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.
No archeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".
Quote:
The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible. No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds
But it's more than that. Outside of the Bible there is not a single scrap of secular evidence that someone named Jesus of Nazareth ever lived or that He performed all these miracles or that He was crucified/resurrected/ascended. Events like these would have been publicized throughout the world, certainly by Philo of Alexandria the foremost historian of the day and contemporary of Jesus. The Josephus passage about Jesus has been proven to be a later interpolation by Christians trying to beef up the Jesus legend; Tacitus speaks of a "Christ" but not Jesus of Nazareth; no one else mentions Him.
Historians separate Jesus into three categories: the God-man; the man; and the myth. I am inclined to go with the second. He was a Jewish rabbi who preached, caused trouble for the Roman empire, who then crucified Him and then buried Him. We have no eyewitnesses other than His disciples; none of His disciples wrote about it. We had to wait 40-45 years until someone (Mark) finally decided to write down all the stories circulating about Him. Who knows how much they had changed or got exaggerated over that course of time. I am inclined to believe that since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and then added their own spin to spice up the story and fill in holes, most of what we read in the synoptics is made-up, hence all the factual errors in between the gospels like the Nativity and the passion.
This is one of those rare cases where I agree with you. I don't see how anything can be authored without similes, figures of speech, etc., and it's usually clear from context when that is going on.
Exactly! We are figurative communicators. even basic words in our language can be metaphoric (for example we "arrive" at a conclusion, like thought is equivalent to motion). The problem is one of special pleading. If I were to put Aesop's fable forth to be interpreted, virtually all of us would recognize that the true part is the conclusion, the life lesson, not the part about talking insects and mice, or a miller carrying his donkey. If I recount the story of Baalam's ass, somehow it has now become 100% literal and not figurative at all. The reason has nothing to do with the story or the book from which it came, it is in the opinion of the reader. Beleivers have already decided the Bible (or other religious text) is "true", somehow special and must be interpreted differently than any other text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
The problem, as (I think) NoCapo pointed out, is that apart from the bleeding obvious (lamb of god, sword coming out of mouth) an empiricist has to assume that anything that doesn't match up with reality or evidence must be figurative or incorrect, whereas a True Believer would be much more inclined to take it literally. So if the Bible says the earth was created in six days and that day and night existed before the sun and moon, you have one group insisting it's literally true and another group (many of whom are fellow believers) insisting that it's figurative, that days are metaphorical references to arbitrarily long epochs of time, that there is an implicit massive time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, etc.
But at the same time that they are making up time gaps between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 or postulating on dimensions of a cauldron, or putting forth a-historical ideas about recounting lineage, they are claiming that the scripture that they are interpreting, by simply making things up, is inerrant! If it was inerrant, they wouldn't have to make stuff up...
The problem is that what is seen as sacrosanct and inerrant is not the Bible, but their interpretation of the Bible. The Bible it self must be supplemented with whatever is necessary to reinforce their doctrinal conclusion. I've done it myself, and I am sure you did too. Ultimately it is self delusion that one's particular interpretation is the one right interpretation and only it is based entirely and without question on the Bible. It is a hard thing to realize, and it does damage one's conviction in their doctrine, which is why I was vigorously taught to avoid such self examination...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
When you consider the spectrum from snake handlers to high church denominations that come out of the exact same book, it's pretty clear that much of it is up for interpretation, whether literal vs figurative, or my guess vs yours. You can't really claim a "One Correct Exegesis" for scripture.
Well, you can claim the "One Correct Exegesis", but the only logical way to do that is by special revelation. There is simply no logically consistent way to derive the "One Correct Exegesis" from the test with no additional revelation, and most Christians are very skeptical of the validity of special revelation ( at least the validity of someone else's special revelation).
So the statement is not true, we just rely on the other party knowing what we mean and interpreting a false statement in a way that does correspond with reality. It only works becasue both parties understand that they are using a false statement in a figurative way.
That doesn't make it a true statement.
So if the weatherman says the sun is going to rise tomorrow are you going to call him up and call him a liar? If someone says "that girl is a fox!" are you going to accuse him of lying? Really? Come on, I mean, really? The writers of the Bible are not allowed to use figures of speech and if they do they are lying? Really? I mean REALLY!!!!!?
Quote:
A more appropriate illustration is this. If I have a calculus book that leaves out information that must be added by a professor, or presents information that contradicts itself, and must be rationalized or explained, we can certainly conclude that it is not complete, and that it is not perfect or inerrant.
If your scripture requires supplemental material to be properly interpreted, then it is clearly at best incomplete. When it needs external rationalizations to harmonize two statements that do not agree, it is clearly contradictory. When it presents information that is counterfactual that must be excused, it is clearly in error.
So what supplemental information does the Bible need for you to understand it? Care to elaborate? I'm all ears. God never said He would make it easy to dig His greatest gems out of the Scriptures. In fact He said "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out."
Quote:
Really? So Pi = 3? Joseph had two fathers? Becasue those are things the Bible says. Anything else is what you are claiming it means., and depends on external assertions and claims that are not Biblical. Even if we were to accept your rationalization for both of these issues, the fact that you have to have a rationalization at all points to a problem in the source.
Oh no! Peter was called Simon and Peter and Kephas! Oh no! It's a contradiction! I'm sometimes called by three different names, First, Middle and Last! I'm a walking contradiction! Oh, somebody help me!
Quote:
Now you are just agreeing with me. The way you determine what is "properly translated" is through extra-biblical criteria, based on human scholarship, human doctrine, and your own personal conviction. It by definition cannot be based on the Bible itself, because that is what you are trying to determine in the first place.
Keep trying to figure it out. You have not hit the nail on the head yet as to how I determined what translation was properly translated. Throw some more ideas out there.
Quote:
I understand you think that, but over the course of several years you have yet to demonstrate it. Instead you invariably retreat to circular logic.
I could say the same about you.
Quote:
Well, in my experience the other way to leave Theism is to take it very seriously, and examine it's claims and promises. I tasted and saw that the Lord... well, that he wasn't... at all... I asked, sought, and knocked and I finally realized that the claims in the Bible just didn't match reality. The "hacks", like Dr Noebel, Lee Stroble, Ravi Zacharias, and the rest didn't help, they just made it more clear that there was nothing behind the curtain...
Most likely you are not one that falls into the Acts 13:48 category. But rest assured, one day friend, you and I will one day both be saved, not based upon our merits but due to what Christ accomplished. You may not enter into a realization of that before you die, but please don't transfer your lack of a salvific event onto those who have.
Quote:
Nobody is asking you to forsake your faith, but it seems to me that the amount of ducking and dodging, linguistic twisting, speculation, and blinkered denial that your particular sort faith requires is a sign.
-NoCapo
So if the weatherman says the sun is going to rise tomorrow are you going to call him up and call him a liar? If someone says "that girl is a fox!" are you going to accuse him of lying? Really? Come on, I mean, really? The writers of the Bible are not allowed to use figures of speech and if they do they are lying? Really? I mean REALLY!!!!!?
They are literally false. I understand that we use nonliteral language, it doesn't bother me. But I don't claim that the weatherman is the eternal, inerrant, infallible word of god, now do I? The minute you allow figurative language to be a part of God's word, it is not linterally true, nor is it authoritiative, becasue it must be interpreted. Whatever criteria you use to interpret the book become the authoritiative principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
So what supplemental information does the Bible need for you to understand it? Care to elaborate? I'm all ears. God never said He would make it easy to dig His greatest gems out of the Scriptures. In fact He said "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out."
To refresh your memory, when confronted with the Bible presenting figures that state that Pi = 3, you did not refute it with scripture. You speculated (made up) that there was another number, the thickness of the vessel, that was omitted, and if you combine the Bible with this made up measurement, then it is correct. You added to the scripture. Supplemented it with a measurement that does not appear in the text. Take that assition away, and the Bible states that Pi= 3, clearly wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Oh no! Peter was called Simon and Peter and Kephas! Oh no! It's a contradiction! I'm sometimes called by three different names, First, Middle and Last! I'm a walking contradiction! Oh, somebody help me!
That is a beautiful strawman! It is just precious, bless its little heart!
But seriously, there are two geneologies that do not agree for Joseph. Are you suggesting that they are the same, just eveybody in the list had multiple aliases, and the missing generations just don't matter? Normally that isn't the standard answer, but if that is what you think we can address that. The question would be what is the biblical evidence that these two geneologies refer to the same people, since extra biblical evidence or speculation is not inspired?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Keep trying to figure it out. You have not hit the nail on the head yet as to how I determined what translation was properly translated. Throw some more ideas out there.
Or you could just explain... That would be easier. As best I can tell, it has to be either human doctrine or opinion or divine revelation. Do you have another option?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I could say the same about you.
You could. You would be wrong, and I'd ask you to demonstrate it, but you could say it. Clearly, you are able to say just about anything, and often do...
And some archeologists show evidence to support the Exodus, so there you have it.
Some historians would very much disagree with you, so there you have it.
Some historians disagree with you. So once again, there you have it.
You'd better get down on your knees tonight and pray for forgiveness, Eusebius, because you and I both know there is no veridical historical evidence for the Exodus as it is portrayed in the Bible. I've shown you mine, the quote for Wikipedia, which comes from reputable sources. You can dig up all the Christian theologian/historian-wannabes you want who will try to pass off a few "so there you have its" as proof, but no reputable historian would take a second glance at it.
But that's not your purpose at all, is it--to back up a claim with credible evidence. You're just trying to bait with nonsensical non-sequiturs to have a laugh at our expense. I've seen it too many times before not to instantly recognize.
The truth is the Exodus is a fraud and you know it. So there you have it.
I'm not willing to spend too much time on this, but metaphors and similes in the Bible are one thing. Contradictions of reported events are another.
Eusebius knows this well enough which is why he has had to argue that the anointing in Galilee (Luke) was a different event from that in bethany. No question of metaphor or simile.
Similarly, the spear thrust had to have happened and the synoptics just didn't mention it. Eusebius did a stout job of trying to make a version of Matthew with the spear thrust in do duty as a Synoptic original confirmation of John.
The point is that he knows very well that such contradictions are to be explained or not on a 'happened -or- not' basis, not on 'Just a metaphor'.
You'd better get down on your knees tonight and pray for forgiveness, Eusebius, because you and I both know there is no veridical historical evidence for the Exodus as it is portrayed in the Bible. I've shown you mine, the quote for Wikipedia, which comes from reputable sources. You can dig up all the Christian theologian/historian-wannabes you want who will try to pass off a few "so there you have its" as proof, but no reputable historian would take a second glance at it.
But that's not your purpose at all, is it--to back up a claim with credible evidence. You're just trying to bait with nonsensical non-sequiturs to have a laugh at our expense. I've seen it too many times before not to instantly recognize.
The truth is the Exodus is a fraud and you know it. So there you have it.
No need for me to get down on my knees and pray for forgiveness.
I stand by what I said. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you are correct.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Oh no! Peter was called Simon and Peter and Kephas! Oh no! It's a contradiction! I'm sometimes called by three different names, First, Middle and Last! I'm a walking contradiction! Oh, somebody help me!
Quote:
That is a beautiful strawman! It is just precious, bless its little heart!
No, it isn't a strawman.
You brought up the idea, at least I think it was you, that Joseph, Jesus' father by law, had two fathers: Heli (according to Dr. Luke) and Jacob (according to Matthew).
But there is a simple explanation to that ***seeming*** contradiction which is to be found here:
I would quote a snippet of it but the last time I did something like that I wasn't allowed to post for a couple days.
Quote:
But seriously, there are two geneologies that do not agree for Joseph. Are you suggesting that they are the same, just eveybody in the list had multiple aliases, and the missing generations just don't matter? Normally that isn't the standard answer, but if that is what you think we can address that. The question would be what is the biblical evidence that these two geneologies refer to the same people, since extra biblical evidence or speculation is not inspired?
Read the above link. Seriously they are not contradictions.
Quote:
Or you could just explain... That would be easier. As best I can tell, it has to be either human doctrine or opinion or divine revelation. Do you have another option?
Please read the above link.
Quote:
You could. You would be wrong, and I'd ask you to demonstrate it, but you could say it. Clearly, you are able to say just about anything, and often do...
-NoCapo
I only tell the truth.
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.
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.
The way you determine what is "properly translated" is through extra-biblical criteria, based on human scholarship, human doctrine, and your own personal conviction. It by definition cannot be based on the Bible itself, because that is what you are trying to determine in the first place.
