quote:
I see PaulK has already touched on a couple, but that's about all PaulK ever does is touch on, or perhaps kick the thorns, glibly alleging that there is nothing, no matter how much the evidence, verifiable in the Bible relative to miracle. I've pretty much given up on responding to the same oles from members like PaulK, so I suggest if you want responses from me, allow me the same consideration that you require from me in attempting to refute.
Of course this is not true. In fact in the typical exchange I look at the evidence in more depth than Buzsaw does. And I am ready to do so again. Buz has run away from debate defeated time and time again (remember when your major argument focussed on an invented meaning for "but" Buz ? Remember the time you rewrote the Biblical rule demanding three witnesses just so you could pretend that you could meet it ?)
But let us look at the evidence:
1) In fact no serious evidence has been produced that the supposed remains came from chariots or
ancient Egypt at all. I've asked for this evidence more than once and Buz seems unable to provide any,
As for the other evidences, the "terrain" evidence relies on assuming the literal truth of the story, while virtually all modern archaeologists would agree that the numbers were greatly exaggerated (and the few exceptions would base their beliefs on the assumption of the literal truth of the story - not archaeological evidence). And there seems no good reason to believe that the rest of the story is any more accurate - neither archaeology nor history have found a good fit for the story and even those who believe that it is largely true argue over when it - and Joshua's conquest occurred. (We should also note that Wyatt and Moeller's preferred dating requires a major rewrite of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty - and one that is contradicted by evidence that may easily be found).
On the other hand, the "burnt top mountain" is not burnt. It is simply topped with darker rock, and would have had that appearance long before the Exodus supposedly happened.
This evidence assumes that the story
is inaccurate and exaggerated.
THe NT statement has also been looked at and seems to be simply a misinterpretation, mistaking modern Saudi Arabia for the "Arabia" of the ancient writers.
The split rock is just a split rock. How rare are split rocks ? Is there any more significant evidence at that site to link it to the Exodus ?
2) The alleged lack of transitional fossils is an old creationist canard and one that has been repeatedly refuted here.
3) Is just a subjective opinion. There is in fact no clear evidence of design as such outside of human - and maybe some animal - activity.
4) Ezekiel 35-39 appears to be a revenge fantasy referring to ancient peoples which Buz interprets according to his own murderous fantasies. We must remember that Ezekiel wrote during the Exile and very likely had return from Babylon in mind.
While Israel has made major efforts in irrigation it is questionable whether even this aspect of Ezekiel's prophecy can be said to be fulfilled in any significant way. Human hard work - aided by modern technology - is not divine intervention.
As was shown in past discussion the Edomites are gone, a people lost to history and most likely absorbed into the
Jewish population. Ezekiel's "prophecy" did not predict that they would covet "two kingdoms" it predicted punishment for them because they
had coveted the two kingdoms (Israel and Judah). Buz's reading makes nonsense of the prophecy.
Ezekiel 37 requires the return of the Lost Tribes of Israel and the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy. Neither has occurred, therefore it is hard to see how it can be considered "evidence".
Ezekiel 38 names ancient nations. And indeed, I have asked how modern Ethiopia (Ethiopia named as one of the nations) could be said to be a significant threat to Israel. Buz came up empty.
5) The interpretation of Isaiah 52 is questionable, and there is a case that it refers to the people of Israel rather than a person. And while it refers to oppression under Egypt and Assyria it does not even explicitly refer to the Babylonian Exile.
6) We will note that Buz is careful to avoid the parallel accounts of this discourse in Mark and Matthew. That's because the only bit he really cares about is found only in Luke (and there are reasons to think that the author of Luke - or his source - changed the account to make it better fit events that had already occurred). THe version found in Mark and Matthew has other problems for Buz, too. However even Luke indicates that the exile and return will happen in the span of a generation. Comparing Luke with Matthew and Mark places the Tribulation - which Buz thinks has yet to pass - BEFORE the exile.
7) THis can hardly be seen as evidence, even if it were entirely true (ideas that do not violate the 1LoT are hardly uncommon !) However, Buz's view in fact makes the 1LoT moot. An infinite energy source (which Buz assumes) is equivalent to creation of energy. Thus this "compatibility" is merely a technicality.
8) Buz makes use of the infinite source of energy to make the 2LoT likewise moot. This this may be rejected for the same reasons as point 7).
9) This is selective indeed. Christianity is found in poor countries as well as rich ones. Historically non-Christian nations have indeed done well - and better than many contemporary Christian nations. Post-Roman Britain, Christian though it was, fell quickly to pagans from Germany. And of course, we know that in the Middle Ages the Muslim states surpassed the Christians of Western Europe in culture and learning - and it was the learning of the Muslim nations that helped fie the Renaissance, which lead to the current ascendance of European civilisation.
™ Version 4.2
