Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[psstein]

“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.

And Finkelstein would be wrong in this case (the Low Chronology is still a tendentious matter). The Exodus, as described in the OT, did not happen. That's blatantly obvious, and there are some very, very good reasons to suppose that is the case. The traditional apologetic defenses are either a) lacking or b) outright wrong. Hoffmeier's argument doesn't work in the way he thinks it should, either.

Yet, the issue remains that a very sizable number of scholars actively believe in the Exodus being based in a historical memory of a group of slaves escaping Egypt. As Friedman put it in the video I linked to, it would make a lot of sense of the Levites as we know them.

[psstein]

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.

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.

And 35 years ago, people like John Bright were saying the Exodus definitely happened. That was the massive majority position at the time, as it had been for years prior. Appealing to consensus is a dangerous position, which is why we really need to look at the evidence and not simply say "this is the consensus, therefore it's true." That cuts both ways, by the way. Consensus is generally a good way of seeing how experts view the issue, but doesn't really adjudicate on the truth (or falsity) of the issue at hand.

For example, the reason I believe Matthew didn't write Matthew is because Matthew copied 75% of Mark. The reasons I disbelieve the Exodus (at least in the OT sense) are fairly complex. Some of them have to do with source criticism, and some of them have to do with evidentiary issues.

[psstein]

Whenever looking at the work of a scholar, it is always important to see if they have a significant bias.

I would be very skeptical of the archeological research of a very vocal, religion-hating atheist archeologist, one who makes the primary goal of his or her work to destroy the Bible and religion. On the other hand, I would suggest Christians be skeptical of Christian archeologists whose primary goal is to prove their religious beliefs and the Bible correct. I suggest both sides look for archeologists and other researchers/scientists who are primarily focused on examining the evidence and willing to let the "chips fall where they may" in forming a conclusion about the evidence.

Here is one Jewish rabbi's comments about the "fairness" of archeologist Israel Finkelstein:

"It’s striking to compare Mazar’s (an Israeli archeologist who is very open that the primary goal of her research is to prove the Bible correct) approach to that of Israel Finkelstein, who comes from a new school of Israeli archaeologists who are aren’t driven by political ideology and are willing to go wherever their research takes them. In a nutshell, Finkelstein and his colleagues have argued convincingly that it’s impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the 7th century BCE (around the time of the reign of King Josiah). This casts doubt on the historical veracity of the Biblical narrative from the period of the Patriarchs/Matriarchs through the reigns of David and Solomon. These claims have largely been accepted as normative by most mainstream archaeologists outside of Israel.

If you are interested the current thinking of Israeli researchers who are unfazed by nationalist bias, I highly recommend Finkelstein’s 2002 book (with Neal Asher Silberman), “The Bible Unearthed.” Also check out this 2001 piece from Salon, which explores the deeper socio-political implications of Israeli archeology."

This piece is a mess. I don't know how many of us had followed the whole maximalist/minimalist debates. The biggest issue in them was a constant discussion of personal motives to people like Thompson/Lemche/etc. (on the minimalist side) and Albright/Bright/Cross/Wright on the maximalist side. Also, Finkelstein is decidedly not some unbiased, impartial source. He is associated with elements of the Israeli left, who have their own political agenda. Do you now see how dealing with motivation is absolutely pointless? Evidence matters, not motivation.

Dealing with motivations is a poorly disguised ad hominem. It doesn't matter what motivates people to develop a scholarly work. What does matter is the evidence they use to support it.

Finkelstein's book has some very significant problems. It's a good popular-level book, but it's not something I'd hold up as an exemplar of scholarship.

[One Bad Pig]

This piece is a mess. I don't know how many of us had followed the whole maximalist/minimalist debates. The biggest issue in them was a constant discussion of personal motives to people like Thompson/Lemche/etc. (on the minimalist side) and Albright/Bright/Cross/Wright on the maximalist side. Also, Finkelstein is decidedly not some unbiased, impartial source. He is associated with elements of the Israeli left, who have their own political agenda. Do you now see how dealing with motivation is absolutely pointless? Evidence matters, not motivation.

Dealing with motivations is a poorly disguised ad hominem. It doesn't matter what motivates people to develop a scholarly work. What does matter is the evidence they use to support it.

Finkelstein's book has some very significant problems. It's a good popular-level book, but it's not something I'd hold up as an exemplar of scholarship.

Gary in general is a mess. Reliance on popular-level works is the least of his issues.

[Mikeenders]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......poor Gary.He just woke up and found out that there is an issue with dates that I have been talking about for weeks now and is still clueless that people holding both dates do not throw the Bible overboard to hold them.

Wipe your tears away Gary. take a deep breath . The sun will come out tomorrow.......FACT is that your claim there was no settlement at the time of the exodus as a fact is now off the table. Seh La vie

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.

LOL....even sweeter. You can't claim they are conservative evangelical Christians. both dates are in play and in fact we well could find as more research goes on that the kadesh settlement is even older. How you think finding out there was an older settlement than previously believed with a possible isreali/midianite connect is a "problem" for me is just your fantasy and spin to save face.

anyone notice how all of a sudden conservative scholars with another date just became special to Gary? He is now even linking to them and the need for the "consensus" dates have disappeared.

[Mikeenders]

And Finkelstein would be wrong in this case (the Low Chronology is still a tendentious matter). The Exodus, as described in the OT, did not happen. That's blatantly obvious, and there are some very, very good reasons to suppose that is the case....... Friedman put it in the video I linked to, it would make a lot of sense of the Levites as we know them.

Oh please Stein. As I have stated before you are absolutely no different from Gary with your pronouncements without facts to back them. I have waited FOR WEEKS for you to present"Very good reasons" that held up to some scrutiny. everything you have presented has turned out as weak argumentation some of it so easy to topple over even you have not attempted to make a better case for them. I don't agree with Tab on some things but at least he attempts to back up his statements and stops trying to enter his own affirmations as evidence of his affirmations. Despite claiming what a quick read you are I have been waiting for weeks for you to respond to the BAR article which is maybe three pages of text. Still nothing.instead we get a link to a video that has assumptions placed on assumptions with a tenuous (at best) conclusion. NO real beef. Facts only if you redefine the word facts.

and lets face it your claim that dating is not a big issue on the exodus debate if it were made by Gary is so laughable bad it would probably STILL would be his most ridiculous statement - so I am not seeing a whole lot of difference in even understanding the issues. IF anything the video shows that you like to tickle your mind with assumptions and arguments that are dubious at best. Thats the only thing thats blatantly obvious.

It doesn't take anything to make pronouncements. "we know" , "its obvious" "theres good evidence". They are just words.

Put up some real evidence to discuss - at this point even Gary attempts to do that more than you do. In fairness You did ask if we could do another thread (but you could do so at anytime you wish) but since we all (including you) are still alluding to and discussing the issue then its time to put up the evidence (facts over assumptions) that you have for discussion right here - statements as facts should satisfy no intelligent person in this thread.

[psstein]

Mike, neither I nor my institution have access to the BAR website. As a result, I can't commentate on it without making wild assumptions.

I'm not entering my own assumptions and affirmations with the Exodus. My assumption is that there's a plausibly historical core behind the whole thing. The 600,000 men number can't really be evaded by the "eleph" count, because the 603,000 are spelled out in the Book of Numbers. That number is a later addition (P source), so I think we can safely ignore it as part of any (if there is one) "historical Exodus." There are other issues as well, and not all of them are evaded by invoking the P source.

I'm willing to start a debate thread about this, if you want.

Things I would consider as evidence of the Exodus (as told in the OT) are a) verification of the cities mentioned (Pithom and Raamses especially) prior to the 1st millennium BC b) evidence of an early Exodus tradition (i.e. most of it is exilic or post-exilic) or c) mention of any of the story in Egyptian sources.

The death of a significant number of young men, plus the death of a Pharaoh, as well as the rapid disappearance of a massive number of the population, would appear in records. I find it tough to just hand wave that away as "it's embarrassing, so it wouldn't appear."

[tabibito]

Tabby,

Archeology is not the only thing lacking regarding the biblical Exodus story. One other very damning "lack" or absence is the absence of any mention of the defeat and humiliation of the greatest power on earth at the time (Egypt) by their run away slaves in the writings of Egypt's neighbors and enemies.

NO ONE in the entire Levant, Mesopotamia, or the kingdoms in modern Turkey, Greece, or Libya mentions this Egyptian catastrophe!

Yup. It isn't as though the ancients had foreign press galleries. Right now, I'm only satisfied that the exodus can have happened, not that it did. By contrast, I am satisfied that Moses was a rather impressive historical personage - but perhaps some bits of the story are embellished.

Tabby has argued that the Biblical text can be construed (contorted??) to say that only a small group of charioteers chased and followed the Israelites into the Red/Reed Sea, therefore this wasn't that big of a deal, and therefore we shouldn't be surprised that no one mentioned it.

Well, 600 chariots isn't exactly a small group by anyone's reckoning. Here's the text:

Exodus 15:19

For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them. But the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.

The text here says only that chariots and (probably mounted) horse followed the Israelites into the sea. Secondary possibility would be that all the horses were in fact drawing chariots.

Exodus 14:28

Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, ^and all the army of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them. Not so much as one of them remained.

The text here says that the waters covered chariots and horsemen.[/indent][/box] So the secondary possibility mentioned above doesn't play - the presence of horsemen is confirmed. "AND" is simply an interpolation in the translated text. Theoretically it may be valid, but I have no confidence in its inclusion. I read this - pending adequate refutation - as saying "the chariots and horsemen - the entire army that came into the sea. The restriction, "that", strongly indicates that the entire Egyptian army did not enter the sea.

Exodus 14:26

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, on their chariots, and on their horsemen.”

And here we have the sea set to come back on chariots and horsemen. No possible interpretation that soldiers on foot followed Israel into the sea exists. The probability of that inserted, "and", mentioned above being INcorrect is all but a certainty.

Exodus 14:9

So the Egyptians pursued them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, his horsemen and his army, and overtook them camping by the sea beside Pi Hahiroth, before Baal Zephon.

Here, the likelihood that "and his army" could refer to foot or other soldiers exists. However, the record shows that any personnel other than chariot drivers and horsemen did not enter the sea. The record does NOT show that Pharaoh went with the chariots and horsemen, the record does not make any specific mention of Pharaoh at this point.

Well, Tabby. There is a problem. Even IF only a few hundred charioteers, not an entire army (as the text clearly states), followed the Israelites into the Sea and were all drowned, the Bible says that PHARAOH drowned with them.

Where does it say that Pharaoh drowned?

So regardless of the size of the Egyptian military force used to chase the Israelites, if the mighty Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth, was killed by drowning, chasing after his runaway slaves, you would think that SOMEONE in one of the surrounding countries, in particular Egypt's enemies, would commemorate this event. But nope. Not one word.

No - we look for a Pharaoh whose cause of death is recorded as a "(perhaps sudden) illness" or "accidental death during a particularly worthy hunt" or some such. If he died by drowning, we would look for a tomb that doesn't contain a body, and we look for a Pharaoh whose second son succeeded him, the first having died unexpectedly.

So how do I know that the Bible says that Pharaoh drowned in the Red/Reed Sea? Here is the proof:

In Exod 14:18 the Lord told Moses that He would “gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen.”

Well, that does make it possible that Pharaoh would have entered the sea. However, a drubbing would serve the stated purpose just as well.

Then, after the Israelites had crossed the sea, “The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea” (Exod 14:23). When Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, it returned to its place “and the Lord swept (nā⊂ar, ‘shake off’) them into the sea” (Exod 14:27).

No explicit mention that Pharaoh would be among them.

Ps 136:15 uses the same language, but explicitly includes Pharaoh: the Lord “brought Israel through the midst of it…but swept (nā⊂ar, ‘shake off’) Pharaoh and his army into the yam sûp.”

Actually - overthrew. Literally "shake out" or "shake off".

The Egyptians were then engulfed in the returning waters such that “the entire army of Pharaoh” perished, “not one of them survived” (Exod 14:28; cf. Ps 105:11). A clear sequence is presented:

Psalm 105 does not mention the Red Sea. ... Interesting development.

1. the waters are parted

2. the Israelites cross on dry land

3. the Egyptian army charges into the sea in pursuit of the Israelites

4. while in the midst of the sea the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, are thrown from their chariots as the waters returned

5. the entire army is engulfed by the returning waters

It is highly unlikely that Pharaoh, the one the Lord would gain glory through, after being thrown from his chariot, somehow miraculously escaped the massive inundation of the returning waters of the yam sûp. A straightforward reading of the Biblical texts implies that all of the pursuing Egyptians, including the king himself, drowned in the yam sûp.

Source: Associates in Biblical Research: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...r.aspx#Article

From a straight-forward reading of the text - which doesn't say "Pharaoh and his the pursuing army" - it is reasonable to infer that Pharaoh was with the army in/at the Red Sea. If it is to be assumed that Pharaoh died in that event, it is not reasonable to assume that his body was recovered ... look for a cenotaph, not a tomb.

[Gary]

And Finkelstein would be wrong in this case (the Low Chronology is still a tendentious matter). The Exodus, as described in the OT, did not happen. That's blatantly obvious, and there are some very, very good reasons to suppose that is the case. The traditional apologetic defenses are either a) lacking or b) outright wrong. Hoffmeier's argument doesn't work in the way he thinks it should, either.

Yet, the issue remains that a very sizable number of scholars actively believe in the Exodus being based in a historical memory of a group of slaves escaping Egypt. As Friedman put it in the video I linked to, it would make a lot of sense of the Levites as we know them.

I have never denied that there were any Canaanite/Semitic slaves in ancient Egypt.
I have never denied that a few Canaanite/Semitic slaves might have held a special meal they eventually referred to as a "Passover" the night before they escaped from ancient Egypt and traveled to Canaan.

What I am denying is the historicity of the BIBLICAL Exodus story:

1. Horrific plagues that decimated the Egyptian population, livestock, and economy.
2. That a large mass of Canaanite/Semitic slaves led a revolt against a pharaoh and saw that pharaoh and his entire army drown after they had chased their runaway slaves into a sea.
3. Tens of thousands to millions of Hebrews wandering in the Sinai for forty years.
4. Tens of thousands to millions of Hebrews camped at Kadesh-Barnea for thirty-eight years.

None of this happened.

[Gary]

Yup. It isn't as though the ancients had foreign press galleries. Right now, I'm only satisfied that the exodus can have happened, not that it did. By contrast, I am satisfied that Moses was a rather impressive historical personage - but perhaps some bits of the story are embellished.

Well, 600 chariots isn't exactly a small group by anyone's reckoning. Here's the text:

Exodus 15:19

For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them. But the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.

The text here says only that chariots and (probably mounted) horse followed the Israelites into the sea. Secondary possibility would be that all the horses were in fact drawing chariots.

Exodus 14:28

Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, ^and all the army of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them. Not so much as one of them remained.

The text here says that the waters covered chariots and horsemen.[/indent][/box] So the secondary possibility mentioned above doesn't play - the presence of horsemen is confirmed. "AND" is simply an interpolation in the translated text. Theoretically it may be valid, but I have no confidence in its inclusion. I read this - pending adequate refutation - as saying "the chariots and horsemen - the entire army that came into the sea. The restriction, "that", strongly indicates that the entire Egyptian army did not enter the sea.

Exodus 14:26

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, on their chariots, and on their horsemen.”

And here we have the sea set to come back on chariots and horsemen. No possible interpretation that soldiers on foot followed Israel into the sea exists. The probability of that inserted, "and", mentioned above being INcorrect is all but a certainty.

Exodus 14:9

So the Egyptians pursued them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, his horsemen and his army, and overtook them camping by the sea beside Pi Hahiroth, before Baal Zephon.

Here, the likelihood that "and his army" could refer to foot or other soldiers exists. However, the record shows that any personnel other than chariot drivers and horsemen did not enter the sea. The record does NOT show that Pharaoh went with the chariots and horsemen, the record does not make any specific mention of Pharaoh at this point.



Where does it say that Pharaoh drowned?

No - we look for a Pharaoh whose cause of death is recorded as a "(perhaps sudden) illness" or "accidental death during a particularly worthy hunt" or some such. If he died by drowning, we would look for a tomb that doesn't contain a body, and we look for a Pharaoh whose second son succeeded him, the first having died unexpectedly.

So how do I know that the Bible says that Pharaoh drowned in the Red/Reed Sea? Here is the proof:

Well, that does make it possible that Pharaoh would have entered the sea. However, a drubbing would serve the stated purpose just as well.
No explicit mention that Pharaoh would be among them.
Actually - overthrew. Literally "shake out" or "shake off".
Psalm 105 does not mention the Red Sea. ... Interesting development.




From a straight-forward reading of the text - which doesn't say "Pharaoh and his the pursuing army" - it is reasonable to infer that Pharaoh was with the army in/at the Red Sea. If it is to be assumed that Pharaoh died in that event, it is not reasonable to assume that his body was recovered ... look for a cenotaph, not a tomb.

Right. The most powerful man in the world is killed at the hands of his runaway slaves...and no one says a word about it.

[Gary]

And Finkelstein would be wrong in this case (the Low Chronology is still a tendentious matter). The Exodus, as described in the OT, did not happen. That's blatantly obvious, and there are some very, very good reasons to suppose that is the case. The traditional apologetic defenses are either a) lacking or b) outright wrong. Hoffmeier's argument doesn't work in the way he thinks it should, either.

Yet, the issue remains that a very sizable number of scholars actively believe in the Exodus being based in a historical memory of a group of slaves escaping Egypt. As Friedman put it in the video I linked to, it would make a lot of sense of the Levites as we know them.

Here is the problem for moderate Christians (such as Nick, Stein, and Tabby): Once you start down the slippery slope of Higher Criticism, it is very hard to climb back up. If the Exodus didn't happen...as the Bible says it did...then what stories in the Bible CAN we trust??

Was there REALLY an Adam and Eve?
Was there REALLY a serpent who convinced Adam and Eve to eat from a forbidden tree?
Was there REALLY a Flood that killed "every breathing thing"?
Was there REALLY a boat that carried eight people and every species of animal on earth?
Was there REALLY a Tower of Babel?
Was there REALLY a man named Jonah who lived for three days in the belly of a fish?
Were there REALLY three guys named Shadrach, Meschach, and Abendego who stood in a fiery furnace but not a hair on their heads was singed?

(Jesus believed all these things really happened.)

Was there REALLY a three hour eclipse of the sun in circa 33 AD that no one bothered to record?
Were there REALLY dead people (zombies) walking the streets of Jerusalem in circa 33 AD?

So, dear moderate Christian: Was there REALLY a bodily resurrection/reanimation of a three-day-brain-dead Jewish prophet in circa 33 AD?

Common sense says no.

[Mikeenders]

Mike, neither I nor my institution have access to the BAR website. As a result, I can't commentate on it without making wild assumptions.

Stein excuses at this point won't do here. You've even commented briefly on it as possibly (though unlikely) being an egyptian occupation and told me you would take a look at it. Now weeks later its I can't because we can;t afford a magazine. The names of the authors are stated and a quick search takes you to some of their work. Meanwhile the magazine was like $6 at a local book store. If a scholar can't get access to some work that corrects himself from making statements of facts erroneously by keeping up with the latest data and an institution can't take a look then it should start taking donations or close down or admit they have no good commitment to Biblical scholarship. The issue of Kadesh is a key area for many statements made about the exodus not some minute detail to ignore. Furthermore as I have stated before if you haven't read the latest data and know you haven't read it then its shoddy scholarship to continue to make posts regarding the issue (in particular on Kadesh) until you do.

I'm not entering my own assumptions and affirmations with the Exodus. My assumption is that there's a plausibly historical core behind the whole thing. The 600,000 men number can't really be evaded by the "eleph" count, because the 603,000 are spelled out in the Book of Numbers. That number is a later addition (P source), so I think we can safely ignore it as part of any (if there is one)

We can safely ignore anything taken off the table by facts not assumption and it really at this point doesn't do anything to make more statements of denial- You have presented a couple pieces of "evidence" and they WERE assumptions. Thats no longer in question. You have presented "evidence" that were nothing but arguments based on assumptions. furthermore the whole issue of the historicity of Exodus as related by the Bible neither rises nor falls on Eleph. In particular I have always understood numbers and geneaologies are subject to scribe corrections and errors. That single issue is not solid evidence to negate historicity of the Biblical narrative

The death of a significant number of young men, plus the death of a Pharaoh, as well as the rapid disappearance of a massive number of the population, would appear in records. I find it tough to just hand wave that away as "it's embarrassing, so it wouldn't appear."

Ridiculous nonsense. Which records? CNN? You should be embarassed to try that hand wave to make a centrally known fact of Egyptian history go away. Thats almost as bad as your dates don't matter much claim. The only place we would expect to have details about these events outside of judaic source (which would be rejected on the basis of their alleged bias or "narrative) is egyptian sources. Its hard to take you seriously at this point as any kind of solid Biblical scholar when you hand wave away the fact that egyptians would be extremely unlikely to preserve such a defeat and denigration of their own gods. If its tough for you to deal with what many scholars recognize about ancient literature then you are just biased. Besides which - criticizing an explanation is not positive evidence for your own position

NO matter what you claim we should not expect to find "reams" of egyptian records astolling the defeat of egyptian Gods by the Hebrew's Yahweh. Furthermore this is just more of the same absence of evidence equal evidence of absence. its similar to Gary's claim that we should expect all the nations around to drop what they are doing and report on water movement in the red sea. its even more of a pathetic argument for historical documents when its a fact we have lost more than we have by way of records.

I'm willing to start a debate thread about this, if you want.

Stein please stop the stalling. You are, have been and even today are discussing it right here so lets just get on with it. put up your evidence, some real facts that makes it "blatantly obvious". If you can't do that then you are just Gary II

[tabibito]

Was there REALLY an Adam and Eve?

IMO - yes. Further to that, no conflict with evolutionary theory is implied.

Was there REALLY a serpent who convinced Adam and Eve to eat from a forbidden tree?

Flesh and blood snake? - no.

Was there REALLY a Flood that killed "every breathing thing"?

In a broad expanse of the land? possibly. World wide - not possible. Look for a near extinction event, from not less than 140 000 years ago (well, maybe 125 000) up to nearly 200 000 years ago, encompassing the lower Omo River valley. If such an event is impossible, Noah can't be supported as an actual event. (there are one or two unlesses, but they're kind of wobbly, and based on current findings, would mean that Noah wasn't H Sap Sap).

Was there REALLY a boat that carried eight people and every species of animal on earth?

No.

Was there REALLY a Tower of Babel?

Almost certainly not.

Was there REALLY a man named Jonah who lived for three days in the belly of a fish?

Barely possible.

Were there REALLY three guys named Shadrach, Meschach, and Abendego who stood in a fiery furnace but not a hair on their heads was singed?

I'll accept it unless evidence is produced to support the contrary argument.

[Mikeenders]

Yup. It isn't as though the ancients had foreign press galleries. Right now, I'm only satisfied that the exodus can have happened, not that it did. By contrast, I am satisfied that Moses was a rather impressive historical personage - but perhaps some bits of the story are embellished. .

Sometimes this thread is like the twilight zone. Reading Stein and Gary you almost want to head out to the library and go look up all these records we have from various countries running commentary on events in countries outside of their own. they act like we are talking about 1995 ad wondering why we have no record of a newspaper picking up a story - rather than events three thousand years ago by people without digital records, electricity running water or printing presses - and like they are oblivious that recording materials haven't survived well over three thousand years as say digital data on hard drives would.

Thats the real idiocy of this absence of evidence claim when it gets to things like papyrus - to use an analogy - its like you think you can make a solid statement of fact about what someone hasn't written when the person wrote in fading ink.

I can live and get people thinking some parts of the story are embellishment - after all the miraculous parts leave no record - but to claim blatant obvious fact on a canvas of history that vanishes more with each century and to do so 3,000 years later is irrational. If people say this is the best we can guess that's fine but to drop the words of uncertainty and replace them with certitude or near certitude is dishonest and misleading to say the least.

[psstein]

Here is the problem for moderate Christians (such as Nick, Stein, and Tabby): Once you start down the slippery slope of Higher Criticism, it is very hard to climb back up. If the Exodus didn't happen...as the Bible says it did...then what stories in the Bible CAN we trust??

Was there REALLY an Adam and Eve?
Was there REALLY a serpent who convinced Adam and Eve to eat from a forbidden tree?
Was there REALLY a Flood that killed "every breathing thing"?
Was there REALLY a boat that carried eight people and every species of animal on earth?
Was there REALLY a Tower of Babel?
Was there REALLY a man named Jonah who lived for three days in the belly of a fish?
Were there REALLY three guys named Shadrach, Meschach, and Abendego who stood in a fiery furnace but not a hair on their heads was singed?

(Jesus believed all these things really happened.)

Was there REALLY a three hour eclipse of the sun in circa 33 AD that no one bothered to record?
Were there REALLY dead people (zombies) walking the streets of Jerusalem in circa 33 AD?

So, dear moderate Christian: Was there REALLY a bodily resurrection/reanimation of a three-day-brain-dead Jewish prophet in circa 33 AD?

Common sense says no.

Again, you're reading the text in a very presentist sense. The early Christians did not read Genesis in the strictly literal fashion that you seem to read it in. Biblical literalism comes from Martin Luther. Before him, it was fairly common to interpret the Bible in metaphorical or typological ways, hence the focus on the prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

Unfortunately, you're being a fundamentalist who's changed sides. If one thing is false (e.g. the Census of Quirinius), it doesn't render the entire Bible false.