Let Us Reason: The Exodus Story.....

[Dr H..]

You can't have 2-3 million people roaming around in a desert for decades and there be no historical evidence of some kind, whether written or hard evidence

And why not, apparently you have never spent any time in the desert. You can have an encampment on Monday and after the wind and sand, by Saturday there is no evidence that you were evere there. Considering, this took place thousand of years ago, what evidence do you or anyone else expect to find?


During WWII Patton, Romel and other faught in the desert, if you visit those battle fields, there is no evidence that a battle took place. I have visited Shilo and there is no evidence that a battle took place other than a few markers placed there by historians. We know the "U S" was inhabited by Native Americans, if you visit some of the Great Planes or the Banks on the Little Tennessee River, there is no evidence that they ever lived there. I was at Fuller Park in Memphis this site was once the home of thousands of Chickasaw and Chatow Indians, the only remains is the site of a few graves.

So waht do you expect individuals to find from the Exodus?

 

[dacontinent]

I've already found this "Jesus" you speak of. This "Jesus" you speak of can be found in mythical men like Horus, Zeus, Kristna and many others who preceded him by hundreds of years. After all, he's merely the same character as the aforementioned. In short, they're all one and the same, whether you choose to believe it or not. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, using verified extrabiblical documentation.

JayRob, you simply reinforce that you haven't found "this Jesus" that we are speaking of at all.

For your documentation, consult the works of Josephus and Philo, Greek historians of the time in which Jesus lived. Then stack it next to documentation from secular historians from the times of Horus, Zeus, and Kristna. Please post your findings here.

 

[Jaguar Diehard]

That's your choice, but if I told you to prove it, as your bible commands you to PROVE ALL THINGS, you couldn't do it.

Another thing you couldn't prove is that Jesus was said to be three days and three nights in the grave, from Friday sunset to early Sunday morning. It was stated that if he wasn't in the grave three days and three nights, he WASN'T THE MESSIAH.
Will someone....anyone, PLEASE tell me how FRIDAY SUNSET TO EARLY SUNDAY MORNING adds up to be THREE days and THREE nights in the grave?

When does a Jewish day begin?
A Jewish-calendar day does not begin at midnight, but at either sunset or when three medium-sized stars should be visible, depending on the religious circumstance.

Sunset marks the start of the 12 night hours, whereas sunrise marks the start of the 12 day hours. This means that night hours may be longer or shorter than day hours, depending on the season.

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html#anchor-jewish-day


Matt. 27:45 (NIV)

The Death of Jesus
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.
46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

(That would be about noon til 3p)

The Burial of Jesus
57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.
58Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.

So, 6p Friday-6a Saturday is Day 1,
6a Saturday - 6p Saturday is Day 2,
6p Saturday - 6a Sunday is Day 3.

:shame:

 

[JayRob]

Then start by reading Antiquities of the Jews, Books 2 & 3, written 2000 years ago.

Dacon please, that book proves nothing and you know it. It merely mimics every fabled story in the bible, including the so-called exodus, with no supporting evidence to back it up. In essence, it's a rewriting of the bible.

The fact of the matter is that there's been no archaeological proof that any exodus ever existed.
Dacon, you intentionally named a book you KNOW has no evidence simply to try and ease your way out of an impossible situation. I find that highly disingenuous.

Here's a quote from a noted Jewish Rabbi on the subject of the exodus from the article:

"Doubting the Story of Exodus"

http://hierographics.org/DoubtingTheStoryofTheExodus.html:

"But did the Exodus ever actually occur?

On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words.

"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.

Wolpe's startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided." END

Dacon, if a noted Jewish Rabbi has the guts and honesty to admit the obvious, surely you ought to be able to do so.

 

[JayRob]

And why not, apparently you have never spent any time in the desert. You can have an encampment on Monday and after the wind and sand, by Saturday there is no evidence that you were evere there. Considering, this took place thousand of years ago, what evidence do you or anyone else expect to find?


During WWII Patton, Romel and other faught in the desert, if you visit those battle fields, there is no evidence that a battle took place. I have visited Shilo and there is no evidence that a battle took place other than a few markers placed there by historians. We know the "U S" was inhabited by Native Americans, if you visit some of the Great Planes or the Banks on the Little Tennessee River, there is no evidence that they ever lived there. I was at Fuller Park in Memphis this site was once the home of thousands of Chickasaw and Chatow Indians, the only remains is the site of a few graves.

So waht do you expect individuals to find from the Exodus?

Dr. H, accredited archaeologists have the detailed skills to dig underneath and excavate layers and layers of surface that's gone untouched by weather and the elements over time.
None of this occurred with the men mentioned in the film.

For you to even compare native American and WW2 evidence not being found ON THE SURFACE versus 2-3 million people roaming is not an accurate comparison at all.
Archaeology is primarily about studying digs, not surface studies. You should know this.

If native Americans lived in an area for a period of time, archaeologists would find some evidence. The same with WW 2 weapons and bodies. As a matter of fact, there are several articles on weapons and bodies that have been found by aviation archaeologists in the desert.

On the other hand, many archaeologists have studied for decades trying to find information, anything about an exodus.
Millions of dollars have been used to try and unsurface evidence for years and years and have come up empty.

 

[JayRob]

JayRob, you simply reinforce that you haven't found "this Jesus" that we are speaking of at all.

For your documentation, consult the works of Josephus and Philo, Greek historians of the time in which Jesus lived. Then stack it next to documentation from secular historians from the times of Horus, Zeus, and Kristna. Please post your findings here.

(long post)

No, you post the findings since the burden of proof is on those who say he ever existed as described in the New Testament.
Since you asked, I will post the following.....

The mention of Christ in Josephus is a known forgery and has been known for years. In the words of known Christians on the forgery, here are quotes verifying such:

"In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."....

Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative.

For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

--Another supposed mention of Jesus by Tacitus has been called into question...

In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians--a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century--six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time--so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_17.htm

There's more to come.....

 

[JayRob]

In addition to the above....

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_17.htm

The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.

The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."

The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.

These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."

 

[JayRob]

JayRob, you simply reinforce that you haven't found "this Jesus" that we are speaking of at all.

For your documentation, consult the works of Josephus and Philo, Greek historians of the time in which Jesus lived. Then stack it next to documentation from secular historians from the times of Horus, Zeus, and Kristna. Please post your findings here.

Dacon, I have no earthly idea why you mentioned Philo. Philo mentions nothing about a New Testament Jesus. Note the following:

Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider:

"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.
"These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Here's another quote about Philo: The first major candidate from Jewish sources is Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a Jewish philosopher who lived from around the third decade BCE to around the fifty decade CE. This makes him a full contemporary of Jesus, who probably lived from c.6BCE to c.30CE. We find in Philo's philosophy Jewish ideas mixed with Greek thought. It was Philo who introduced the concept of Logos, which he called the Son of God, the Paraclete, the mediator between God and man. All these were later shamelessly plagiarized by Christians to refer to Jesus. Furthermore, Philo maintained an active interest in the welfare of Israel. If there was a Jew who thought of himself as the Son of God and the Logos (as the gospel of John tells us Jesus did) and miraculously rose from the dead, it is highly improbable that Philo would not have heard of him. Yet in more than fifty works of Philo known to us today, there is not a single allusion to Jesus or to his followers. [1]1. Graham, The Jesus Hoax: p145-146
Guignebert, Jesus: p16
-----------------------------

In addition to Philo, there were many historians living in the time of Christ who knew him not, therefore didn't write about him. Some are:

Apollonius, Persius, Appian, Petronis, Arrian, Phaedrus, Aulus Gellius
Philo-Judaeus, Columella, Phlegon, Damis, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny the Younger, Dion Pruseus, Plutarch, Epictetus, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Quintilian, Hermogones, Quintius Curtius, Josephus, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Statius, Lucanus, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Paterculus, Valerius Maximus.
None of these men mentioned the Jesus of the New Testament, including Philo.
-----------------------------------

"Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering this time of Christ's reputed existence. This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: 'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

--Dacon, you mentioned that Greek writers wrote about Christ. Who are they and are they reliable witnesses?
------------------------------------

--Other matters of importance:
Pre-existing legends and the gospels

--The Roman dogma is a mixture of historical and pre-existing themes. Mithraism, a religion derived from Zoroastrism, was very popular in Rome at the same time that Christianity was spreading. Mithras was believed to be the son of the sun, sent to the earth to rescue humankind. Two centuries before the appearance of Jesus, the myth of Mithras held that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. Mithras sacrificed himself and the last day had a supper with twelve of his followers. At that supper Mithras invited his followes to eat his body and drink his blood. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. Mithras' festival coincided with the Christian Easter. This legend dates from at least one century before Jesus. It was absorbed in the Roman dogma.

--The Egyptian god Osiris was also born on the 25th of December, died on a friday and resurrected after spending three days in the underworld.

--The Roman god Dionysus was hailed as `The Saviour of Mankind' and `The Son of God'. Dionysus was born (on December 25) when Zeus visited Persephone. Therefore, his father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. Announced by a star, he is born in a cowshed and visited by three Magis. He turns water into wine and raises people from the dead. He is followed by twelve apostles.

Conclusive evidence that "Christianity" is a carbon copy of other pagan religions. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

[Dr H..]

JR

Consider yhe people during the Exodus were "Nomads" traveling from place to place, with no establish foundation. Those individuals did not build cities with wood; concrete or asphalt. They traveled with tents and a few animals, wandering from one location to another. Do you expect the desert sands and winds; erosion to stop taking its natural course.

So I ask you again what do you expect to find, from a group of Nomads?

 

[dacontinent]

...The fact of the matter is that there's been no archaeological proof that any exodus ever existed.
Dacon, you intentionally named a book you KNOW has no evidence simply to try and ease your way out of an impossible situation. I find that highly disingenuous.

Here's a quote from a noted Jewish Rabbi on the subject of the exodus from the article:...

I, DACONTINENT, AM NOT AWARE OF ANY ARCHEOLOGICAL PROOF OF THE EXODUS.

I am aware of much history that has eyewitness accounts of millions of people that is now refuted by people who live thousands of years later and purported as fact. For some reason, people like you have chosen the word of people who were not there over the word of people who were there; you call it logic, wave it like a banner, and call for those who differ to prove you wrong.

I keep asking for FACTS but you produce none. You merely cite the opinions and conjecture of modern men, whom you seem to argue as being more intelligent by orders of magnitude.

This sort of reminds me of my Literature of Science class at JSU, 85% of which was about what scientists had to say about Darwinism - most of whom never read the Origin of Species or any other works of Darwin, especially where he said his own theory was wrong.

JayRob, I have no burden of proof at all. There is no doctrine involved.

 

[JaguarNation99]

Off topic, but Darwin never stated his theory was wrong. Also, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Carry on...

 

[dacontinent]

Off topic, but Darwin never stated his theory was wrong. Also, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Carry on...

You are correct. Darwin said things like:
"...To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
and
"...For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived..."
As for the term, Darwinism, it was introduced to me 29 years ago by my Lit of Sci prof, Dr. Ancilla Coleman. I don't know how widely it is used. You can find it in online dictionaries and encyclopedias all over the internet.

Thanks.

 

[JaguarNation99]

You are correct. Darwin said things like:
"...To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
and
"...For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived..."
As for the term, Darwinism, it was introduced to me 29 years ago by my Lit of Sci prof, Dr. Ancilla Coleman. I don't know how widely it is used. You can find it in online dictionaries and encyclopedias all over the internet.

Thanks.

Not to hijack the thread, but you do realize both of those quotes are taken out of the proper context. For example, here's the entire first quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

That last part of the quote changes his intent entirely. Secondly, the term Darwinism is used (mostly by creationists), but that doesn't make it correct. There is evolution or evolutionary biology to be more exact, but using Darwinism is akin to using Newtonism to describe gravity.

 

[dacontinent]

Not to hijack the thread, but you do realize both of those quotes are taken out of the proper context. For example, here's the entire first quote:


That last part of the quote changes his intent entirely. Secondly, the term Darwinism is used (mostly by creationists), but that doesn't make it correct. There is evolution or evolutionary biology to be more exact, but using Darwinism is akin to using Newtonism to describe gravity.

Yes, I know the quote and I know the term. Both existed prior to me. Like them or not - agree with them and how they are used or not - we have to deal with them.

 

[JayRob]

When does a Jewish day begin?
A Jewish-calendar day does not begin at midnight, but at either sunset or when three medium-sized stars should be visible, depending on the religious circumstance.

Sunset marks the start of the 12 night hours, whereas sunrise marks the start of the 12 day hours. This means that night hours may be longer or shorter than day hours, depending on the season.

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html#anchor-jewish-day


Matt. 27:45 (NIV)

The Death of Jesus
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.
46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

(That would be about noon til 3p)

The Burial of Jesus
57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.
58Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.

So, 6p Friday-6a Saturday is Day 1,
6a Saturday - 6p Saturday is Day 2,
6p Saturday - 6a Sunday is Day 3.

:shame:

Dude, surely you didn't fall for that did you? This has to be one of the worst twisting of verses and astronomy I've ever seen......well at least one of the worst. This is an embarassment to logic.

A day consists of twenty four hours from sunset to sunset as mentioned in Genesis.
Jonah was in the whale three full days and three full nights.
If Jesus was supposedly buried on a Friday just prior to sunset, and then rose before sunrise on Sunday, he was not in a grave three days and three nights no matter how one tries to force it. He was only in the grave a day and a half at the most.

Like I said, it takes a religious person, namely a bible twister, to throw logic to the wind. This has to be one of the most embarassing beliefs in all of Christianity, three days and three nights between Friday sunset to Sunday morning. WOW!!!

 

[JayRob]

JR

Consider yhe people during the Exodus were "Nomads" traveling from place to place, with no establish foundation. Those individuals did not build cities with wood; concrete or asphalt. They traveled with tents and a few animals, wandering from one location to another. Do you expect the desert sands and winds; erosion to stop taking its natural course.

So I ask you again what do you expect to find, from a group of Nomads?

Dr. H, the bible says 2-3 million people roamed the desert for about 40 years. There's no archaeological evidence to prove such.
Seems to me that you're basing your beliefs on a foundation that's no more stable than the desert sands the Israelites supposedly walked on for 40 years.
No buried bodies, no corpses, no evidence of buried clothing, tents, dead animals corpses, manuscripts or anything. No nothing.

It's impossible for that many people to roam a desert that long and there not be a shred of evidence.

Isn't it ironic that Egypt's enemies never mentioned such a migration of peoples, neither did they mention any such miracles by the god of such a people in their recordings or documents.
It's high time that people think with their rational mind not with their emotional heart?

 

[JayRob]

I, DACONTINENT, AM NOT AWARE OF ANY ARCHEOLOGICAL PROOF OF THE EXODUS.

Truth begins with honesty.

I am aware of much history that has eyewitness accounts of millions of people that is now refuted by people who live thousands of years later and purported as fact. For some reason, people like you have chosen the word of people who were not there over the word of people who were there; you call it logic, wave it like a banner, and call for those who differ to prove you wrong.

What eyewitness accounts? You have no idea who wrote those accounts. Plus Josephus lived 2000 years after a supposed exodus.

Archaeologists have the skill and ability to go back thousands of years by digging and excavating under layers of dirt and mud (which tends to preserve rather than destroy) in order to find buried bones, artifacts, documents and such that were left by the ancients.
You actually believe that 2-3 million people left NO evidence, that they completely vanished from the annals of time?!

I keep asking for FACTS but you produce none. You merely cite the opinions and conjecture of modern men, whom you seem to argue as being more intelligent by orders of magnitude.

After posting complete quotes by both skilled archaeologists, a Jewish rabbi and admitted Christians, you have the nerve to say I've produced no facts? Either you can't read OR are in denial OR too stubborn to admit it OR you're not honest when it comes to the bible.
I lean towards all of the above. This is sad indeed.
Posts 11, 12, 13 and 14 are actually enough. Review them if you must. As a matter of fact, you couldn't directly refute anything in either of those posts to say that they were inaccurate, so I'm befuddled as to why you'd sit here and say I've not produced ANY facts.

Perhaps I should ask, where are YOUR facts? As a matter of fact, I do. Other than a few pages from a book by Josephus, a book that merely mimicks the entire Old Testament bible with no supporting evidence and that video, you haven't produced much, if anything.
The film you mentioned clearly show that I or any unskilled layperson could easily produce something similar?
Josephus lived 2000 years AFTER the exodus, so he wasn't an eyewitness. Josephus didn't excavate land to actually try and find evidence that such an exodus occurred or didn't. Josephus merely depended on ORAL HISTORY, just like you're doing. In short, he has nothing concrete to support what he wrote about the exodus.

This sort of reminds me of my Literature of Science class at JSU, 85% of which was about what scientists had to say about Darwinism - most of whom never read the Origin of Species or any other works of Darwin, especially where he said his own theory was wrong.

Divert to your literature class if you must, but just as you might challenge your class to produce evidence in support for their assignments/theories, I challenge you to do the same and produce evidence supporting yours.
Again, what little you did try and produce with that amateur film by known amateurs was easily debunked and found to be fraudulent.

JayRob, I have no burden of proof at all. There is no doctrine involved.

The burden of proof is clearly on those who make such outlandish claims that a sea split and 2-3 million people walked through, in addition to roaming the desert for 40 years, leaving NO evidence.
The bible even claims that the people of that generation died in the wilderness. There should've been at least 1.5 million bodies strewn about the desert if that's true. WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILLION BODIES AND CORPSES?! Keep in mind that I didn't even include the corpses of thousands of animals they had to sacrifice to their god. No evidence whatsoever.

No such evidence of any large number of peoples bones, clothing, artifacts, animals etc., has ever been found by archaeologists who've been digging with modern equipment for at least 10-20 years in that area.

Fact of the matter is that the exodus is a complete fable, myth and mirage just like the many man-made stories of other religions around the world.

 

[dacontinent]

...What eyewitness accounts? You have no idea who wrote those accounts. Plus Josephus lived 2000 years after a supposed exodus.

Archaeologists have the skill and ability to go back thousands of years by digging and excavating under layers of dirt and mud (which tends to preserve rather than destroy) in order to find buried bones, artifacts, documents and such that were left by the ancients.
You actually believe that 2-3 million people left NO evidence, that they completely vanished from the annals of time?! ...

Archaeologists practice a very inexact science of conjecture of possibility based on the known. Over the course of time as we know it, billions of people have lived and died in the region, yet the human remains found anywhere have been few and far between outside of maintained burial sites. Why? Because of the method of disposal used. I'm no archeologist and I know that. Nomadic people don't leave much anywhere until permanent cities are established.

It's not like these persons that we read about in the Exodus did not exist. Non-Jewish cultures (i.e. non-biblical) acknowledge their presence and activities. This did not happen in a vacuum.

...After posting complete quotes by both skilled archaeologists, a Jewish rabbi and admitted Christians, you have the nerve to say I've produced no facts? Either you can't read OR are in denial OR too stubborn to admit it OR you're not honest when it comes to the bible.
...
Perhaps I should ask, where are YOUR facts? As a matter of fact, I do. Other than a few pages from a book by Josephus, a book that merely mimicks the entire Old Testament bible with no supporting evidence and that video, you haven't produced much, if anything.
...

There CAN BE some scientific validity in archeology. I do find it ironic that you now point to the opinion and conjecture of a rabbi and some number of Christians as fact. I'll 4000 years of perspective against the latter anyday.

I produced no video. You initiated the thread asking for support of the Exodus and I pointed to a video for you to assess for your self - taking my opinion of it out of the way.

...Divert to your literature class if you must, but just as you might challenge your class to produce evidence in support for their assignments/theories, I challenge you to do the same and produce evidence supporting yours.
Again, what little you did try and produce with that amateur film by known amateurs was easily debunked and found to be fraudulent...

The history as recorded is all of the production that I need. Artifacts would be nice but are not necessary for me.

As for the film, the persons documenting what they found made no claims of being archeologists. They were just guys who put together some facts and followed them to reach a conclusion. No excavation. No carbon dating. Merely observation. You accept/reject it at whatever level you are pleased. There was no investigation of the plagues, excavation of the Red Sea, etc. It simply pointed to the accuracy of the place where Moses was instructed to return after the Israelites were freed from Egypt. Have archeologists investigated the site and subsequent routes the Israelites would have taken as a result? Have the Muslim-based governments and regimes excavated such sites and paths for the purpose of removing all the of the artifacts therewith? Why is this site fenced-off but surrounding areas are not? I would not even begin to speculate, nor do I espouse any conspiracy theories. We simply do not know. I am okay with that. You and others won't be. We are entitled to those positions.

Until we have more detail, you and I have nothing to prove and neither does anyone else.

 

[JayRob]

Archaeologists practice a very inexact science of conjecture of possibility based on the known. Over the course of time as we know it, billions of people have lived and died in the region, yet the human remains found anywhere have been few and far between outside of maintained burial sites. Why? Because of the method of disposal used. I'm no archeologist and I know that. Nomadic people don't leave much anywhere until permanent cities are established.

So you're now discrediting scientist who do actual research for the purpose of trying to uphold a book that's based on mere "faith"? You may be an educator Dacon, but would you encourage your students to use such tactics when conducting their research on their assignments?

Like I said, it takes religion for one to throw logic completely out the window in spite of the evidence staring them right in the face.
Logic would show that 2-3 million people have artifacts and materials they woud HAVE to leave behind as evidence. There's no documented history of 2-3 million people roaming in the desert by contemporary historians inneighboring nations and cultures.

It's not like these persons that we read about in the Exodus did not exist. Non-Jewish cultures (i.e. non-biblical) acknowledge their presence and activities. This did not happen in a vacuum.

You say non-Jewish, non-biblical sources, but those sources have little to no credibility when they've been investigated and researched.

There CAN BE some scientific validity in archeology. I do find it ironic that you now point to the opinion and conjecture of a rabbi and some number of Christians as fact. I'll 4000 years of perspective against the latter anyday.

Which is it? You just said archaeology wasn't an exact science, now you're saying it can be scientific?
Rabbi Wolpe is an "expert" of Old Testament writings and a famous and dedicated Jew dedicated to his people and culture.
The Christians I mentioned know the Old Testament and are "experts". If you were one, I'd have chosen you as a reference.

My point is that if these people can finally come to an objective conclusion, in spite of what they've been taught in their synogogues and seminaries, I would think there's hope for those like you who seem to be in stark denial.

I produced no video. You initiated the thread asking for support of the Exodus and I pointed to a video for you to assess for your self - taking my opinion of it out of the way.

I think you know that's what I meant. I didn't ask for that specific video. You brought up the video all on your own as "evidence" of a biblical exodus. I simply pointedout that the authors were investigated and found to be fraudulent, so your evidence really wasn't evidence at all.

The history as recorded is all of the production that I need. Artifacts would be nice but are not necessary for me.

And this is the huge flaw. All you require is a mere "belief" with nothing to support it. Christianity is based on faith. Without it, you couldn't please your god, no matter how wild and outlandish the miracles might be.
All you have is a belief system, in this case, supported by nothing.
Real investigators call that "hearsay", and a real judge would throw it out of his court.

As for the film, the persons documenting what they found made no claims of being archeologists. They were just guys who put together some facts and followed them to reach a conclusion. No excavation. No carbon dating. Merely observation. You accept/reject it at whatever level you are pleased.

But people like you took it and ran with it. You even paid money for it, so you must have believed it to be of some substance.
The film authors may not have "said" they were archaeologists or legit geologists, they still implied that the investigation they began and their findings were accurate and legit. Come to find out, their findings were highly flawed and had very little substance, even to the point where "Christian" archaeologists deserted them.

There was no investigation of the plagues, excavation of the Red Sea, etc. It simply pointed to the accuracy of the place where Moses was instructed to return after the Israelites were freed from Egypt. Have archeologists investigated the site and subsequent routes the Israelites would have taken as a result? Have the Muslim-based governments and regimes excavated such sites and paths for the purpose of removing all the of the artifacts therewith? Why is this site fenced-off but surrounding areas are not? I would not even begin to speculate, nor do I espouse any conspiracy theories. We simply do not know. I am okay with that. You and others won't be. We are entitled to those positions.

Dacon, if you wanted to know the answer to those questions, you could. As far as the excavation of the Red Sea where the Israelites supposedly crossed, in the film the men were in the sea at high tide and the water only reached their waste. How could perhaps thousands of chariots and men have sunk and drowned in such shallow water?

Again, most of those questions you posed have been addressed for years. Like I said, you can find the answers to them if you want to.

Until we have more detail, you and I have nothing to prove and neither does anyone else.

We have details, details that there was no exodus. Please don't link me with what you don't have and what you perhaps don't want to know for fear that it might go against the grain of what you believe. The evidence is there. Archaeologists have dug and dug and dug, yet have found nothing.
More importantly, you can't produce any documents or writings from other cultures existing at that time showing that an exodus ever occurred.
We have evidence of the cultures of the Hittites and Canaanites, but nothing about a group of 2-3 million people roaming in the desert for forty years around the same time as the aforementioned existing cultures. The reason there's no documentation is because it never happened.

 

[Attack Dog]

Great thread!!!:tup::tup::tup:

 

[dacontinent]

I discredit no one. The bible is a book of faith, so I expect my students to use faith when conducting their research. Christianity is based on faith, and I have every intention of exercising that faith. I won't even go down the road of evidentiary law and what is and is not allowed to be considered in court. That can really be farsical.

Once again, ARCHEOLOGY IS an inexact SCIENCE. Good researchers practice the scientific method but the tools and test available just don't lend themselves to being very precise. Any archeologist will tell you that. There is still a great deal of extrapolation involved the further you get from current time.

We cannot just throw out the history of ancient cultures because they did not use eloquent methods for preserving history for us to be able to dissect now.

The only thing fraudulent about the researchers in the film was how they got into Saudi Arabia.

Barna Research shows in their polls that only 15% of pastors in America believe in the virgin birth. They are experts. People believe what they want to believe and say what they want to say whether they be experts or not. That does not meant that we discount experts nor simply accept what they say as fact. It means that we value their perspective very highly. I have been on juries where we had eyewitnesses testify to one thing and experts tell us that they could not possibly be right based on their investigation of the scene. The jury then had the job of weighing the two conflicting sides. I am very glad for Rabbi Wolpe and others for their contributions, but I will stick with the Word.

You asked if there was archeological information about the exodus outside the bible. I pointed out the video for consideration. It speaks of Mt. Sinai and the possibility that the site traditionally considered was incorrect. They could be totally wrong, but it is worth considering. I left that all to you.

Dacon, if you wanted to know the answer to those questions, you could. As far as the excavation of the Red Sea where the Israelites supposedly crossed, in the film the men were in the sea at high tide and the water only reached their waste. How could perhaps thousands of chariots and men have sunk and drowned in such shallow water?...

The account is:

Ex 14:21-28

21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians. 26 And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. 27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.

Here is a non-archeological perspective on the force of water.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKjaqYUA11k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKjaqYUA11k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So, there are foot soldiers and those on chariots with no wheels getting pounded by walls of water from both sides. Well, I live in Florida and we have billboards warning us about leaving children unattended because they can drown in 2 inches of stationary water. Now, you take the accounts, the water levels then and now, the geology, the archeology, etc., and reach your own conclusion. Yours might differ from mine.

 

[JaguarNation99]

Yes, I know the quote and I know the term. Both existed prior to me. Like them or not - agree with them and how they are used or not - we have to deal with them.

Perhaps, but let's not go around making claims when there's tons of proof to the contrary.

 

[JayRob]

I discredit no one. The bible is a book of faith, so I expect my students to use faith when conducting their research. Christianity is based on faith, and I have every intention of exercising that faith. I won't even go down the road of evidentiary law and what is and is not allowed to be considered in court. That can really be farsical.

Exactly, the bible is a book of "faith", which is in essence means that you need no proof. So you're saying that you don't require your students to use scientific methods when attempting to present their findings?

Most Americans from birth have been drilled and drilled with the teachings of Christianity by parents, relatives, friends, the media, preachers, music, the bible, etc., for years and years and years until it becomes second nature. They NEVER thought to question it's history because of such pressure and influence. Once they do, some take it to heart, but others continue to go on believing the stories eventhough they know it's fabled and plagiarized history.

It takes a strong minded, honest person to really look at how they came to believe in Christianity and how they came to accept it. Most folks accept it because their parents did.
Most Arabs accept Muslim because their parents did. Most people of India accept Hinduism because their parents did. It perhaps never occurred to them that not only could their parents be wrong about their religion, so could the other folks as well.

Some folks are just too afraid and fearful of the possible negative repercussions from family, friends, church associates, etc., if they renounced their religion for whatever reason.

Once again, ARCHEOLOGY IS an inexact SCIENCE. Good researchers practice the scientific method but the tools and test available just don't lend themselves to being very precise. Any archeologist will tell you that. There is still a great deal of extrapolation involved the further you get from current time.

Archaeology gives us our best chances of proving whether history occurred as the bible says it did. The bible only offers stories that defy logic and the laws of nature. The stories are totally built on "faith" and faith alone.

I ask myself this question regarding the bible, "which is more likely to have occurred.....that the laws of nature were being suspended over and over primarily for the Israelites OR that the biblical authors were lying and fabricated the many stories? It's as simple as that.

It takes an unimaginable leap of faith for one to believe that the authors were telling the truth due to the fact that few if any, of the miracles they proposed that happened to them and for them in the distant past aren't happening today. It's much easier for men to lie than for the laws of nature to be suspended in favor of a chosen group of people.

We cannot just throw out the history of ancient cultures because they did not use eloquent methods for preserving history for us to be able to dissect now.

I agree with that, but my premise is that none of those cultures mention an exodus or anything like an exodus involving 2-3 million people. The Hittite records don't show it, neither do the Canaanites, Ethiopians and other surrounding cultures in existence at that time. All are silent on what perhaps would be the greatest story at that time. The probability of such a story being hidden and not talked or documented is highly unlikely.

The only thing fraudulent about the researchers in the film was how they got into Saudi Arabia.

....and their implying that they found Mt. Sinai because of dark rocks. Nevermind that they didn't mention that the rocks were basalt rocks, which are dark by nature.

Barna Research shows in their polls that only 15% of pastors in America believe in the virgin birth. They are experts. People believe what they want to believe and say what they want to say whether they be experts or not. That does not meant that we discount experts nor simply accept what they say as fact. It means that we value their perspective very highly.... I am very glad for Rabbi Wolpe and others for their contributions, but I will stick with the Word.

If only15%, then we're getting closer to the truth as time goes on. Hopefully there'll come a day when that number will be 0%. People are getting wiser about religion and it's history. It's just slower to happen in the South for some odd reason.

You asked if there was archeological information about the exodus outside the bible. I pointed out the video for consideration. It speaks of Mt. Sinai and the possibility that the site traditionally considered was incorrect. They could be totally wrong, but it is worth considering. I left that all to you.

I understand that, nevertheless, the film implied that the men were accurate. I pointed out the deficiencies in the film. That's what people are supposed to do. Facts were pointed out that weren't mentioned by the men.
They implied that the rocks were dark because of fire or something. That was totally dishonest. They had to know that basalt rocks are dark by nature. They had to know that those kinds of rocks exist in other places as well. If they didn't, they weren't as astute as folks give them credit for being.

So, there are foot soldiers and those on chariots with no wheels getting pounded by walls of water from both sides. Well, I live in Florida and we have billboards warning us about leaving children unattended because they can drown in 2 inches of stationary water. Now, you take the accounts, the water levels then and now, the geology, the archeology, etc., and reach your own conclusion. Yours might differ from mine.

If you want to believe that thousands of seasoned soldiers, six feet or taller, with chariots, horses and weapons not only drowned, but vanished in waste deep water, be my guest.

 

[dacontinent]

....and their implying that they found Mt. Sinai because of dark rocks. Nevermind that they didn't mention that the rocks were basalt rocks, which are dark by nature.

...I understand that, nevertheless, the film implied that the men were accurate. I pointed out the deficiencies in the film. That's what people are supposed to do. Facts were pointed out that weren't mentioned by the men.
They implied that the rocks were dark because of fire or something. That was totally dishonest. They had to know that basalt rocks are dark by nature. They had to know that those kinds of rocks exist in other places as well. If they didn't, they weren't as astute as folks give them credit for being...

As you pointed out, these guys are not archeologists or geologists. I reviewed film again for what they said about the rock. There is a reference made to God coming down on the mountain but nothing about the rock being burned. They talk of OTHERS saying that it was possibly volcanic, but in their physical inspection they found the rock to be different inside than out. The only conclusion that they stated was that the rock was not volcanic. They make no points as to what kind of rock is was.

They followed a trail of biblical clues to reach their conclusion. The film mentions that they were required to leave some things that they found on the floor of the desert; there is no mention of what those things were on the tape.

Get this straight: I brought up video just as something to consider. I guess you gave them a lot more credit than I did.

 

[Attack Dog]

Dr. Ben and Dr. John Henrike Clark have often talked on this subject. We must consider that the Exodus is said to take place at a time when the greatest civilization of its day, Egypt, chronicled everything. Their enemies would have seen this as a golden opportunity to invade and capture the wealth of the fertile Nile Valley (trade routes and all).