Evidence for the Biblical Record

It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.

​

L. Sprague de Camp

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Buz. You still seem to be ignoring the major point I've made regarding the archaeological evidence you've so far presented. Once again, from Message 18.

quote:

---

But even setting aside questions regarding the validity of this evidence, what does finding a chariot wheel in some body of water actually prove? It proves that a chariot wheel fell in the water! That's it. I personally can think of at least a few other ways that such a thing could have happened. Or are the only people who've ever lost wheels in the Red Sea area people who were miraculously drowned while out chasing Jews?

---

Let's ask the question another way. If the account of the Exodus given in the Bible were substantially correct, what physical evidence could we find for which the Biblical account would be the simplest and best explanation? What would have to be there that could be explained rationally no other way? I can think of a number of pieces of evidence that would go a long way to to support some significant aspects of the story. Can you?To help you along, here's an example. If I were to hypothesize that Norsemen colonized the coast of modern-day Virginia in the 9th century and stayed there for three hundred years, then I should rightfully expect to find specific types of evidence for my hypothesis to be supportable. There should be at least a few local artifacts that were clearly of Northern European origin and that could be dated reliably to the proper time period. More tellingly, I would pretty much have to find genetic evidence among the descendants of the native population. Three hundred years is just too much time to go by without mixing with the locals. And I would also expect to find linguistic traces in the native languages. If nothing like this were forthcoming, while my hypothesis wouldn't be conclusively disproved, any explanation of such a profound lack of evidence would probably be pretty contrived. (Coyote, please correct me if this isn't the sort of supporting evidence needed to substantiate this sort of claim.)So let's ask again: if the Biblical account of the Exodus were substantially correct, what physical evidence should we be able to find that could be explained no other way (or at least not without straining credibility)?

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

All nice and dandy, Buz, but where's the evidence they took this route? What check? I don't dispute they found a pillar, I dispute it is of significance. They show no evidence of this pillar being what they claim it is. They simply assert it. Not in the film he doesn't. No evidence whatsoever is shown. There is however done a lot of asserting. It would be nice if they'd show any then. No, science begins with evidence. There is absolutely no evidence presented for any assertion made in the film. No evidence that Imhotep = Joseph, no evidence that Moses = Senmut = Thutmose II, no evidence for the route, no evidence for the fort, no evidence for the pillar, and so on. And once again, not a shred of evidence is presented in the film, there are only assertions. The best example of this is the choral. They say they are chariot wheels, they don't provide any evidence for that claim though. And that's generally the theme throughout the film.

quote:

---

hen about Moses: They assert his adopted mother was Hatshepsut, and that his name was Senmut. His adult name (yeah, a name change, sure) is supposed to be Thutmoses II. Evidence for Moses being Thutmoses II is supposed to be his "hebrew shaped nose". Again, no evidence whasoever. Lots of other unevdienced assertions follow.

---

In fact it is complete nonsense. Thutmose II was the husband and half-brother of Hatshepsut, not here adopted son. When he died, his son, the future Thutmose III was too young to rule and Hatsepsut managed to seize the throne. Senmut (also spelled Senenmut) was an important civil servant in Hatshepsut's reign (i.e. after Thutmosis II was dead).Name changes and identifying two different people as one is a major part of Wyatt's rewrite of the 18th Dynasty. THere is no significant evidence for any of it - and solid evidence against much of it. That Moeller fell for it is a major strike against him.And if Wyatt and Moeller make claims which cannot be true - claims that they could easily have found to be false if they bothered to do the research that they should have done before MAKING those claims - how can we possibly regard them as reliable sources ?

Now I remember! Hatshepsut is the one that had that huge ass temple built, isn't she? I should have caught that one, having some interest in ancient egypt. I should've recognized the names.Thanks for the info!

Zen, you're not making a lot of sense here with your Norseman/300yr analogy. It's not analogous being your example depicts a people in one location for centuries.1) The Exodus path in question was days not years and their wanderings in Arabia was 40 years, no lengthy times in one location.2) They had no crops and like wandering Gypsies, left no lasting evidence behind other than what has been cited respective to the markings of bulls etc in the region of the mountain below which bull worship allegedly took place.3) I've cited a list of visible evidences. What more do you expect?4) We know the Jews, after having been dispersed globally for nearly 2 millenniums have returned to their homeland still identified as Jews. What makes you think that in 40 years of wandering the Jews who, according to the record moved about in one group would have integrated with the locals?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

At any rate it is unusual. Moller, et al claim it is not lava rock. I assume they assertained that from some available data. The alleged burning was from a supernatural source which perhaps penetrated into the soil and rocks to a very hot temperature.The significance relative to evidence is that it matches up nicely with the other corrobrative evidence necessary to lend support to the account. Exodus 18 tells how they met in the wilderness after the crossing to Midian in Arabia where Jethro lived.Exodus 18:1-12 (ASV)

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So, even you, who is one of their staunchest proponents, haven't actually seen the evidence fo their claims? How do you think to convince anyone else then? More assertions without evidence. How do you know it is because of a fire, how do you know this fire was supernatural, how do you know it penetrated into the rock? Any evidence for any of these claims? What other evidence, you haven't shown any.

quote:

---

At any rate it is unusual. Moller, et al claim it is not lava rock. I assume they assertained that from some available data. The alleged burning was from a supernatural source which perhaps penetrated into the soil and rocks to a very hot temperature.

---

Moeller is not a geologist, and even so not all dark rock is igneous (e.g. slate). In the previous discussion it seemed to be accepted that the difference was purely geological, and nothing to do with burning - and no evidence has been offered to the contrary. (And as we have seen Moeller appears to credulously believe complete rubbish produced by the Wyatt camp so his personal opinion in this case is worth very, very little).

quote:

---

Exodus 18 tells how they met in the wilderness after the crossing to Midian in Arabia where Jethro lived.

---

But nowhere in your quote does it say that the meeting was in Midian, only in the wilderness. And 18:27 seems to suggest that the meeting was outside of Midian: If they were in Midian then would not Jethro already be in "his own land" ?.So I am going to ask again. Where in the OT does it say that Moses met Jethro in Midian? That's what you claimed, and Exodus 18 clearly says no such thing.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Paulk and Huntard, you both miss the importance of corroboration. These observable things are all corroborating one another. As per the the record, these evidences should line up in the right sequence. The important thing about the mountain is that it's top is black and that it follows in line with the bull inscriptions, the split rock, the unusual chariot like formations in the sea, the relatively shallow area of the sea in which they were sited, the beach, surrounded by mountains with a way in but no escape route out, and the land of Midian to where the record says they would meet Jethro. The other corroborating ducts perfectly alligned in the right secquence is supportive that the black mountain top could likely have been burned as per the record. Regardless of how you rate the evidence, it is, in fact part and parcel of the aggregate evidence. You people insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater.You people, et al evolutionists and BBists, don't have all of your ducks lined up perfectly and verifiable either. You have your weak and your strong arguments, just as I do here. By the way you are acting here, I could say where's your actual observable evidence that alleged scientific abiogenesis is the explanation for life origin? That's totally not observable physically with the naked eye, whereas all of the corroborating evidence ducks lined up perfectly which I have cited relative to the Exodus. Come on. Let's be fair, balanced and reasonable in demanding evidence.If you choose not to ascribe to the evidence, fine, but don't incessantly keep on falsly arguing that Moller, Wyatt, et al's research has produced no evidence whatsoever.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

it is hardly corroboration if the story itself were concocted several centuries after it were supposed to have happened and the "facts" in the stories moulded to fit observations made during the telling.We are being asked to believe that, during one of the most powerful times in Egypts history that an entire slave race of people (what, five million?), the trail of which would itself take decades to actually leave the country, could happen overnight, leave no evidence of either having been there OR having left, could trail through a desert region and leave NO evidence whatsoever (no wheel tracks, no middens, no graves, no campsites), and all without actually damaging the power and might of Egypt and leaving no Egyptian records either before or since, such that the story tellers cannot even tell WHEN this exodus was supposed to have happened?Tell me, do you really believe that nothing would happen to a country that had it's crops destroyed, the firstborn children all killed, was shattered with many plagues and then, finally, had the ENTIRETY of it's worker race just up and leave?Really?...talk about incessantly denying the evidence.

Not to mention had a very large part of its army (or was it the entire army?), and its Pharaoh killed. What do you think neigbouring countries, knowing the wealth of Egypt would've done at this time? Invade of course, and take over. Curiously, that didn't happen. I wonder why....

As others have shown there is no evidence. Just assertions.Buz- Where is the chariot wheel? Where are others? Show the mountain was burned with supernatural fire.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Anything can be made to coroborate when told centuries after the fact and using observations from the time of telling, like Greyseal pointed out. Again, what evidence? So far all I've seen is assertions. Point me to something here Buz. And the evidence that any of this was the actual site where this happens is? I want evidence Buz, not your assertion that this must be the site, because it fits the story so well. Is this the only site that fits the story? Apparently not, many have been offered. Why is this one the real deal? Because you assert it is? Where is the evidence for this? This is the second time I ask you. You say it "could likely have been" been burned. So, it's also possible it wasn't? In other words, you don't know? Then why insist this is the case? By supernatural fire no less, that penetrated the ground, you assert. Is there anything about this that you can show any evidence for? Evidence? What evidence? Assertion is not evidence. There isn't even a bathtub to contain it all in. What's that got to do with anything? I'm also a gravitationist, and a germist and a... Oh you know, anything that has evidence for it. Unlike your assertions. I don' t suppose you have any evidence for this assertion either? You don't even have that. You have assertions, and that's it. 1) We're working on it. 2) That's off topic here, and has nothing to do with the fact of the exodus happening or not. So does all the evidence for abiogenesis. In fact, as we can demostrate all the claims made so far about abiogenesis, I'd say it's a lot stronger then your assertions. Then show me some. Come on, show me a chariot wheel being lifted from the sea, show me it being tested and found to match the wheels from the 18th dynasty. Show me Moses = Senmut = Thutmose II, show me the fort is an actual Egyptian fort, show me the "other pillar" with inscriptions. Show me anything at all. Then where is it? Where are their reports, where are their studies, what tests were done, where was it peer reviewed? Anything, anything at all?

quote:

---

Paulk and Huntard, you both miss the importance of corroboration.

---

On the contrary, it's clear that you have only weak circumstantial evidence - when you have evidence at all.

quote:

---

The important thing about the mountain is that it's top is black and that it follows in line with the bull inscriptions, the split rock, the unusual chariot like formations in the sea, the relatively shallow area of the sea in which they were sited, the beach, surrounded by mountains with a way in but no escape route out, and the land of Midian to where the record says they would meet Jethro.

---

If you don't care about the accuracy of the story the top being black might be important. If you DO care about the accuracy the top must be burnt black - and we've no evidence of that. Bull petroglyphs aren't mentioned in the Biblical account. I've not seen any pictures of "chariot-like" formations in the sea, only the alleged wheels. According to the chart posted by Lysimachus in the previous discussion the sea ISN'T particularly shallow there. There's no mention of mountains blocking retreat in the Bible (and I would think that the mountains would favour the people on foot far more than level terrain !). And finally the Bible doesn't say that Moses met Jethro in Midian.There's a whole lot less corroborating evidence than you claim.Here's a simple question. You asserted that the OT claimed that the meeting with Jethro during the Exodus was in Midian. You referred to Exodus Chapter 18. I read Exodus Chapter 18 and found that it makes no such claim. Which of us is ignoring the evidence ?