Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-17-2010, 01:50 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,852,471 times
Reputation: 1740

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
If Solomon is nonsense, why do we see his name in the historical record? And only a fool would laugh at evidence that is being confirmed by others. You can't hang your hat on Wyatt anymore Rafius. You will need to begin to attack all the others coming back confirming Wyatt's account.

Where in the historical record do we see king soloman? Besides the bible and the koran we have no secular outside sources ever talking about him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2010, 01:59 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,852,471 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Well Fullback, this is really getting off topic. Of course nonbelievers push the addition theory. Yet what do the scholars have to say. I will leave you with this link below. The actual topic here is No Egyptian documentation of the events described in Exodus.

Evidence for Jesus - Understanding Josephus' comment

Maybe you should actually read these things before you post them no? He says at least part of the passage is most likely true, which is what is being argued here. He touches on this in his book death of the messiah in which he admits that there was an addition to the text. And before we get off of mr brown, you might also want to realize he believed that the nativity never happened and portions of the passion were also most likely a post death creation. Perhaps you should read his books before using him to quote no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 02:15 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,852,471 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
There is no documentary evidence that supports the Exodus event?

Truly you must go through life with blinders on. Josephus speaks of two Egyptian historians named Manetho and Cheremon. They lived around the 3rd. century B.C. And they both spoke of Moses as the leader of the Hebrew people. And they both confirmed that the Exodus occured during the reign of "Amenophis". Which would place the Exodus around 1500 and 1400 B.C.

So just keep repeating that nonsense that there is no documentary evidence that supports the Exodus event. After all, as long as you can ignore all historical accounts there never will be any evidence for you to consider. However, you may need to live in a sound proof box. Naturally you don't want to be confronted with any of those historical accounts.
Manetheo also states that the hyskos ruled egypt for 500 years so his history might be a tad stretched. While in theory a person named moses could exsist, the truth is the exodus didn't happen the way the bible states. And for the record....there are no names or anything on that pillar. And not only that....it doesn't fit the time period soloman was supposed to have lived in. Why don't you read some credible books *i can give you some * on the subject and stop quoting pseudo experts in the field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 02:45 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,852,471 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Well it's always a waste of effort when all the other non believers of the Bible refuse to consider the evidence. And what's even more sad, is the fact that they have no evidence to counter it. They dismiss this evidence by ignoring it only.

What evidence lol? A bunch of bibilical fanatic authors who claim stuff that no one else can ever study? The story has been disproven dozens and dozens of times. Even the most conservative jewish experts on the subject such as anmon ben-tor and amihai mazar say that the exodus most likely never happened. The fact is people here have given you proof, but you chose to ignore it. Many biblical items have been found by secular archaeologists...the tel dan stele for example was found found by gila cook a non believer i might add. Read some real books on the subject....and then get back to us .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 02:48 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,852,471 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
It's doubtful that non Biblical believers will be looking to prove the Bible.
Just as I would not ask a believer in evolution to produce facts that prove the Biblical story of creation.
Really? Considering that even today many of the people digging in israel are orthodox jews and christians that's interesting. And many of them come to the same conclusions as we have over the years. That the bible is not a totally accurate documentation of history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 03:54 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
It should be obvious that if there are numerous boundry markers around the mountain, you can not say they are just scattered stones based on one photograph. And you did that, while you ignored what Cornuke and others told you.
Yes. If. You talked of a semi -circle, yet I see on the rough map of the area they are supposed to be in a straight line. I have been trying to get a look at these stones to check whether they really do look like they are placed as markers or whether there has been a bit of selectivity about what is a boundary marker and what isn't.

Quote:
The reason I only refer to evagelical sites, is because it is only evagelicals that have actually gone there. Your expert archeologist are to busy laying back in their armchairs. If I'm wrong, can you give us a link that shows your people doing the research at that site?
You always pull this 'let the skeptics prove us wrong' trick. But there's a point. I can see why this stuff looks absolutely amazing proof to you and the other believers. And I don't like to be in the position of 'explaining away' evidence, which is where I am on this one.

Quote:
Their will always be debate of the timing of the Exodus. However a number of scholars believe the Exodus occured during the reign of Amenophis. This belief was also expressed by Josephus who stated that Manetho and Cheremon, who were Egyptian historians that lived around the 3rd century B.C. Both mentioned Moses as the leader of the Jewish race. And they to stated that the exodus occured during the reign of Amenophis, who was the son of Rameses. This understanding would place the exodus somewhere between 1500 and 1400 B.C.
This thread is really about documentary evidence for the Exodus, though it has become an evidence from artefacts thread. But there is no documentary evidence for the exodus. None. Not a shred. The point about Pharonic lists is to try to find some feasible placing for the event. The problem is that if we put it earlier than the 20th dynaty (Amenhotep III is 18th dynasty) then the Bible reference to Moses avoiding the Philistines can't be right as Philistia had not yet been occupied by the sea - peoples.

Josephus is very useful for contemporary events but of little use for ancient history. Manetho mentions the Hyksos and Josephus jumped to the conclusion that they were the exodus. But Ahmose ruled after the expulsion of the Hyksos and the Amenhoteps after him so none of it really works and a reference to Josephus and a random date won't get you over it.

Now, this is important because I must conclude that the exodus is mythical though there may be some truth in it. The Vision of Mt Sinai looks like a volcano. The law giving and tabernacle - stuff looks retrospective. And I don't buy miracles. So I look at that split rock and see that it can't produce water except by a miracle. It's just a split rock. But I can see how Moller saw that and was absolutely convinced that was The rock. I can also see why he saw that heap of boulders with the cattle and goat drawings and immediately assumed that was the Calf altar. That said, casting around for the other features, he would find them. A cave of sorts, a selection of scattered scree presented as boundary stones. But a believer will see any such suggestion of denial of evidence and throw a wobbly. Which you do very nicely.

Quote:
You have found their conclusion were very much over drawn? Based on what? You don't have any evidence. You were not at the site. And many of your conclusions are based on nothing. You look at one photograph and then say the boundry stones are just scattered rocks. You have to be joking. Do your really think everyone is that stupid. I have never seen such a bias opinion pushed without any supportive evidence. You simply ignore what other have stated. And then make up your own inaccurate stories, based on your own imagination. And you expect us to believe your fantasies? I'm starting to feel like I'm talking with an eight year old.
That 'boundary stone' is indeed a scatter of stones. That is what the photo shows. To call it a boundary marker is 'overdrawn'. I admit that I cannot say (yet) that it is just picking outsome of a lot of scatter in roughly the right place, because the report idoes not give the information needed to check.

Now these markers are based on 'set bounds about' Sinai. (19.23). Semicircle as claimed or a line as shown on the diagram? Even that isn't clear.

The calf altar is overdrawn. The talk of egyptian work and heiroglyphs is certainly way off, but that may be just you. It doesn't look at all like an altar but, I can see how, in that place, it was assumed that it MUST be. Just as the bitter and sweet wells (15.23) at marah before they they crossed the wilderness of sin and arrived at Rephidim/Siniai. Some wells have good water and some don't. Moller tries to make his (sweetened whn Moses threw a tree into it) miraculously sweet to HIS taste. Thus proving it must be the Biblical one.

The mention of sinai looks like a vision of volcano. Neither Musa or Laws are volcanoes. That won't impress the believers who insist is was miracle - type event. What about the blackening? Hard to believe it would survive all these centuries, but is the peak black? That ref. said it was normal blackening. If so, why aren't the other peaks black? Perhaps they are, but I am not able to find out. I wish I could go and look but I am unable to do so and it doesn't help in being in Saudi territory. I just have to keep looking for something that will let me check the claims. But all I get are the repeated claims.

Now, as to overdrawn, I can see obvious explanations for the Red sea land bridge.

One is that it is true, but, as I say, I cannot believe that Bible account and do not believe that a parting of the seas over a handly land - brige ever happened.

two - So if there are commemmorative pillars put up by Solomon at each end (you say 'same area' which, knowing you and your craftiness, could be miles away) well, he had a navy parked there, as you said yourself, so his navigators would know there was a shallow area there. Why would he not conclude (as Wyatt did) that it must be the crossing - place of this ancient tale of the exodus?

That is assuming Solomon put up anything. Let's consider another scenario.

three - Wyatt, looking for a route across the red sea, learns about the shallow. Off he goes to have a look and 'In the area' he finds a pillar. On the Egyptian side fallen columns are not uncommon. There's no inscription, but never mind. It must be a commemmoration put up by ..well, Solomon is the obvious king.

But what about the pillar on the other side? Where is it? It is conveniently removed, just as the inscription on the remaining pillar is conveniently eroded.

That said, the the supposed inscription is fishy, too. Why would a jewish king write and inscription in Phonecian. Wyatt's credentials in ancient languages was not too good. Who translated it? Where is a photo of the pillar, a photo or transcription of the words?

As I say, I don't like to be in the position of explaining away evidence, but I see a lot of questions to be asked about this 'evidence'.

Yes, it is overdrawn where I can check anything and the report is more claims than reporting so I can't check, and the track record of Wyatt is not good. So I'm sorry if you feel that you you are talking to an eight - year old (a pretty bright one as he made you look pretty ignorant over the east gate, nativity and Tempest stele) but I can't buy Bible truth on the basis of this 'evidence'.

I will keep looking and try to get some idea of how this material looks at the site. I know you won't because you never check anything to see whether it's true or not.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2010 at 04:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 04:04 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,956,983 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by paganmama80 View Post
really? Confirmed by who exactly of any credibility? Any professional in the field has never to my knowledge ever confirmed any of his findings.


Well the problem is, we can't get any of those professionals to even look at such findings. What professional would be willing to put his career on the line? What professional would be willing to go back to his peers and tell them. "Well, looks like the Bible is true, and you guys have been all wrong." I can tell you, not to many. They would be branded as a quack, and from that day forward they would need to look for another line of work. Many of these sites have been known for years. Yet why don't we see any of these professionals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 04:16 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
There is no documentary evidence that supports the Exodus event?

Truly you must go through life with blinders on. Josephus speaks of two Egyptian historians named Manetho and Cheremon. They lived around the 3rd. century B.C. And they both spoke of Moses as the leader of the Hebrew people. And they both confirmed that the Exodus occured during the reign of "Amenophis". Which would place the Exodus around 1500 and 1400 B.C.

So just keep repeating that nonsense that there is no documentary evidence that supports the Exodus event. After all, as long as you can ignore all historical accounts there never will be any evidence for you to consider. However, you may need to live in a sound proof box. Naturally you don't want to be confronted with any of those historical accounts.
Wrong. As I say. Manetho relates the Hyksos but makes no connection with the exodus. That was just Josephus' idea. And of course it can't be during 'Amenophis' either the first, second or third. as the hyksos were thrown out before or by Ahmose and the Amenhoteps ruled some time after that. And, as I say, The Exodus mentions the Philistine fighting in Gaza so that would have to be in the time of the next dynasty. Your chronology dosn't work.

The attempt to link Cheremon's account of the 18th dynasty pharaohs throwing out diseased men with the exodus by Josephus is understandable but really guesswork based on Bible - belief by him and will not fit either the Expulsion of the Hyksos or the capital of the Rammessids (supposed to be where the Hebrews left from as it was in the delta) or the settlement of the Philistines.

You are the one with blinkers on. You accept the claims of the evangelical websites and never check the facts. That is why you always end up looking so foolish whenever the facts CAN be checked. Unfortunately the 'vertiginious' speculations of Moller (as one critic put it) cannot be checked because it is so poortly reported.

Josephus - against Apion) And now I have done with Manetho, I will inquire into what Cheremon says.

5.
For he also, when he pretended to write the Egyptian history, sets down the same name for this king that Manetho did, Akhenaten, as also of his descendent Ramesses, and then goes on thus: "The goddess Isis appeared to Akhenaten in his sleep, and blamed him that her temple had been demolished in the war.

6.
But that Phritiphantes, the sacred scribe, said to him, that in case he would purge Egypt of the men that had pollutions upon them, he should be no longer troubled. with such frightful apparitions.

7.
That Amenophis accordingly chose out two hundred and fifty thousand of those that were thus diseased, and cast them out of the country: that Moses and Joseph were scribes, and Joseph was a sacred scribe; that their names were Egyptian originally; that of Moses had been Tisithen, and that of Joseph, Peteseph: that these two came to Pelusium, and lighted upon three hundred and eighty thousand that had been left there by Amenophis, he not being willing to carry them into Egypt; that these scribes made a league of friendship with them, and made with them an expedition against Egypt: that Amenophis could not sustain their attacks, but fled into Ethiopia, and left his wife with child behind him, who lay concealed in certain caverns, and there brought forth a son, whose name was Messene, and who, when he was grown up to man's estate, pursued the Jews into Syria, being about two hundred thousand, and then received his father Amenophis out of Ethiopia."

8.
This is the account Cheremon gives us.


Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2010 at 04:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 04:36 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar View Post
Arequipa and all you others still talking to C34...just put him on ignore. You know he never accepts fact or evidence, but insists on dwelling in a perpetual state of denial and delusion. There's a bunch of us now that have him on ignore, because he just rants about hoaxes and fairy tales being real. He's a sad, deluded lost cause. Move on to someone who actually has something worthwhile to discuss.
I won't ignore Campbell, as he makes the best case I have ever seen for Bible Evidence and, if you can disprove him, you can disprove anyone. It doesn't matter that He doesn't listen.

I can let the accusations of denial and closed - mindedness wash over me as our relative successes in making a case should now be well - known.

His method is to ransack evangelical websites for cut and paste evidence for Bible truth. He never checks so we do that for him and for everyone else. That's the point. Not to do so leaves these unchecked claims standing.

To do the work means that the check -up is there to be repasted and reposted every time some other Bible-literalist makes the same claim. It is worth doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 04:59 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Well Fullback, this is really getting off topic. Of course nonbelievers push the addition theory. Yet what do the scholars have to say. I will leave you with this link below. The actual topic here is No Egyptian documentation of the events described in Exodus.

Evidence for Jesus - Understanding Josephus' comment
I agree that it is off - topic, but I have to say that link is pretty poor, since it just takes some odd remarks by Bible scholars which are neither here nor there.

Oddly, some thought that the potted biography might be a genuine discursion by Josephus but it was seen by any reputable scholar from the first that it must be, in part, the work of a Christian. The debate was about whether any part of it could be by Josephus.

A more general view of the parenthetical insertion, the resemblance to Luke's potted biography (24.19) and the chronological clumsines of the insertion (based on that mention of Pilate) now means that it is generally recognised by any (other than those who rely on Faith) as a later fake. Coming to understand that none of the early church fathers in their apologetics for Jesus ever referred to it which dated it (as surely as Daniel is datable to 167 BC) to the 3rd century AD, pretty much did for the flavian tentament.

So is the James reference in Antiquities. It refers to a different James altogether and does not fit the brother of Jesus. So that 'brother of Jesus' is a Christian gloss.

The 'historical support' for a darkening of the sky at the crucifixion is false, too. Julius Africanus, in fact quotes Thallus.

Regarding Thallus, (later 1st c) he did not appear to refer to Jesus. Apparently he mentions an eclipse of the sun which Julius Africanus (c221 AD) suggested that this might have been the darkness at the crucifixion.

Phlegon, only comments on Thallus' eclipse to say it could not have been on Passover. In fact he was refuting the claim.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2010 at 05:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top