The Exodus Story

[_jskains]

He is showing off that massive IQ of his again :)

Being able to question one's own ideas is a sign of intelligence. Repeating the same tired arguments of calling someone dumb rather than intellectually involving themselves, that is a true sign of stupidity.

The fact you constantly need to insult my IQ demonstrates a fear you have that I might be smarter than you. It's sad, but that's OK. You might get over it.

JMS

[_Aristotle Smith]

The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power...

Nope. Witness the fact that I think Exodus -> Joshua is not history, yet I am a Christian. The difference is that Exodus -> Joshua was not delivered to Hebrew scribes on Gold Plates by an angel and then translated by the power of God. The transmission history of the Bible is much more humble and therefore one can expect mistakes. It seems silly that the Book of Mormon can have so many anachronisms and lack of evidence, yet also be essentially 100% divinely transmitted.

[_schreech]

Being able to question one's own ideas is a sign of intelligence. Repeating the same tired arguments of calling someone dumb rather than intellectually involving themselves, that is a true sign of stupidity.

The fact you constantly need to insult my IQ demonstrates a fear you have that I might be smarter than you. It's sad, but that's OK. You might get over it.

JMS

Again:

"This, from the guy who starts a thread to show that there is no evidence to support 2 books that he blindly chooses to believe are historical/factual....LOL....

I agree with your OP completely...there is as much evidence supporting the exodus fable as there is supporting all the Book of Mormon tall tales..."

I am glad you are able to see that Book of Mormon myths have as much support as the obviously fictitious exodus story...Its nice to see you putting that massive IQ of yours to work...

[_jskains]

The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power...

Nope. Witness the fact that I think Exodus -> Joshua is not history, yet I am a Christian. The difference is that Exodus -> Joshua was not delivered to Hebrew scribes on Gold Plates by an angel and then translated by the power of God. The transmission history of the Bible is much more humble and therefore one can expect mistakes. It seems silly that the Book of Mormon can have so many anachronisms and lack of evidence, yet also be essentially 100% divinely transmitted.

That makes no sense. If the Exodus story, which is such a powerful component of the entire Bible, is wrong, when does the Bible stop being fantasy and start being history? Is there some marker you put in the Bible that says "This is all Fantasy, but this is all real?" Is the story of Jesus on the cross a fantasy too? If not, why?

JMS

[_jskains]

Schreech, your so boring, repetative, and unoriginal, I find it best to just block you. Bye..

[Guest]

That makes no sense. If the Exodus story, which is such a powerful component of the entire Bible, is wrong, when does the Bible stop being fantasy and start being history? Is there some marker you put in the Bible that says "This is all Fantasy, but this is all real?" Is the story of Jesus on the cross a fantasy too? If not, why?

JMS

So when are you sending in your resignation letter to the Church Office Building?

[_Aristotle Smith]

That makes no sense. If the Exodus story, which is such a powerful component of the entire Bible, is wrong, when does the Bible stop being fantasy and start being history? Is there some marker you put in the Bible that says "This is all Fantasy, but this is all real?" Is the story of Jesus on the cross a fantasy too? If not, why?

JMS

It makes perfect sense. Keep in mind I am only talking here about historical verification, I find much of Exodus -> Joshua to be inspiring (not the genocide parts), but not historical.

If you want to know if something is historical, apply the canons of historical research and see if it comes out being historical. The answer for the Bible is that some is historical, some is definitely not, and some can go either way. You approach it on a case by case basis.

Take Jesus. It's pretty certain he was a historical person, that he was crucified, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, that he spoke in parables, that he was Jewish, etc. This stuff is recognized by almost all historians of all ranges of belief. Conclusion: Jesus was a historical person. This says nothing about Jesus as Son of God or Messiah, that's a faith claim. But the faith claim is not suspended in mid-air, it attaches to a historical phenomenon.

[_Hoops]

The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power......

Yes.

[_Baker]

A lot of Christians bag on the Book of Mormon for lack of archeological evidence, yet one of the most fundimental and important stories of the Old Testement is completely unfounded in reality.

In accordance to archeology, the following flaws exist:

1. Egyptian records show zero indication of plagues, a massive exodus of their labor force, or a complete loss of a large army. None. Zip.

2. There is zero evidence to the existance of a large mobile (2 million large) population wondering around in the desert. Two million people. 40 years. No evidence. Zero.

3. There is no evidence that the Cannanite population received a massive influx of 2 million people, rather there is evidence that the Isrealites were native cannanites.


The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power......

JMS

1 - Egyptian records failed to record the Exodus to avoid embarrassment in future generations. If you knew anything about ancient record-keeping, you would understand that such omission was entirely expected. Why would the Egyptian leaders want their future offspring to know that they were duped by a bunch of slaves. Furthermore, who do you think was keeping records? The working class? Do you imagine many literate Egyptian dissidents in this time period? Geez.

2 - No record? Are you joking? What do you think the Bible is? It is THE record of the incident, by the side willing to tell the tale. As for the 2 million figure, do we really have to tread this ground again? Where's Brant Gardner when you need him? It was absolutely to be expected that those recording the history of the event would exaggerate the numbers to magnify the story. Geez.

3 - See 2. But, come on, Israelites were Canaanites? Some evidence? Is it conclusive. I hope it's not based on any DNA work, 'cause we sure know how unreliable tracking ancient Semitic DNA is!

[_karl61]

A lot of Christians bag on the Book of Mormon for lack of archeological evidence, yet one of the most fundimental and important stories of the Old Testement is completely unfounded in reality.

In accordance to archeology, the following flaws exist:

1. Egyptian records show zero indication of plagues, a massive exodus of their labor force, or a complete loss of a large army. None. Zip.

2. There is zero evidence to the existance of a large mobile (2 million large) population wondering around in the desert. Two million people. 40 years. No evidence. Zero.

3. There is no evidence that the Cannanite population received a massive influx of 2 million people, rather there is evidence that the Isrealites were native cannanites.


The problem is if the Exodus story is wrong, does that not invalidate the entire Christian Bible into nothing more than a Dominoed series of myths? Even Jesus uses Exodus as a method of demonstrating God's power......

JMS

1 - Egyptian records failed to record the Exodus to avoid embarrassment in future generations. If you knew anything about ancient record-keeping, you would understand that such omission was entirely expected. Why would the Egyptian leaders want their future offspring to know that they were duped by a bunch of slaves. Furthermore, who do you think was keeping records? The working class? Do you imagine many literate Egyptian dissidents in this time period? Geez.

2 - No record? Are you joking? What do you think the Bible is? It is THE record of the incident, by the side willing to tell the tale. As for the 2 million figure, do we really have to tread this ground again? Where's Brant Gardner when you need him? It was absolutely to be expected that those recording the history of the event would exaggerate the numbers to magnify the story. Geez.

3 - See 2. But, come on, Israelites were Canaanites? Some evidence? Is it conclusive. I hope it's not based on any DNA work, 'cause we sure know how unreliable tracking ancient Semitic DNA is!

" Egyptian records failed to record the Exodus to avoid embarrassment in future generations. If you knew anything about ancient record-keeping, you would understand that such omission was entirely expected. Why would the Egyptian leaders want their future offspring to know that they were duped by a bunch of slaves. Furthermore, who do you think was keeping records? The working class? Do you imagine many literate Egyptian dissidents in this time period? Geez."

I don't think people in the era thought about embarrassment to future generations. Just look at the book of Judges where they boasted about what they did.