Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Challenge to Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus

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

  • Challenge to Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus

    This is a notice that I am challenging Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus.

    I propose a four round set up, with Mike as the affirmative (the Exodus did happen) and myself as the negative (the Exodus did not happen). There will be no argument by weblink, and there will be no suggestion to read other sources (though they may be referred to). The information both sides provide will the information that is argued with.

    Mike, the ball is in your court now.

  • #2
    Originally posted by psstein View Post
    This is a notice that I am challenging Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus.

    I propose a four round set up, with Mike as the affirmative (the Exodus did happen) and myself as the negative (the Exodus did not happen). There will be no argument by weblink, and there will be no suggestion to read other sources (though they may be referred to). The information both sides provide will the information that is argued with.

    Mike, the ball is in your court now.
    No not quite yet. this is not what we agreed to and this is NOT what you claimed you could show. Your claim was that it was a fact that the exodus did not happen as the bible states. So ball is back in your court

    I Propose a four round setup where you actually defend the claim you actually made. I will affirm that there is sufficient cause not to consider as a fact the exodus did not happen and you can defend your claim that the matter as to the exodus not having happened has been proven -as to use your words "blatantly obvious"

    Second I will need clarification as to what "no argument by weblink" means. Any activity of Christians should have as its basis the search for real truth. Mere affirmations to facts that cannot be verified is just an exercise in argumentation not truth what Paul might categorize as "vain janglings". So please clarify. I AM assuming that a debate would actually include some facts and not just argumentation

    P.S. I should add that I know proving a negative (something did not happen) is an uphill climb but it was the claim made. At the minimum the standard would have be closer to your "blatantly obvious" claim (or we would never have had much contention on the issue to being with)
    Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 06:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Incidentally I am open to a second follow up which has been a point of contention in which I would be happy to debate - the validity of modern Biblical scholarship. You i presume would be pro and I would gladly be the con
      Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 06:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
        Second I will need clarification as to what "no argument by weblink" means. Any activity of Christians should have as its basis the search for real truth. Mere affirmations to facts that cannot be verified is just an exercise in argumentation not truth what Paul might categorize as "vain janglings". So please clarify. I AM assuming that a debate would actually include some facts and not just argumentation
        From our campus Decorum http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette :
        Source: Campus Decorum

        Debates (points for your position) made via weblink are not allowed. Weblinks may be used when a substantive summary of the point being made is posted on the board with a link given for further information regarding your position. Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Basically you need to include your own analysis of your sources.

        Once you chaps have agreed to your terms one of the area mods will setup the formal debate thread and the commentary.
        "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
        -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

        Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
        1 Corinthians 16:13

        "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
        -Ben Witherington III

        Comment


        • #5
          Generally, when I say "the Exodus did not happen," it means the Exodus didn't happen as the OT records it. However, I can see how that looks like equivocation. I will agree to argue the Exodus did not happen as the OT states. Yes, I will agree to Mike's definition of the terms. When I say "argument by weblink," I mean what Gary does, where he'll post a long article as though it somehow refutes some important point. Outside sources are fine, as long as we refer to them directly and make the salient points in the post.

          As for the followup debate, I'm interested, but I'd really want to narrow the scope. Biblical scholarship is absolutely massive, so what in particular were you thinking? Otherwise, we could argue completely past each other.

          My first post will presumably be tomorrow afternoon/evening, if Mike agrees.

          I assume there's some word limit on posts...?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            Generally, when I say "the Exodus did not happen," it means the Exodus didn't happen as the OT records it. However, I can see how that looks like equivocation. I will agree to argue the Exodus did not happen as the OT states. Yes, I will agree to Mike's definition of the terms.
            Still not there Stein. You are smart enough to know my position since we discussed it three or four times in the last thread (the whole reason you came to start this thread). Like I said you are going to have to up the ante to your previous claims because to me you are still equivocating. PLease address this

            I Propose a four round setup where you actually defend the claim you actually made. I will affirm that there is sufficient cause not to consider as a fact the exodus did not happen and you can defend your claim that the matter as to the exodus not having happened has been proven -as to use your words "blatantly obvious"
            Second "as the OT records" is way too vague. You Could take exception to the numbers of the exodus. You could take exception to the parting of the red sea. You could take exceptions to things I would not even expect there to be evidence of

            SO to put them together you need a statement of certainty that the exodus did not happen and what that refers to similar to what you made in the thread you made the grandiose claims of certainty you did - because right now saying your challenging me to a debate in which you have changed the claims that created our contention is more than a little disingenuous.

            My position on the exodus was that we still have more to learn and nothing had yet been proven even with some interesting new finds supporting the exodus and your contention was no - its obvious and proven as blatantly obvious that it never happened . You refused to provide that proof for weeks and said you would start another thread to show the proof that made it certain and voila - all mention of your claims to certainty vanishes from your alleged "challenge".
            Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-14-2015, 12:53 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Raphael View Post
              Basically you need to include your own analysis of your sources.

              Once you chaps have agreed to your terms one of the area mods will setup the formal debate thread and the commentary.
              thanks for the clarification. seems fair enough to me

              Comment


              • #8
                This is how I would define the Exodus:

                1. The entire Jewish nation is enslaved in Egypt
                2. After a series of plagues and other odd occurrences, they leave Egypt under the guidance of Moses.
                3. They then cross the Sea of Reeds (Yam Suph) and follow the route described in the OT
                4. They sojourn for a long period of time in Sinai.

                Mike, how would you define the Exodus? Maybe if you describe it, I can say particularly what I find objectionable, and we can go from there.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We can start with the certainty argument you made that it is blatantly obvious the Exodus did not happen (then discuss scope)

                  A) that was the major source of contention between us that you promised you would back up and I waited weeks and it never happened
                  B) I've now mentioned it twice and you have skirted it

                  IF you think you are going to wiggle your way out of a level of certainty debate as a major if not the main component of a debate with me - in contradiction of your previous claims that is just not going to happen

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It is blatantly obvious that the Exodus as described in the OT did not take place. That is the statement I will defend.

                    If an exodus dissimilar to the one in the OT took place, why call it the Exodus?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Moderated By: Littlejoe

                      This thread is solely for the participants in the debate (psstein and mikeenders) to define the parameters of their debate. All others are to refrain from posting in this thread. Thank You TWEB Staff

                      ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                      Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by psstein View Post
                        It is blatantly obvious that the Exodus as described in the OT did not take place. That is the statement I will defend.
                        Great and with that amendment you can adjust my position to the real one as well - That there is good cause not to consider the non historicity of Exodus as blatantly obvious or to make it easy and short for the mods a simple negation/nay to your claim stated above.

                        If an exodus dissimilar to the one in the OT took place, why call it the Exodus?
                        Not sure where that question came from because I never implied any such thing. Surely you are aware there are different interpretations and identifications regarding various elements of the exodus so simple saying "as the OT records" is a bit ambiguous. For example of the list below I can live with 2 and 4 but 1 and especially 3 is subject to interpretation.

                        1. The entire Jewish nation is enslaved in Egypt
                        2. After a series of plagues and other odd occurrences, they leave Egypt under the guidance of Moses.
                        3. They then cross the Sea of Reeds (Yam Suph) and follow the route described in the OT
                        4. They sojourn for a long period of time in Sinai.
                        SO to me its jut better to stick to the basics - presence of Jews in Egypt, after a series of of plagues departure to Canaan with a sojourning in the desert,

                        Anyway I am booked solid next week and possibly a few days into the following week (big work project now finally moving forward) so for me at least to be safe the weekend of October 31 would be a good start date subject to what is mentioned above

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Moderated By: Littlejoe

                          Debate participants, in order to set up your debate thread, please clarify so that I know for certain the following:

                          ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                          Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.



                          1. Is the exact debate "It is blatantly obvious that the Exodus as described in the OT did not take place."
                          2. If so, is it correct that this is the position psstein will assert/defend and Mikeenders will oppose?
                          3. Who will start
                          4. How many rounds will the debate comprise including closing arguments
                          5. When will it start


                          Thanks

                          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                            Great and with that amendment you can adjust my position to the real one as well - That there is good cause not to consider the non historicity of Exodus as blatantly obvious or to make it easy and short for the mods a simple negation/nay to your claim stated above.



                            Not sure where that question came from because I never implied any such thing. Surely you are aware there are different interpretations and identifications regarding various elements of the exodus so simple saying "as the OT records" is a bit ambiguous. For example of the list below I can live with 2 and 4 but 1 and especially 3 is subject to interpretation.



                            SO to me its jut better to stick to the basics - presence of Jews in Egypt, after a series of of plagues departure to Canaan with a sojourning in the desert,

                            Anyway I am booked solid next week and possibly a few days into the following week (big work project now finally moving forward) so for me at least to be safe the weekend of October 31 would be a good start date subject to what is mentioned above
                            Fine, I agree to these stipulations.

                            My position will be that the Exodus as described in the OT did not take place. The weekend of the 31st is a good start date.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                              Moderated By: Littlejoe

                              Debate participants, in order to set up your debate thread, please clarify so that I know for certain the following:

                              ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                              Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.



                              1. Is the exact debate "It is blatantly obvious that the Exodus as described in the OT did not take place."
                              Yes thats the premise I agree to - not merely that it do not happen. I will dissent to that view with reasons and data


                              3. Who will start
                              stein has said he will start and I have no objections

                              4. How many rounds will the debate comprise including closing arguments
                              Stein has stated 4 and again I have no objections

                              5. When will it start
                              Seems we agree on the 31st

                              Let the games begin post halloween :)

                              Comment

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