Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible Unearthed - Exodus
Paul
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 151 (42064)
06-04-2003 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rrhain
06-04-2003 6:08 AM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
God and his word are inseparable. There can be no discussion on one without respect for and inclusion of the other.
Respectfully, Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 06-04-2003 6:08 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Brian, posted 06-04-2003 10:10 AM Paul has not replied
 Message 109 by zephyr, posted 06-04-2003 10:30 AM Paul has not replied
 Message 120 by Orion, posted 06-07-2003 12:38 AM Paul has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 107 of 151 (42066)
06-04-2003 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Paul
06-04-2003 9:24 AM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
Oh how blissful ignorance must be.
You really need to broaden your horizon's a little, there's a whole magnificent world of knowledge out there for you to appreciate.Yet you prefer to wallow in self delusion.
You are actually missing out on a lot in regard to the Bible. This blinkered view that you have is robbing you of fully appreciating the field of biblical studies. I suppose it is a free world, but do you think that your petty statements are winning over any converts? Of course they aren't, but you are reinforcing my opinions of Bible inerrantists, and we know that cannot be a good thing LOL.
Ah well, have a peaceful and happy life, pity so much of it has been lived in a fairytale.
Take care.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Paul, posted 06-04-2003 9:24 AM Paul has not replied

Paul
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 151 (42068)
06-04-2003 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brian
06-04-2003 8:17 AM


Re: There's a difference between historical and theological research you know!
Brian writes:
I think maybe you have spat out your dummy because you think that I am being disrespectful or I am trying to undermine the value of the Bible, but if that is the case then you have totally missed the point of our discussion.
I've gone back through some of your posts and was reminded of what you call creationists; uneducated, nuts, cukoo's, morons, ex-alcoholics, ex-drug addicts, brain washed etc. etc. I don't "think" your being disrespectful..you are being disrepectful.
Your habitual labeling of the bible as myth, fairytale, etc. etc., doesn't make me "think" your trying to undermine the value of the Bible..you are undermining the value of the Bible. In fact, it's a passion for you.
Brian there's not one thing you could ever say that could uproot a personal experience such as Nukl and I have had. And most certainly your blatant chauvinism and name calling does not serve your passion, or this forum, well at all.
Respectfully, Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brian, posted 06-04-2003 8:17 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Brian, posted 06-04-2003 11:25 AM Paul has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 109 of 151 (42069)
06-04-2003 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Paul
06-04-2003 9:24 AM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
quote:
God and his word are inseparable. There can be no discussion on one without respect for and inclusion of the other.
Off topic and painfully oversimplified. Surely you are aware that there is quite a bit of controversy over the origin of the texts you claim as the word of God. This makes it unlikely for such a claim, especially presented without any support, to be productive in this kind of discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Paul, posted 06-04-2003 9:24 AM Paul has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 110 of 151 (42075)
06-04-2003 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Paul
06-04-2003 10:27 AM


Re: There's a difference between historical and theological research you know!
Hi Paul,
I've gone back through some of your posts and was reminded of what you call creationists; uneducated, nuts, cukoo's, morons, ex-alcoholics, ex-drug addicts, brain washed etc. etc. I don't "think" your being disrespectful..you are being disrepectful.
I think that if you go over my posts you will see that I do not label all creationists this way. I refer to the type who deliberately lie and ignore refuted argmuments. Try reading what I post carefully. I do no think that Nukl is a moron at all, I have a great deal of respect for him in fact and have enjoyed our exchanges.
Of course I do not label all creationists as ex-alcoholics or ex-drug addicts, but to deny that there are no creationists who have been alcoholics or drug addicts is nave in the extreme.
I have personally spoken to a great many Christians who have been drug addicts, a very close friend of mine in fact was a drug addict and it was only faith in Jesus that saved him.
Similarly, to claim that there has never been a creationist who has been brain washed is also nave.
In regard to the type of character I refer to as being a moron, or a cuckoo (don’t think I actually said this though) etc, this is a very valid conclusion, it may be disrespectful but I personally do not want the guilt of pandering to these people and ultimately allowing them to think that they are correct in their fantasy.
Your habitual labeling of the bible as myth, fairytale, etc. etc., doesn't make me "think" your trying to undermine the value of the Bible..you are undermining the value of the Bible. In fact, it's a passion for you.
Well the thing is, the difference between you and I, is that I support my conclusions that the Bible contains myths (I am not sure that you understand what a myth really is), that Bible inerrancy is a fairytale etc, etc, I use examples and support them with evidence. It seems though that you believe that the Bible is God’s inerrant word just because you say it is!
LOL, it is hardly a passion, it is simply one source that I use for my M.th research.
What exactly do you think the value of the Bible actually is?
Exactly my point! So why do you even bother interacting with anyone outside of your deluded circle. Why investigate anything outside of the Bible because, no matter how strong the evidence is, you are never going to reject the foundation of your faith anyway?
It is pointless for you to look at the archaeological evidence, you are simply going to ignore everything that it screams at you
And most certainly your blatant chauvinism and name calling does not serve your passion, or this forum, well at all.
We are all prejudiced, no one is ever completely objective.
If you cast you mind back a few hours you will see that it was actually you who accused me of ‘abruptly ending’ the discussion, when it was clear that I have not. You have totally misunderstood the context of the discussion between Nukl and myself, and asked me to change my attitude and expectations from what are perfectly legitimate for this type of question.
I admit that at times I do overreact in some of my posts, but I think for the last few months I have been pretty restrained. However, when someone makes accusations against me that are totally unfounded i.e. that I have ended the discussion, then be prepared to defend your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Paul, posted 06-04-2003 10:27 AM Paul has not replied

Rashbam
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 151 (42145)
06-05-2003 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by nuklhed67
06-03-2003 4:06 PM


nuklhed67 wrote:
quote:
I agree with the first part of the statement, Genesis 46:11 looks to be pretty obvious. The rest of the lineage I'm not so sure about whether the context calls for a strict "son" meaning or not. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I'm relying on the work of others here.
If I understand your concern properly, you are conceding my reading of Gen 46:11, namely that Gershon, Kohath, and Merari are biological sons of Levi. You are asking why the same interpretation should apply to Exodus 6:18, where Amram is listed as a son of Kohath. The answer is obvious. Exod 6 is another genealogy and uses the same formulaic uvnei X Y = "and the sons of X: Y" as in Gen 46. E.g. Exod 46:18 uvnei qohat amram v'yitzhar v'chevron v'uziyel = "and the sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel" is precisely the same usage as in Gen 46:11 (uvnei levi gershon qohat um'rari = "and the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari"). So if you accept the meaning in Gen 46, you must also accept the meaning in Exod 6.
Exod 6:16 begins the Levite genealogy, and leads off with v'eileh sh'mot bnei levi l'toldotam = "and these are the names of the children of Levi by their generations". Here one might read "children of Levi" more broadly, as in "descendants of Levi," although the only children mentioned in Exod 6:16 itself are Levi's biological children, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The verses which follow, however, are clearly in a family tree structure, listing fathers and biological sons. Again, there is a direct parallel to chapter 46 of Genesis: Gen 46:8 reads v'eileh sh'mot bnei yisrael... = "and these are the names of the children of Israel..." followed by a list of specific father-son relations.
Hope this helps!
[This message has been edited by Rashbam, 06-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nuklhed67, posted 06-03-2003 4:06 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 112 of 151 (42183)
06-05-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by nuklhed67
06-03-2003 7:38 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
The problem is that I'm not getting my work done. I'm surprised that my employer hasn't walked into my office with a pair of wire cutters and terminated my internet access! I'm going to have to totally shut myself off from accessing this forum while at work or I may not have a job to go to.
That means I'll have to squeeze some time in at home (in between family and church time) for this forum. The result will be a serious dropoff in my participation here, but hey, I'll still have a paycheck!
No problem Nukl, I fully understand how difficult it can be to find the time to reply here, as you can see I was about a week late in replying to your last post. Just post when you can, even if it is a month down the line, I don’t have a problem with that at all.
That said, I could not resist responding to:
We cannot count on God as an explanation for anything whilst doing an historical investigation; God is outside the realms of historical enquiry. What you need to realise is that once you mention divine intervention as an explanation for anything, then you automatically classify your source as a myth.
We agree on this in a certain way; that if you take God out of the bible, it will never make sense.
I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I am not trying to downgrade the debate or bring it to an end by asking the impossible. I really do no want you to think that by my use of the word ‘myth’ that I am claiming that this belongs in a fairytale book. There are different types of myth; if you read my reply to Paul then you will see the context in which I used it here. All I meant to do here is to point out the boundaries of historical research.
This statement by you more than any other demonstrates the futility of this debate.
I tend to disagree here. I do not think that this debate is futile at all, although I do agree that we will never totally see eye to eye with each other over this topic. What I think we will get out of it is that we will both learn something new, and we can use that in any other topic we get involved in (You can even borrow my girlfriend’s formula!). I think that in every debate we should learn something new and store that away in our memory for future use, so this debate does have some point to it.
My belief is that unless God reaches you on a personal level you cannot be talked into truly believing in Him. I also believe that every person will at some point realize that God is real, and therefore have an opportunity to decide what to do about Him.
This is fine and dandy, but belief in God does not alter the facts of history.
But, since the debate rages on, I doubt I can stay away from it for very long. I may become a less frequent contributor but I'll still be keeping my finger on the pulse.
Cheers Nuk, I look forward to your posts, however infrequent they are.
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nuklhed67, posted 06-03-2003 7:38 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 151 (42248)
06-06-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Brian
06-03-2003 5:39 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
Hi Brian, Hi Paul,
Looks like I got the pot stirred up a bit between you two! I hate to be the cause of such bickering. I previously indicated a futility in this discussion, after reading both of your posts I have to admit I was wrong. I really do wish I could spend more time on this forum, I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor!
Brian wrote:
1. Which Bible version’s account will we use?
2. Which time frame will we use, 430 years, 400 years, or
4 generations?
There’s also the problem of which Bible account to use, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint actually say that the enslavement in Egypt was 215 years, (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times, JSOT, Sheffield, 1990, p 35) so which account should we take as being the accurate one?
As well as the problem of which version to use we also have the internal inconsistencies to deal with. Let’s say that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, is this consistent with the other information in the text?
Yes, Rashbam has posted his analysis of this as well. Paul has also posted some good analysis of the "numbers in Numbers." I have to say at this point that I don’t have the answer for this problem. I will do some research and see what possible explanations there are for this.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s go with a 215 year sojourn. I looked at my population model to determine what birthrate would be required and came up with 6.5 children per family for a 215 year sojourn, instead of 4.2 for a 430 year sojourn. Again, a high birthrate, but well within the realm of possibility for a culture that appears to promote large families. Consider the number of sons in the genealogies, add an equal number of daughters who are not mentioned in genealogies, and you do see large enough families.
3. Do you have any contemporary examples of similar population
growths?
I’m not aware of ANY trustworthy demographic figures from that time period, and I would be suspicious of any sources that claimed to be anything more than S.W.A.G. (sophisticated-wild-ass-guesses).
4. Is it possible to sustain a very high population growth (for that time) for a total of 430 years and if so, how do you know?
Ah yes, the term possible is so appropriate here Even from your perspective, you would have to admit the possibility. OTOH, I have to admit it as improbable, given the consensus of the sources you quote. In fact, I delight in the improbability of it, because the fact that the Hebrews were apparently bucking the trend is a key ingredient in the story! If you look at many historical events, you will find them littered with improbable and unexpected things happening; the fall of Rome, Waterloo, Hitler, Persian Gulf War, etc.
Also, the sources you quote are discussing world population as a whole, and I’m quite sure they would agree that subsets of the world population undergo surges and declines in population growth. So within the overall growth rates you would certainly find cultures that went through population booms.
I found a good article about population dynamics in a mathematical sense at:
http://www.sosmath.com/...ication/population/population.html
Concerning exponential growth, it provides a formula that addresses the factor of the environmental carrying capacity of a population. In summary, a population can grow exponentially until it begins to bump into environmental limitations, at which point the growth will slow or stop. So on a graph, we would see the population curve upwards and then slowly flatten off near the top. The question this brings up is whether the carrying capacity of the eastern Nile Delta (Land of Goshen) could accommodate the exponential growth rate that would be required in my Hebrew population models.
What we do know from history is that Egypt was a bit of a safety net for the region. We see people from other cultures migrating there during famines. It is reasonable to assume that, properly managed, it would have a higher carrying capacity than the surrounding region. We know that agriculture was well developed, and that they also had flocks and herds, so these weren’t hunter/gatherers. And of course the supply of fresh water was abundant. From what I can find, Egypt’s population was around 7 million at the time of the Roman empire and, correct me if I’m wrong, the population centers would be concentrated near the fertile areas of the Nile Delta. It is a reasonable assumption that the carrying capacity of the Delta should easily support the numbers proposed.
5. How were they all fed and watered for 40 years in the desert
(remember no divine intervention)?
If you took an X-Ray of this story, you will find God is the very skeleton of it. Take Him out and the whole thing collapses in a heap. The maintenance of the population in the desert is a miracle, therefore I would not offer a naturalistic explanation. I’m comfortable with it having a supernatural cause
If there's anything I have missed, just let me know,
As usual, you haven’t missed a thing my friend!
------------------
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Proverbs 15:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Brian, posted 06-03-2003 5:39 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2003 6:34 PM nuklhed67 has replied
 Message 116 by Orion, posted 06-06-2003 8:01 PM nuklhed67 has replied
 Message 125 by Rashbam, posted 06-15-2003 1:10 AM nuklhed67 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 114 of 151 (42254)
06-06-2003 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by nuklhed67
06-06-2003 2:48 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
If you took an X-Ray of this story, you will find God is the very skeleton of it. Take Him out and the whole thing collapses in a heap. The maintenance of the population in the desert is a miracle, therefore I would not offer a naturalistic explanation
Well, if miricles are allowed then there is not discussion at all. Most of this board is discussion "scientific" creationism.
There are at least a couple of reasons why I'm not interested once miracles are introduced
1) You're in your church and out of the schools.
2) It would be like having a 18th century dual with someone equipped with a machine gun. All discussions would end with "it was a miracle" it doesn't matter how much evidence you have or how good you logic is. The no miracle side would always be wrong,every single time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nuklhed67, posted 06-06-2003 2:48 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by nuklhed67, posted 06-06-2003 7:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 151 (42255)
06-06-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by NosyNed
06-06-2003 6:34 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
Hi Ned,
Well, if miricles are allowed then there is not discussion at all. Most of this board is discussion "scientific" creationism.
Actually, this thread has been mostly about the Exodus and whether or not it could have happened. Within that context, there are many things which could be discussed without having to resort to supernatural explanations. Most of the discussion has been about the practical issues surrounding the Exodus, there are just some aspects of it that really do require a supernatural explanation, like how they were sustained in the wilderness. I have no illusions about the fact that in a normal situation they probably could not have survived in the wilderness.
There are at least a couple of reasons why I'm not interested once miracles are introduced
1) You're in your church and out of the schools.
I agree in this regard, I don't think biblical criticism belongs in the classroom of a public school. This forum is ideal for such discussion though.
2) It would be like having a 18th century dual with someone equipped with a machine gun. All discussions would end with "it was a miracle" it doesn't matter how much evidence you have or how good you logic is. The no miracle side would always be wrong,every single time.
I'm not sure what else you would expect in a discussion about the bible. In fact, take God out of the bible and you have removed the main character. Why do that to any literary work?
And Ned, I would never mow you down with a machine gun (except maybe in X-Box land).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2003 6:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

Orion
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 151 (42257)
06-06-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by nuklhed67
06-06-2003 2:48 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
If you took an X-Ray of this story, you will find God is the very skeleton of it. Take Him out and the whole thing collapses in a heap. The maintenance of the population in the desert is a miracle, therefore I would not offer a naturalistic explanation. I’m comfortable with it having a supernatural cause.
I think that, before we get into a consideration of miracles, we should take a step back and ask a rather fundamental question: does the book of Exodus reflect historical reality? To date, the evidence (or lack of) suggests either that the story is fictional or that it took place on a much more modest scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nuklhed67, posted 06-06-2003 2:48 PM nuklhed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nuklhed67, posted 06-06-2003 8:31 PM Orion has replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 151 (42258)
06-06-2003 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Orion
06-06-2003 8:01 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
Hi Orion,
I think that, before we get into a consideration of miracles, we should take a step back and ask a rather fundamental question: does the book of Exodus reflect historical reality? To date, the evidence (or lack of) suggests either that the story is fictional or that it took place on a much more modest scale.
Fair enough. What type of evidence would you expect to see?
------------------
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Proverbs 15:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Orion, posted 06-06-2003 8:01 PM Orion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Orion, posted 06-06-2003 9:44 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

nuklhed67
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 151 (42262)
06-06-2003 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by John
06-03-2003 6:45 PM


Hi John,
You wrote:
The population of Egypt circa 3000 bc was 1-2 million. By the time the Romans conquered the land, the population had grown to 7 million. Anywhere you place the Exodus, it isn't going to work-- too much vital labor would walk away and Egypt would fall.
That is true, I believe such a calamity would cause Egypt to fall into great distress. If you look at Egypt's history, they did undergo some periods when their power was greatly reduced, especially in the "Intermediate" periods. There is more than one place where you could insert the Exodus into Egypt's history and it would fit with what followed.
I previously wrote:
But how would we differentiate between Egyptian artifacts and Hebrew artifacts if the Hebrew culture had been there for hundreds of years?
And you replied:
Cultural peculiarities such as artistic styles are remarkably robust. These things hang around much longer than things which more directly effect survival, such as subsistence methods. It isn't likely that 200 years would erase these markers.
I still wonder how would we recognize Hebrew artifacts from the sojourn period? When they entered Egypt, they were but a small band. They had no culture of their own that we would recognize. While in Egypt, they may have developed some cultural distinction, but really how much different would it be than that of Egypt?
Then, after the Exodus, you would begin to see their cultural distinction in their artifacts because they had a whole series of events that solidified their religion, government, and lifestyle. But, according to the story, they looted Egypt, no doubt carrying much of Egyptian jewelry etc. into Canaan. This would make picking out and seperating the two rather difficult.
I wrote:
At http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html the author makes a strong rebuttal against Redford's opinion that the archeological record totally discredits the exodus and conquest stories.
and you replied:
The author lists problems which an archeaologist must face. I wouldn't call this a strong rebuttal. Basically, the argument is "These things might have gone wrong." It isn't very convincing. If the author could take some actual sites associated with the Exodus and show that these errors HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN made, that would be much better.
Point taken. But he does apply his argument to analysis of the conquest sites in the section entitled "Survey the data relative to the sites in question (Jericho, AI, Hebron, Taanach, Arad, Tel Masos, Edom, Hesbon)." While it is not directly related to the Exodus per se, it is valuable for the sake of the argument at hand because it demonstrates that analyses of archealogical data is frought with uncertainty.
------------------
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Proverbs 15:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John, posted 06-03-2003 6:45 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by John, posted 06-12-2003 4:10 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

Orion
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 151 (42265)
06-06-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by nuklhed67
06-06-2003 8:31 PM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
Fair enough. What type of evidence would you expect to see?
I'd refer you to my intro to this thread (go to the very top) as well as the excellent contributions by Brian and others. If the Exodus story were a reflection of reality, one would expect to find extra-biblical evidence such as Egyptian accounts as well as archeological discoveries in support of the story. This has not happened, and it is not for lack of trying.
If this kind of thing interests you, I recommend you obtain a copy of The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman. Amazon has it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nuklhed67, posted 06-06-2003 8:31 PM nuklhed67 has not replied

Orion
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 151 (42288)
06-07-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Paul
06-04-2003 9:24 AM


Re: There's numbers and there's Numbers!
God and his word are inseparable. There can be no discussion on one without respect for and inclusion of the other.
Except that, God has not revealed his word to us. What we have, instead, is a collection of ancient writings, from various sources, by various people who attempted to define the divine and its relationship to us. That's it. That's all there is. Some of these writings are beautiful, while other of these writings are mythical, and still other of these writings reflect the ignorance and tribalism of the authors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Paul, posted 06-04-2003 9:24 AM Paul has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024