll take one step down your rabbit trail:

Today we have an "enormous" amount of archeological evidence for the Scythians. For example "thousands" of Scythian burials sites have recently been discovered across a wide swath of Eurasia.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=ST...thians&f=false

No such burial sites exist in the Sinai for two to three million Hebrews.

[Mikeenders]

BEHOLD HOW GARY HAS GOTTEN HIMSELF IN TWOUBLE WHERE HE CLAIMED VICTORY

Here is the problem for you, Nick, and others who want to maintain the Exodus story in the Sinai, but reduce the numbers: Even if only a couple of thousand of Hebrews left Egypt to wander in the Sinai for 40 years, there still should be some evidence of their existence, IN PARTICULAR at Kadesh-Barnea, where the Bible says the Hebrews camped for THIRTY-EIGHT years!

There is no archeological evidence of any encampment at Kadesh Barnea during the time period.

How many time have I referred to this? and like the non-reader he is he ignored it. -


http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ere-is-kadesh/

heres the quick cliff notes First from one of the researchers in her own paper

regions of Cisjordan (Timna valley by Erez Ben-Yosef and Tali EricksonGini)
and Transjordan (Wadi Faynan by Thomas Levy and Mohammad
Najjar). As a result, scholars have questioned the generally accepted dating
stated above, arguing that the time frame in which this pottery was in use is
much longer, and included even the Iron IIA and Iron IIB periods (i.e., c. 700
years).12

"this co called "midanite hypothesis" as to the location of Mt Sinai has recently found support in excavations in the northwest corner of Saudi Arabia just south of the Jordanian border. In contrary to the empty Sinai at the supposed time of the exodus, Midianite territory in this area of the Saudi arabaia was thriving. Settlements dating to this period were found all over according to surveys conducted by Peter Parr. It was here that Parr found characteristic Midian ware later calle Qurayyah Painted Ware - the same pottery found at Kadesh Barnea and dated to the period when the exodus is traditionally dated. If the israelites were in Midian as the Bible says they were there is no reason to doubt that they proceeded to Kadesh Barnea.

Does this mean the exodus is proven? No. does this mean it could only be the israelites? No. does this settle the dating issue? probably not

What this does however indicate is that work and data continues to go on and come in and the claim that science or scholarship has settled the matter so there is no more debate is just RANK foolishness

oh and it proves Gary is still incapable of making a compelling point - sorry Gary

[Mikeenders]

Ok, I'll take one step down your rabbit trail:

Today we have an "enormous" amount of archeological evidence for the Scythians. For example "thousands" of Scythian burials sites have recently been discovered across a wide swath of Eurasia.

As I recall NIck mentioned the burial sites months ago and you think you are informing him of it now?

[Gary]

BEHOLD HOW GARY HAS GOTTEN HIMSELF IN TWOUBLE WHERE HE CLAIMED VICTORY




How many time have I referred to this? and like the non-reader he is he ignored it. -


http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ere-is-kadesh/RANK foolishness

oh and it proves Gary is still incapable of making a compelling point - sorry Gary

I read your article, Mike. I am going to look into the claim, but everyone should notice that Mike wants to move the dates of the Exodus to a later time period; a time period that conflicts with the Bible's own dating of this alleged event. Does anyone else notice a trend among Christians on this issue: Christians are searching desperately for any excuse NOT to be forced to defend the literal interpretation of their ancient holy book. So, Mike adjusts the dates, moving the Exodus later to hopefully find SOME archeological evidence to support this ancient tale. Nick and Tabby stick with the Bible's dating, but want to reinterpret key Hebrew words so that instead of looking for archeological evidence for a couple million Hebrews in the Sinai, they want us to excuse the lack of evidence due to the true number of fleeing Hebrews being only in the thousands. Then we have Christians like Dr. Frank Turek and Mr. Cornucke who want to move the entire story to Saudi Arabia, a place where no one is allowed to dig to prove their wild claims false!

I'm sure this is exactly what happened when Copernicus presented his scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun and not the reverse. Christians at first scoffed and called him an idiot. Then when Galileo confirmed the findings, Christians panicked, and concocted hypotheticals to discount the evidence. Finally, when the evidence was just insurmountable (a couple of decades ago??) the Church finally admitted it was wrong; that 2,000 years of Christian Church Fathers and theologians were wrong; and reinterpreted their inerrant holy book with the bald face lie that the holy book had never, ever stated that the sun revolves around the earth; it was a simply misinterpretation of the inerrant text!

Oh brother.

Back to Kadesh-Barnea. Here is what Finkelstein and Silberman say:

In the Sinai there has not been found one shred of evidence that the Israelites camped there. If they wandered for 40 years there should be some evidence, yet nothing has been found. Israel is said to have camped at Kadesh-barnea, but when this site was excavated there was no evidence of any occupation in the Late Bronze Age. The children of Israel also stopped at Ezion-geber on the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, but there is no Late Bronze Age occupation. The king of Arad is mentioned, but no Late Bronze Age occupation was found.

Egyptologist Donald Redford suggests that the geographical details of the Exodus come from the 7th century BC. The Saite Dynasty fits the background of the Exodus story. A large Jewish community was present in the delta by the early 6th century BC (Jeremiah 44:1, 46:14). The famous city of Pithom (Tell Maskhuta) was built in the late 7th century BC. Migdol was very important in the 7th century BC. and mentioned by Jeremiah. Goshen comes from Geshem which is a dynastic name in the Qedarite Arab royal family that came to the delta in the 6th century.

The Egyptian names mentioned in the story of Joseph reach their greatest popularity in the 7-6th centuries BC like Zaphenath-paneah the grand vizier of the pharaoh. There is also a fear of spies that might later invade the land. There was no such fear until the Assyrians attacked.

All the places mentioned in the wilderness wanderings were inhabited in the 7th century BC. Some were occupied only at this time.

Finkelstein and Silberman conclude, "All these indications suggest that the Exodus narrative reached its final form during the time of the 26th Dynasty, in the second half of the 7th and the first half of the 6th century BCE" (p.68). It seems that ancient traditions about the Hyksos was added with 7th century geography and political realities. The confrontation with Moses and the pharaoh reflects the confrontation between king Josiah and the newly crowned Pharaoh Necho.

[Gary]

BEHOLD HOW GARY HAS GOTTEN HIMSELF IN TWOUBLE WHERE HE CLAIMED VICTORY




How many time have I referred to this? and like the non-reader he is he ignored it. -


http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ere-is-kadesh/RANK foolishness

oh and it proves Gary is still incapable of making a compelling point - sorry Gary

Ok, Mike, not only did I read your article (which was a brief review of an archeological paper regarding pottery sherds at Kadesh-Barnea), but I skimmed through the research paper. The authors of the research paper are colleagues of Israel Finkelstein at Tel Aviv University. They in no way give an endorsement of the biblical Exodus story. They simply state that this particular type of (possibly Midianite) pottery is found in the earliest known settlement at Kadesh Barnea in Iron Age I (1200-1150 BCE), the same time period that some believers in the Exodus believe it (the Exodus) occurred.

Unfortunately for your position, however, this later dating of the Exodus is now rejected by the majority of CHRISTIAN Bible scholars. Read this from Associates for Biblical Research The 1406 BC date is further confirmed by archaeological data from Jericho, Ai (Kh. el-Maqatir) and Hazor.

the later dating of the Exodus has no place in contemporary Biblical scholarship.Source: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...r.aspx#Article

Dear Mike: Your position is the fringe, of the very fringe. The overwhelming majority of Near East scholars do not believe that there is any evidence of an Exodus in ANY time period. And, even among Christian bible scholars, trying to date the Exodus to the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE is considered unsupportable and unacceptable. If you are going to attempt to argue for the historicity of the Exodus, you need to stick to the mid fifteenth century to maintain any semblance of respectability among "experts" from your own side on this issue.

Dear Nickam going to read it. It seems to still be "the book" that Christians refer to for "evidence" for this ancient tale, so it is best that I am familiar with it when I debate Christians on the historicity of this foundational Christian claim.

[Gary]

ROFL - citing a five year old text in an area as volatile as archaeology is not a recommended approach. Discoveries during the past three years have put paid to that assertion. In fact, archaeology and paleontology are so fast moving that it is prudent to re-check facts that were first published only six months ago.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...r.aspx#Article