There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

quote:

---

Validity: "founded on truth or fact".
Soundness:"free from fault or error"

---

In the context of logic they have more precise definitions.A valid argument is one that strictly follows the rules of logic, so that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. An argument that is not logically valid is logically fallacious.A sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.So to be formal about it.Where E(x) is: an expert asserts 'x'P1 E(x)
C xIs invalid.P1 E(x)
P2 E(x) -> x
C xIs valid, but unsound.

quote:

---

If I made the statement in this manner, as you quote me above, it would be niether, valid or sound, per the definitions

---

Per the relevant definitions it would be valid, but not sound.

quote:

---

To reduce it to, I am quoting him because he is an authority, is niether, invalid or unsound, regardless of the outcome of the information. The statement in and of itself violates no principle of incorrect reasoning, therefore not a logical fallacy. The mere fact that you and I can debate this ambiguous point, should also show what I stated earlier, that often times the very terms themselves "logical fallacy", etc,can be ambiguous and over applied to any situation or statement. Think about it.

---

I don't need to think about it because I already know the correct answers. Your argument does not follow the rules of logic, it is not logically valid therefore it is logically fallacious.The term "logical fallacy" is not ambiguous, since it refers to arguments which are not logically valid.As I have pointed out logical validity ids very restrictive so we DO NOT RESTRICT OURSELVES TO LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENTS. Arguing from expert opinion - especially a consensus of expert opinion is a very reasonable and rational thing for a non-expert to do. (Thus it is perfectly reasonable to say that the Biblical account of the Exodus is not just hopelessly implausible, it is wrong and the Israelite nation grew out of the Canaanite population because that is the consensus of the relevant experts).

quote:

---

I never accused Rahvin of believing in or using miracles as an argument in his post.

---

That has nothing to do with the quoted material, and I did not say that you did elsewhere either.

quote:

---

My contention was that if you reference them in connection with the scriptures and the historical accuracy, it could offer another explanation for the physical evidence we now see, this was the only point I was making, you blew it all out of shape.

---

According to you, you proposed it only as something that might apply to some miracles. You did not mean it to be taken as applying to the specific examples Rahvin mentioned.
You did not show that Rahvin had ignored the possibility.

quote:

---

My analogies were not intended as an argument in this connection or in counter to him but as an"illustration" to the application of the point, not argument I was making.

---

Which is my point. You were not and are not prepared to claim that your "analogies" actually showed anything relevant to your accusations. For all you know Rahvin ahd considered and included that possibility.

quote:

---

I further stated that if I were going to cite miracles as evidence I would support them with the obvious physical evidence of the existence of God or a creator.

---

Such an argument would fail both on the grounds that the mere "existence of God or creator" would not support the occurrence of any particular miracle. Moreover since there is no such "obvious physical evidence" your argument would fail on that ground, too.Really if you have a secret proof that God exists - and it would have to be secret, not obvious because of all the people who don't know it - it really would be worthy of a thread of its own.

quote:

---

Lets put in question form. If God exists and miracles did happen as the scriptures indicated, could and would it change the physical evidence that we now examine? Yes or No?

---

If miracles did happen as the Bible says then some of them should leave detectable evidence and the lack of that evidence would be reason to conclude that the miracle did not happen. (In addition to the low prior probability of any particular miracle, which itself would have to be overcome before the miracle could be accepted).

quote:

---

Further, since you still have not posted any credentials that I "requested", I know you are not required, but since you have not I must assume you are as "unqualified" and "biased" as I am to speak on historical matters.

---

True I did not waste my time on an irrelevant diversion you cooked up as an evasion tactic. However, qualifications or their absence are not a measure of bias at all and I am satisfied that I am much better read on the subject that you are. (For instance I am familiar with the basics of Rohls's claims and the objections to them. You failed to even notice that Rohl's ideas contradicted those of the aish.com page you cited).

quote:

---

Also, you never told me what problems the Gap theory presents in connection with this aspect of the discussion.

---

I don't remember you asking, and it was a peripheral point.
However I can sketch out some objections. The fact is that the gap is not justified by the text (for instance the first day is most naturally read as the very first day, but the Gap Theory denies that). The creation of the sun, moon and stars is mentioned as occurring after the alleged gap (although they must have existed before it, and your own use of it assumes as much) and there is no gap visible in the archaeological record in the last 10,000 years - indeed the Gap must end with a global flood which is surely not visible at all.

Paulk writesCorrect. True again, according to the strict rules of "logic". But logic has to be applied to reality and common sense. Therefore the term "unsound" as a strict "logical" application to a categorical or objective statement does not always apply. In this instance, it is not an "unsound", "invalid" or fallacoius as a principle or definition in reality to appeal to an authority. This is why I said it is ambiguous. Not that logic or the term (L/F) is ambiguous, but that it does not always apply in reality, or to the strict terms "sound" or "valid. Common sense and reality would dictate that the term Logical fallacy could not always be applied to every statment and be correct in principle, If there is no obvious reason that it violates in reality.You may be able to demonstrate from a strict logical argument that this or that is unsound,but it is exacally why the "more precise method" in logic "sometimes" (not always) negates what is true in reality. That is why we would know the strict "appeal" to an authority is not an unsound practice in the application of everyday deductive reasoning. This was my meaning in the first place If therefore, the Cananites were related to the Israelites and visversa, due to the fact that the cannanites were also decendants of the sons of Noah also, why would this be a problem? We are talking about a relatively small geographical area. I am going to take a wild, nutty guess and say he doesnt and did not. Now I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I am sure that is a safe bet. The analogies do show relevance in connection the very demonstratable existence of God, the verifiable scriptures as his word. There is the application of the analogies. Care to discuss the existence of God? Its not a secret and I have already done this in the thread, 'Is logic Science'. There is obvious physical evidence, its called an Axiom. The evidence it left behind is called Creation and the design in nature, wether you believe in evolution or not. Theres a start.
Give me an example of what evidence should be left behind, since you do not believe in miracles but are going to set up the rules on how they should operate. Now, be sure and keep all my Analogies in mind when you are formulating your answer. Trust me it was not an evasion tactic in connection with the "bias" discussion. If you have no expertise just say so, like I did. If you dont I guess we will have to rely on those "authorites", but that all of them not just one.
You are correct i did not refer to Rohls info an that was an oversight I will try correct.True I No, Just read vs1 and then vs 2 and you can imagine the possible expanse of time. Verse 2 also, appears to be a reiteration of vs 1. Now i am not saying my brethren at apologeticspress.org agree with me and they most certainly do not. And if I am wrong, its no big deal to me. God cares less about what we think he did before creation of this or that, than he cares that we simply believe in him.
Here is one example of how a miracle could have left Skewed information as is debated in Henry M Morris, Creation and the The Genisis flood , think thats the title. Its been a long time since i read it.
But again, if I am wrong about the Gap, and I very well could be, due to the fact that they make some very good arguments otherwise, I would be willing to change my opinion. the gap theory seems to inculcate all available Appearance Wise information, inconjuction with the theological points. If again, that info is not what it once was due to the miraculous, then I would be wrong.
That my friend is called objectivity.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

True again, according to the strict rules of "logic".

---

Well thank you for finally admitting as mcuh.

quote:

---

But logic has to be applied to reality and common sense.

---

But misusing the terminolgoy does not accomplish that. Recognsiing the limits of logic and employing other methods, which are less than absolutely reliable but still "good enough" is the correct approach.

quote:

---

Therefore the term "unsound" as a strict "logical" application to a categorical or objective statement does not always apply

---

Statements cannot be logically unsound because the term only applies to arguments. However, the term WOULD always apply to arguments. The issue is not the terminology, but what we do about it. (And the practical way to handle it would be to evaluate the extent of the problem, rather than rejecting the argument simply because it was not logically sound).

quote:

---

In this instance, it is not an "unsound", "invalid" or fallacoius as a principle or definition in reality to appeal to an authority. This is why I said it is ambiguous. Not that logic or the term (L/F) is ambiguous, but that it does not always apply in reality, or to the strict terms "sound" or "valid.

---

But there is no ambiguity, simply a failure on your part to understand what a "logical fallacy" is. Your whole objection is based on your misunderstanding as I explained some time ago. If you actually paid attention to the contents of the replies when you are "responding" to them progress would be considerably faster.

quote:

---

Common sense and reality would dictate that the term Logical fallacy could not always be applied to every statment and be correct in principle, If there is no obvious reason that it violates in reality.

---

There is an obvious reason in reality why the argument from authority violates logic - authorities are not always correct.

quote:

---

You may be able to demonstrate from a strict logical argument that this or that is unsound,but it is exacally why the "more precise method" in logic "sometimes" (not always) negates what is true in reality. That is why we would know the strict "appeal" to an authority is not an unsound practice in the application of everyday deductive reasoning. This was my meaning in the first place

---

i.e. your sole point was a failure to understand the meaning of "logical fallacy", just as I said at the start.

quote:

---

If therefore, the Cananites were related to the Israelites and visversa, due to the fact that the cannanites were also decendants of the sons of Noah also, why would this be a problem? We are talking about a relatively small geographical area.

---

We are not talking about them being related by being "descendents of the sons of Noah" - Noah is not even mentioned. We are talking about a much closer relationship, where the Israelites were a Canaanite tribe who did not invade en masse after escaping Egypt, but instead gradually grew in situ.Please try and understand what you are responding to.

quote:

---

I am going to take a wild, nutty guess and say he doesnt and did not. Now I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I am sure that is a safe bet.

---

So you feel free to ignore the rules here and throw personal attacs based only on the self-serving guess that your opponent is as lazy as you are.

quote:

---

Its not a secret and I have already done this in the thread, 'Is logic Science'. There is obvious physical evidence, its called an Axiom

---

I have reread the thread and seen that all it contains is a hopelessly flawed philosophical argument that ID should be considered science. There is no "obvious physical evidence of God" presented in it, and if it were it would not be called an axiom (that you say so only demonstrates that you have refused to learn from that thread).

quote:

---

The evidence it left behind is called Creation and the design in nature, wether you believe in evolution or not. Theres a start

---

This "evidence" is far from sufficient to demonstrate the existence of God.

quote:

---

Give me an example of what evidence should be left behind, since you do not believe in miracles but are going to set up the rules on how they should operate

---

I am not going to set rules. Instead I am going to follow the approach that you said should be followed.To take an example, if the Earth were created 6000 years ago the evidence of past age should be expected to be no more than is necessary. Fossils are not necessary, therefore they should not exist in original created rock, let alone present significant evidence for evolution. False radiometric ages are not necessary. Large craters that show all the signs of being produced by metoer impacts that never ocurred are not necessary and so on. Even on this superficial evalutaion it is clear that the evidence indicates that this miracle did not occur, unless you assume intnetional deception on God's part.

quote:

---

Trust me it was not an evasion tactic in connection with the "bias" discussion.

---

Lack of formal qualifications is not evidence of bias therefore it is clearly irrelevant. However it was not in a pure discussion of bias. It was in a discussion of your gross misrepresentation of my statement that an apologetic webite should be expected to be biased.
The real issue was not qualifications, nor even the meaning of "apologetic" (although that was far more relevant) it was your repeated misrepresentation, made in the face of a clear and unambiguous correction.

quote:

---

No, Just read vs1 and then vs 2 and you can imagine the possible expanse of time. Verse 2 also, appears to be a reiteration of vs 1.

---

The point is that it has to be imagined, there is nothing in the text to suggest it - or to even hint that anything of any importance happened in the gap. And even then you have to take it out of context to avoid the problems with later verses that I pointed out. And that's just the textual issues - you still have to deal with the physical evidence.

quote:

---

Here is one example of how a miracle could have left Skewed information as is debated in Henry M Morris, Creation and the The Genisis flood , think thats the title. Its been a long time since i read it.

---

An example of how a miracle merely might have left what you call "Skewed information" is of no real value, even if you presented it. Even if you want to assert that a particular miracle claim cannot be reasonably rejected you should present evidence that that miracle should be expected to leave no evidence.

quote:

---

...the gap theory seems to inculcate all available Appearance Wise information....

---

Please, do everyone a favor and look up the definition of "inculcate." You keep using that word in contexts that strongly suggest that you have no idea what it means. The result is often a sentence that is confusing and incomprehensible.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I fear we're drifting far off-topic in this thread. Instead of discussing historical evidence for Biblical accounts we're trying to explain rational thinking. I'm going to take the position that this is a hopeless exercise. For example, if Bertot still believes what he believes about axioms after an entire thread trying to help him out of his error then nothing we say here is going to change his mind, and the same would be true of all his other misconceptions. You can't explain how to complete a connect the dot puzzle to someone who continually argues with you about the order of integers.In other words, if Bertot believes what he's presented is historical evidence supporting Biblical accounts beyond the more significant people, places and events, there's nothing we can say that will change his mind. All we can do is explain why it isn't evidence for the larger audience and not allow ourselves to be distracted by the undeniably odd thinking.--Percy

Percy writesThanks for not immediately squashing the points that I am making here from an Admin standpoint. I will try to keep them in focus of the main thread as much possible and try to make them as relevant to evidence as possible, atleast from both of our viewpoints as to what consitutes evidence.Now I know you and others will be all giddy, waiting for a response but it will be late this evening. I will post a reply to Pauls and Brians lastest ones Thanks again.D Bertot

Percy writes.I hope not and let me explain why, ole wise and worthy admin dude. Since no one else is presenting what you consider evidence in this area and I have reiterated Josephs examples (of historical evidence)and could continue to do so, it is logical to assume that any further illustrations would be be met with the same resistance that were characteristic of his comments. Therefore as a part of the examples and illustrations it is reasonable to discuss the "applications" and "implications" of that evidence as well.This has been my goal, since the example of miracles was introduced into the thread. If the scriptures are not "immediatley" rejected as evidence it would follow that anything that they have to say would also be included as evidence, until demonstrated as otherwise. I do not think that what I am presenting in this context is strctly historical evidence per-say, I believe that information has already been presented numerous times and in different places by others like Joseph, in an impressive fashion. However, all information should be considered, if it is to remain objective. For example in Paulk's illustration of the Israelites being akin to the Cananites a certain amount of application and illustration of common sense and objectivity should be applied to what you and others consider, strict evidence. This I will try to do when I reach that point. but thank you up front, for no squashing the approach outright. Maybe some reading will see the tie to the debatable direct evidence as you call it. Again, its not that is not evidence (per Joseph), or that that there is not a ceratain amount of evidence to support it, its that a certain amount of the evidence in question is debatable and therefore worthy of further examination form different aspects. Yes, I would encourage you to continue to try and demonstrate why you believe it is not evidence, thats the whole point. thank you.
Since it is obvious that "odd thinking", could and is an subjective phrase, it would immediatley be appaerent myself and others that a persons rejection of the existence of God from the existence of physical things, would immediately appear as odd thinking as well, as certainly it should be, atleast form our perspective.
Paulk writes: Why? I have no expectations of what a miracle should do or not do "exclusively" in relationship to existence of what the physical evidence warrents. Further, when I do present evidence form the existence of God, you say, its no evidence. the miracle performed by an omnipotent and omnisceint Deity can leave leave any amount of evidence or none at all. Your argument assumes that it is initially a requirement for miracles to act in some hard fast manner. Further, why would it be of no real value in the context of the observation of present items? Logically, one would have to refute the existence of God in some powerful fashion, to demonstrate it "of no real value". Ill let you elaborate.Speaking of the Gap theory Paul writes:While, admittedly it is an argument that involves some imagination, it on the other hand incorporates (inculcates, for Subbie) all of the available evidence at hand, to include the apperance of an ancient earth, fossils, the obvious fact that finite things cannot create themselves or come from nothing. Not to exclude the scriptures themselves and the creative act. Last but not least is that it is consistent with the pattern in the scriptures with God creating and starting anew in many instances. "And the earthe and the works that are there in shall be burned up", the flood, etc.
It is concievable that the hole universe was created for simply mans benifit or that it is teaming with life in the countless millions and has been such for a time that is not even imaginable. Either or both are concievable and "somewhat" demonstratable from an evidental standpoint.What other verse are you speaking about that you say suggest there is a contextual contradiction to the Gap therory:1 In the abeginning bGod ccreated the dheaven and the eearth .

​

2 And the earth was without aform , and void; and bdarkness was upon the face of the deep. And the cSpirit of God dmoved upon the face of the waters.

​

3 And God asaid , Let there be blight : and there was light.

​

4 And God saw the light, that it was agood : and God divided the light from the darkness.

​

5 And God called the light aDay , and the bdarkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the cfirst dday .

​

If by physical evidence you mean ToE, then I would suggest that the ToE cannot be demonstrated from a Macro standpoint, aside from a few examples of some extinct animals. Speaking of the ToE, if Macro E. happened there should be literally and unbroken chain from one species to another, or atleast it should be visible to some degree and its nt outside of a theory or imagination of extrapolating form the Micro to Macro. Even within you guys camp there is contention about a steady stream of evolution verses giant leaps in the process. This suggest that there is no real consensus and it remains a thoery.

​

The gap theory at present seems to inculcate and incorporate all the available information.

​

Lack of formal qualifications is not evidence of bias therefore it is clearly irrelevant. However it was not in a pure discussion of bias. It was in a discussion of your gross misrepresentation of my statement that an apologetic webite should be expected to be biased.
The real issue was not qualifications, nor even the meaning of "apologetic" (although that was far more relevant) it was your repeated misrepresentation, made in the face of a clear and unambiguous correction.

​

Wow, I guess I am really missing what you ae saying here, maybe you clarify a little further.

​

To take an example, if the Earth were created 6000 years ago the evidence of past age should be expected to be no more than is necessary. Fossils are not necessary, therefore they should not exist in original created rock, let alone present significant evidence for evolution. False radiometric ages are not necessary. Large craters that show all the signs of being produced by metoer impacts that never ocurred are not necessary and so on. Even on this superficial evalutaion it is clear that the evidence indicates that this miracle did not occur, unless you assume intnetional deception on God's part.

​

In my view the Gap theory explains this "seeming" problem and is still consistent with the Word of God, without the ToE, which I do not accept. Even, if I did it would not negatethe existence of God or the verifiablity of Gods Word.
Now, remember however, if the early earth thoery turns out to be correct because of some information that I do not presently have due to something God did at that time, it would explain the lack of evidence for that theory, that I do not presently see. Thats the point of this thread and the point of what one "considers" evidence and what should be included as evidence. If you view the existence of God as problomatic, which I cleary do not, then it will be very difficult for you to view the supernatural or miracles as part of the evidential process, which will exclude nearly anything the Bible has to say. On the other hand working your way outward from the Bible to God and miracles will run into problems because it will view Skewed information as inaccurate, excluding the miracles that were a part of the process. This is why in my view all arguments start from he existence of God or they will carry you back to that one question. It depends on how you view the evidence of the existence of things to formulate or postulate the existence of God. All arguments that exclude the existence of God, will exclude the miraculous. All arguments that accept the existence of God will for the most part will accept the miraculous and therefore view "evidence" in tis context. It simply depends on what you want to call or accept as EVIDENCE based on ALL the information.

This "evidence" is far from sufficient to demonstrate the existence of God.

This is exacally what I mean. In my view to make such a statement is simply ludicrous, not you but your position. ( I have got to be careful here because, because I am not one of the favored children here and I will get suspended if I refer to you in such a manner.)
"that which may be Known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, so that they are without EXCUSE" Romans 1.
Now I dont want to get into a discussion about design here I only quoted this to demonstrate that anyone can reject anything but they will not do it from a lack if Evidence.
What would you consider as evidence of the lack of support for Gods existence?

I have reread the thread and seen that all it contains is a hopelessly flawed philosophical argument that ID should be considered science. There is no "obvious physical evidence of God" presented in it, and if it were it would not be called an axiom (that you say so only demonstrates that you have refused to learn from that thread).

Help my feeble mind understand what information I missed in the thread that refutes my argument/s.
Speaking about Rahvin, Paul writes:

So you feel free to ignore the rules here and throw personal attacs based only on the self-serving guess that your opponent is as lazy as you are.

How is my guessing that he does not believe in miracles a personal attack, your language is way to strong. Since we can check this, I would say we should ask Rahvin directly if he believes in miracles or the possiblilty of miracles, what do you say?

We are not talking about them being related by being "descendents of the sons of Noah" - Noah is not even mentioned. We are talking about a much closer relationship, where the Israelites were a Canaanite tribe who did not invade en masse after escaping Egypt, but instead gradually grew in situ.

Go ahead and present your "evidence" for this, if you will. Besides this Noah is mentioned in the Bible, if we are not going to immediately exclude it as evidence.

But misusing the terminolgoy does not accomplish that. Recognsiing the limits of logic and employing other methods, which are less than absolutely reliable but still "good enough" is the correct approach.

"Good enough" and "less than absolutley reliable" do not describe reality. Reality would suggest that there is nothing wrong, incorrect or even inaccurate about a simply refering to a Scholar, even if a "logical fallacy" designates it as Unsound or Invalid. This demonstrates the subjectivity and vaugeness which is implied in these terms and how they are "sometimes" employed. It demonstrates the "limits" of logic in clearly defining what reality actually is, as you youself have suggested.
Since we are not going to fully agree here maybe we can leave this one behind, that ofcourse is up you. I can discuss it until the cows come home, if you so desire.
Brian writes:

Now, if we are going to look for evidence to support the Bible's version of events we need to know where and when to look for this evidence.These simple questions I am going to ask you will also allow you to focus on other discussions as it seems you are getting bogged under with requests.
When did the Exodus happen?
Once you provide a date, a rough date will do, we can discuss this date before moving on to another issue.

Thanks for your simplicity here, that is very thoughful and considerate. My first question is why do you believe the exact date or an even relevant date would be recorded anywhere? However, here is a brief comment and a very fine article I think is pretty exhaustive, since I have no expertise in these matters.

The Merneptah Stele
A stele is a stone column usually depicting the exploits of a ruler or chronicling the history or laws of a people. Merneptah was the son of the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt in the late 13th century BC. He erected a stele commemorating his victorious campaign against Canaan and Syria around 1212 to 1209 BC. On this stele is the earliest historical mention of the nation of Israel, which Merneptah claims to have totally annihilated. The logical deduction from this reference is that the Israelites must have been in the land for a considerable length of time for them to be recognized as a nation by an Egyptian pharaoh. This would support a 15th century date for the exodus.
Difficulties Raised: This is really based on little more than speculation in assuming how long it would take for the Israelites to have emerged as a nation. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the biblical accounts recall more than once that the miraculous nature of Israel’s escape from Egypt, survival in the wilderness, and initial battles had gained them considerable reputation among the surrounding peoples (Num 22:3, Josh 2:9, 9:9-10, etc.). That suggests that the time period required to be recognized by Pharaoh as a people may not be as long as some posit. And even if we take the later date of 1290 BC suggested by many for the exodus and allowing for the 40 years in the wilderness, they would still have been in the land around 50 years by the time of Merneptah’s campaign. That could have been a sufficient amount of time for the Israelites to emerge as a nation.
3) The Amarna Tablets
Amarna is the modern name of the ancient Egyptian city of Akhetaten. It was established briefly as the capitol of Egypt around 1400-1350 BC by pharaoh Akhetaten, who attempted to reform Egypt’s religious system and inaugurate the worship of a single deity represented by the sun disk (Aten). That experiment was a failure and the city only existed for 15 to 20 years before being abandoned. Archaeologists discovered a cache of letters at the site written on clay tablets from various city officials throughout the area including Canaan. Some of these letters are appeals to Akhetaten for help in defending against the ”Apiru (Hapiru, Khapiru) who were threatening the cities of Canaan. This could have been the Hebrews who were invading the land and challenging the Canaanite city-states. If the ”Apiru were the Hebrews, the date of the Amarna letters would suggest a date for the exodus from Egypt sometime in the mid to latter 15th century.
Difficulties Raised: While it was common in the period immediately following the discovery of the Amarna tablets to identify the ”Apiru with the Hebrews, further investigation has raised serious doubts about that identification. The identification was originally made largely on the assumption that the word ”Apiru was actually the linguistic root for the word Hebrew. However, scholars concluded that the term is actually Sumerian (the area of later Babylonian) in origin and dates much earlier than the Hebrews. The term was used throughout the Middle East to refer to groups who lived on the margins of civilized society, outcasts who were often hired as mercenaries. While the term is not linguistically related to the term Hebrew, it is possible that it could have been applied to the Israelites. However, since the term was simply descriptive of a range of people without reference to any national or ethnic origins, there is absolutely no evidence that the references in the Amarna letters can be identified specifically with the Israelites. That eliminates any use of the Amarna letters in trying to date the exodus.

​

Dennis Bratcher 'The date of the exodus'

​

The entire article and its evidence provides equal support to alternate views, which is usually the case in these matters. But that is certainly far from a "lack" of evidence, correct?

​

Error 404 - Not Found

​

Ill wait for your response.
D Bertot

​

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying, as you have misunderstood much else in this thread, such as believing that the fallacy of appeal to authority is an appeal to evidence, or that Rahvin was invoking miracles. I was only noting that when you were unable to follow rational arguments or even language itself the discussion turned to how to properly interpret rational arguments, and that I believed this to be a hopeless exercise.My expectation is that you'll misinterpret this post too, but anyway, this thread is not about how to think or how to assess evidence, and it's especially not about the theory of evolution or the existence of God. My position is that this failure to rationally engage with you should be taken into account by directing responses about the problems with your arguments to the broader audience and not worrying about whether you comprehend them or not.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Cavediver begins post #1 quoting Berreta:

quote:

---

Berreta writes:
There’s more than enough historical evidence backing the Bible’s veracity

---

Cavediver concludes post #1 saying: Brian writes to Bertot in post #150 The Exodus as described in the Bible occurred pr-Captivity (before 586 BCE), and therefore Cavediver is stating “in no uncertain terms” that the Exodus account is “pure myth”! Brian then asks Bertot, “When did the Exodus happen?”Bertot replies with a lengthy quote by Dennis Bratcher that suggests that The Merneptah Stele:

quote:

---

“... would support a 15th century date for the exodus.”

---

In the Fundamentalist Christian publication, Eerdman’ Handbook to the Bible, The ”Five Books’, pg. 154, it states:

quote:

---

“That Israel was out of Egypt and into Western Palestine by the late 13th century BC is confirmed by the only known Egyptian mention of Israel (in context with Gezer and Ascalon), in the Libyan victory-poem of Merneptah (about 1,200/1,210), successor of Ramesses II.”

---

From the 15th to the early 13th century BCE would appear to be the approximate time when the biblical Exodus is supposed to have occurred.So, I guess the question is: What is the extra-biblical, historical evidence - evidence that does not rely upon belief - that supports the biblical account of the Israelites (a.k.a. Hebrews), being slaves in Egypt and leaving Egypt between the 15th and early 13th century BCE?Regards,
Ger

You really don't grasp the point of this thread, do you? If we are looking for evidence that Noah existed, then by all means, bring your Bible to the table and present it as evidence. It will be accepted. I'm not guaranteeing that it will be viewed as particularly strong evidence, and there will be many arguments pointing out why it might be especially weak evidence, but evidence it is.BUT WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF NOAH!!!! We are looking for the evidence to back up the historical veracity of the Bible. How can the Bible's mention of a guy named Noah, not mentioned anywhere else other than by reference to the Bible, be in any way evidence for the Bible's historical veracity??? Or are you simply trying to win "greatest piece of circular reasoning, 2008"? No, definitely not correct finding an interpretation of historical evidence that is *consistent* with the Bible, or *non-contradictory* is NOT evidence for the Bible's historical veracity. Finding a semi-plausible interpretation that is consistent simply means that the Bible lives to fight another day. If this is what you call evidence, then it just shows how appallingly slight is any real evidence.And before you go bleating that a lack of evidence does not imply inaccuracy, that was never an accusation levelled in the OP. I'm quite happy to go along with that (despite the obvious issues with the Flood, the Exodus, the Conquest, etc). My accusation is not aimed at the Bible in any way - it is with you and other Christians who claim that there is all this evidence backing up the Bible's historical veracity, when in fact, there is sod all. If you want to claim that no archaeological evidence has yet discounted the Bible, then I'm happy with that... in this thread. Take it elsewhere, and that position will be hammered into the ground. But for this thread, I am happy... This is not the place for this topic. Come over to my Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept? and present your case. I'm waiting...

I am not here to ”score points’ Bertot, I am here to learn about things and to pass on information that I have accumulated through years of research.My main motivation is that many webmasters are misrepresenting the historical and archaeological evidence that has been gathered about the ancient Near East, and they are conning people who perhaps haven’t had the right circumstances to allow them to go to uni and study the subject at a good academic level. This is what annoys me, and it makes no difference to my life if the Bible is 100% accurate or not. I do not view the Bible as a supernatural collection of books, I use it like any other historical text, which is the way it should be used if it is being presented as an historical source. It should not be treated any differently from say the Execration Texts or the Al Alakh tablets. Chronology is the backbone of history Bertot, all historical events HAVE to be placed in a time frame so that they can slot into the known history that we have.It is especially important for the Exodus as so many other biblical references are linked to it, the Conquest for example is said to be 40 years after the Exodus.A time frame IS recorded in the Bible, at 1 Kings 6:1, In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD. It has been calculated from the Babylonian Kings’ Lists and other sources that this would place the Exodus around 1446 BCE.But, of course, this 480 year reference may not be an accurate time frame because it looks very formulaic. As we should know, the number 12 is a very special number in the Bible, as is the number 40 (time given for a generation), which suggests a possible explanation for this 480 years, 12 x 40.This is a relatively new explanation and I believe it was suggested because the mid 15th century date suggested by 1 Kings 6:1 was very problematic. For example, it placed the Exodus bang in the middle of the reign of Thutmosis III, one of the most successful and powerful pharaohs whose empire stretch right across Palestine and into Syria.But, as I said I’d like to take this discussion slowly, I am correct in saying that your answer to the question: When did the Exodus happen? You would say that we really do not know? Thanks for the link, I will look over it, but what is mentioned in your reference I will get to in time, I don’t want to jump all over the place here in case we go off on a tangent.So, can we agree that we do not know for sure when the Exodus was said to have happened?

This topic has unfortunately broadened far beyond what's reasonable to discuss in a single thread. I'm going to make an effort to redirect Bertot and teh conversation at large back to something resembling the original topic.Cavediver, when creating this thread, asserted that there is an "appalling lack of historical evidence regarding the Bible's veracity."In other words, the asserions in the Bible are typically assumed to be true by Christians without any consideration for outside objective verification.There are many historical claims in the Bible, from Creation to Exodus to geneologies to Jesus' execution.When analyzing a text for historical accuracy, it's important to be aware that not all claims are equal, and that essencially every "fact" in the text is actually a separate claim that needs to be independantly verified. This means that a passage regarding who was king of what nation at what time requires outside verification, but that the threshold of evidence required to support such a mundane (meaning not extraordinary) claim is orders of magnitude lower than the threshold required to support the more extraordinary claims such as the global Flood.In this thread, commentary has been made surrounding some of the more mundane claims - the existence of Jericho, various royal lineages, etc. These are ordinary claims and have a low threshold of evidence. Some, like the existence of Jericho, have been independantly confirmed.But this has no bearing on any of the unconfirmed claims in the Bible. The existence of city, a confirmed royal dynasty, these things do not lend any evidenciary support for any of the unrelated claims in teh Bible. For example, whether David was ever actually King of Israel or not is compeltely irrelevant to whether the Tower of Babel ever existed - one can be true and the other false, both can be true, or both can be false. Multiple attempts in this thread have been made to illustrate this point to Bertot and have seemingly failed, but make no mistake - this is the same for every other ancient text. Proving Pilate was actually a Roman beureaucrat has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the Flood happened. Again, both can be true, both can be false, or one can be true and the other false. When Bertot says that the veracity of parts of a document support the veracity of the remainder, he is flat wrong.Let's try to take just a single example of a claim int he Bible that is wholly unsupported but is assumed by virtually every Christian and Jew to be compeltely true: the Exodus.We have a very significant set of very specific events described in the Exodus account. None of these events are supported by any evidence outside of the Biblical account.So what should we expect to find if we were to test the veracity of the Exodus claim? I'm going to focus exclusively on testable claims - I'm not going to deal with, for example, the burning bush.Let's go through what Exodus claims, specifically:1) The Hebrew population was greater than the entire population of Egypt

quote:

---

1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
1:9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:
1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
1:11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.
1:12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

---

Emphasis mine, of course.2) The first plague: the Nile and all other water in Egypt is turned to blood

quote:

---

7:17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
7:18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.
7:19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
7:20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
7:21 And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

---

All of the water in all of Egypt turned to blood. It is specifically mentioned that all of the fish died.3) All of the cattle in Egypt, except for that held by the Hebrews, dies.

quote:

---

9:6 And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

---

God kills more Egyptian cattle later on, which shouldn't be possible if he killed all of the egyptian cattle here, but that's not the topic at the moment - I want only to discuss those things that should be testable at least to some degree (which is why I didn't mention the plagues of frogs, lice, or flies). A mass cattle dieoff should result in famine from the sudden loss of meat and milk.4) The killing of the firstborn

quote:

---

12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

---

All of the firstborn children of Egypt, including animals (and I thought all the cattle were dead already?) were killed.I won't mention any of the other plagues, even though we have what appears to be a meteor shower and a 3-day-long eclipse. These should be written about, certainly, but we can't really test for them. We can tell when and where eclipses happen even into the past, but without knowing when exactly Exodus is supposed to have happened, we can't test whether there was an eclipse in Egypt at the appropriate time.3-4 all involve the plagues of Egypt. We should expect from these to see evidence of a famine in Egypt, where all of the cattle and fish are dead, as well as textual sources outside of teh Biblical account mentioning nation-wide disasters. Many Christian apologetics (including Bertot earlier in the thread) claim that Egyptians would not have written down an account of their "defeat." But this is absurd - history texts aren't the only things we find in archaeological digs. When a large segment of the population suddenly dies, we should expect to find some evidence (certainly textual, but also mass graves or other leavings indicative of such major events as all of the first-born dying and a famine from the devastation of food stores).5) The crossing of the Red Sea

quote:

---

14:7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.
14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
14:9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.
...
14:22 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.
14:23 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.
14:24 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,
14:25 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. The Lord took off their chariot wheels
14:26 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.
14:27 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.
14:28 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 again Exodus gives us some numbers. Pharoah (odd how "Pharoah" is never mentioned by name, isn't it? The Bible makes note of kings' names everywhere else, but not here...) took 600 "chosen" chariots, and all of the chariots and horsemen of Egypt. This sets 600 as the absolute lower limit for the number of chariots involved in the persuit.We should expect to find significant evidence of this event in the Red Sea. Not just one or two chariot wheels, not several, but the remains of hundreds (with a good possibility of thousands) of chariots should be found in the seabed, along with the remains of people and horses in the same locations. Much should be decomposed now, but the shear number of people, animals, weapons, and chariots involved in this pursuit according to the Exodus account should have left undisputable evidence in the Red Sea that the crossing actually took place.6) Wandering the desertI'm not going to provide a specific passage here, because the details are all over the remainder of the book. But we all know the basics: 40 years of wandering the desert. We also know that they typical trappings of nomads would be present, such as cooking fires (along with manna, God provided the Hebrews with "flesh to eat" apparently in teh form of quails (16:13), which would need to be cooked), pottery and such for storage of food and water, tents, etc, as such things are specifically mentioned several times in teh account.We don't need to discuss the logistics of feeding and watering a population this size for 40 years as that's dismissed in the story, and this is a discussion of historical accuracy, not a determination of whether the event was possible. But we should still see evidence of the passing of a population greater than the population of Egypt passing through the desert for 40 years.So, with these 6, specific claims from Exodus, what evidence should we expect to find? We know a general estimate for the population of the Hebrews from Exodus 1. We know that it should be greater than the population of Egypt, which places it comfortably in teh millions range, several orders of magnitude larger than populations we have found evidence of in the past, so we know that we should find similar evidence of teh Exodus. We know there were a series of plagues that should be recorded in texts outside of the book of Exodus simply becasue of their magnitude and import. We know that we should find evidence of a sudden famine where all of the cattle and fish die over a very short span of time. We should see evidence of mass dehydration from all of the water of Egypt turning to blood. We know that at minimum 600 chariots (and likely thousands of combined horsemen, chariots, and soldiers) were supposed to have been suddenly drowned on the bottom of the Red Sea, which should leave more than ample remains (human, animal, chariots, weapons, etc) to be found.We have found evidence of ancient nomads in deserts before, in groups much smaller than referred to in the Exodus account. What do we find? Pottery. Weapons. Human remains. Remains of cookfires. Tents. All of the things a nomadic people would of necessity leave behind to be well-preserved in the dry sand of the desert. We should see the same evidence on a much larger scale for the Exodus account, with artifacts consistent with those found in other Hebrew settlements.We haven't found any. Studies have been done. We have looked. Modern satelite imaging and radar have uncovered much smaller examples as I mentioned earlier, but have not revealed the massive passage of hundreds of thousands to millions of Hebrews crossing a relatively small area of the desert over the course of 40 years.We haven't found evidence for any of these claims, in fact, outside of the Bible. There are no Egyptian writings regarding such a population of Hebrew slaves, even before the Exodus. No writings about plagues or famines or the sudden death of every first-born human and animal in the entire country in a single night. No writings about a massive loss of military forces at the Red Sea, either from Egypt or its surrounding nations, who would surely have jumped at the opportunity while Egypt was weak. No remains at the bottom of the Red Sea consistent with the crossing. No remains of a massive nomadic Hebrew population in the desert.Nothing. The whole story from start to finish is unsupported anywhere else. Exodus doesn't even mention the name of the Pharaoh at the time, when other Biblical books mention the specific names of kings all the time.This is an example of the "appalling lack of historical evidence surrounding the Bible's veracity." The entire book of Exodus is essencially one unsupported assertion after another, with no confirming evidence anywhere. Yet almost all Christians simply assume that the story is true, taking it for granted. It's this practice that's appalling, to me - taking Biblical accounts as "Gospel truth" (pun intended) even when their claims are totally unsupported and, in some cases, even directly contradicted by real objective evidence.More appalling are people like Bertot who, when confronted with these facts, grasps for straws through apologetics. No doubt he'll return with evidence of one or two wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea - but not in numbers consistent with the Biblical account, and not with human and horse remains along with wepons. He'll repeat his assertion that the Egyptians simply "wouldn't write that down," without supporting that assertion.But apologetics, the "re-interpretation" of evidence (I'd call it the "rape" or "mangling" of evidence myself) to fit a pre-determined conclusion, is not a valid method of inquiry because the conclusion never changes regardless of the evidence.

But these are not the only two proposed dates Autumn Gary Rendsburg suggests a 12th century BCE date for the Exodus, and followers of the Hyksos/Israelite link propose a 16th century BCE date for the Exodus, so the disagreement is even larger than you mention.

Keep in mind Rahvin the yam suph being the Sea of Reeds, and not the earlier mistranslated Red Sea.

Brian:I am fully alive to the other possible dates suggested for the biblical Exodus. My intention was to help the discussion along by quoting what you asked of Bertot in post #150: You said, “a rough date will do”!So, my ally, (I say, “my ally”, because I am in complete agreement with you), I was attempting to move the discussion along by supplying “a rough date.”In my opinion, Rahvin’s post #162 was absolutely spectacular, and concluded: Thank you, Rahvin!!!Regards,
Ger