|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for the Biblical Record | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Buzsaw's claims seem to be part of a campaign to discredit the Bible.
His archaeological "evidence" is seriously lacking and tainted with justifiable suspicions of fraud. His fulfilled prophecies rely on twisting the Bible and even then he has problems coming up with a real "success" (does anybody remotely sane think that a single world government is even possible in the near future ?) Science is wrong because a guy who can't even understand the ideas he rejects must know better than the experts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You are being much too generous in assuming that it is a chariot wheel. If it is a wheel at all, how do we know it is not from the 20th century or the 19th ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: However, the rewrite of the 18th Dynasty required by Wyatt and Moeller is not debatable. It is crazy nonsense. As is the idea of two different people (Thutmoses II and Senmut) BOTH being Moses.
quote: My understanding is that even Wyatt's supporters did not claim that it was actually burnt.And making dubious accusations about the Saudis (who would want to see the great prophet Moses honoured and would likely be very happy if Wyatt's ideas were proved) doesn't really help much. quote: Where does it say that they met in Midian ? (Aside of the time of Moses exile BEFORE he returned to Egypt).
quote: You say that it's unusual but how unusual is it ? Can we see evidence of the alleged water flow ?
quote: You mean like the transitional whale fossils discovered in the '90s ? As a few honest creationists, like Kurt Wise admit the evidence from transitional fossils strongly supports evolution.
quote: And the only reason the debate goes on is because it is based on subjective assessments, with no hard evidence.
quote: This is just your usual bullying technique of making false accusations to hide the fact that your arguments were demolished. Ezekiel's prophecy in Ezekiel 35 was directed to the Edomites of HIS time. What possible use does it have in an era when there are NO identifiable Edomites at all. They vanished from history more than 1900 years ago ! And as I pointed out the prophecy that you attribute to Jesus was probably not spoken by him at all - and you have to ignore parts of it that don't fit. Not to mention the fact that Ezekiel 38 doesn't exactly sound like it means modern warfare:
4"I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords;
Cavalry with swords and shields ? Which fits better - modern warfare or ancient warfare ?
quote: Of course there are various reasons for it. In part the Jewish religion with it's own racial - and arguable racist - elements. In part the separation and persecution of Jews at a number of points in history. And of course we can point out that the Lost Tribes did NOT manage to retain their identity. Unlikely events do happen. If that is all you have, it's not much of a case.
quote: Neither the West Bank, nor the Gaza strip include territory that belonged to Edom. Nor is there any reason to think that modern Palestinians have any special connection to Edom. As I pointed out, the Edomites as a people vanish in the 1st Century AD, after intervening in the Jewish side of the Jewish revolt. And the prophecy of Ezekiel does not predict that the Edomites WILL covet two kingdoms - it says that they will be slaughtered because they HAD coveted "the" two kingdoms. And let us point out that a "prophecy" that has not yet come to pass - and for all we know will never come to pass - is hardly evidence that the Bible is true.
quote: Your lack of Biblical knowledge is showing again. Ephraim refers to the Lost Tribes.
quote: Regardless of the state of relations Ethiopia is hardly in a position to attack Israel. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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:
And Moses let his father-in-law depart; and he went his way into his own land.
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 Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: On the contrary, it's clear that you have only weak circumstantial evidence - when you have evidence at all.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It was in one of the old threads here... It'll take a while to track it down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Looks like the one I was referring to has been deleted.
However discussion and other posts in the thread confirm a depth of 850m at the crossing point. For comparison the original claim was a depth of 100m (which appears to be the result of using an incomplete database (the "depth" was just a default value). See Message 263 (Lysimachus is a Wyatt supporter as should be obvious)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: One thing we can be certain of, the Hyksos do not fit the story of Exodus. They ruled the delta region until they were driven out by the 18th Dynasty (and Wyatt and Moller place the Exodus after then.)
quote: The archaeologists generally regard the Israelites as originating in Canaan. That seems to be a perfectly viable option (and more likely than Egypt, given the massive lack of evidence).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So how exactly does this "predict" television ? It's not as if nobody travelled in those days. There would have been many foreigners in Rome from slaves, merchants and likely not a few immigrants hoping to make it in the greatest city in thee world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The global scale is likely a (hyperbolic) reference to the Roman Empire which was indeed forcing the worship of the Emperor on the entire Empire (at one point the Romans got very, very close to placing a statue of the Emperor in the Temple at Jerusalem. And indeed, the Romans dominated the civilised world of that time more than any nation does today or is likely to in the forseeable future. The speaking image is pretty obviously some sort of statue - it certainly doesn't sound like TV at all. If you absolutely insist on a naturalistic interpretation I suppose you could argue for it being an animatronic figure (but that wouldn't exactly inspire awe in many people in the West). And of course there is no emerging global monetary system of marks and numbers. And certainly no sign of anything resembling that described in Revelation.
quote: It is significant in that this new religion must be an ENEMY of Islam. The rejection of idolatry - and the worship of an image is clearly idolatry - is a major element of Islam. Muslims who joined would be regarded as apostates and idolators. Oddly enough Revelation makes absolutely no mention of the violent clashes which would inevitably occur if anyone tried to force the Beast worship on modern Islamic countries. Or in many cases, if there was any significant presence of Beast worshippers there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I don't think that Exodus mentions much of that. Egypt is largely forgotten after the destruction of the army. It is possible that the Israelites avoided the coast because of Egyptian bases there (it is called "the land of the Philistines"- but that is likely an anachronism). I'm not sure of bases deeper within Sinai, but I expect that it would depend on when the Exodus is supposed to take place. But that is one of the things we have no good evidence for (whether because the story is greatly exaggerated over time, and details lost or whether there was no Exodus at all, as I suspect). We can say that the story assumes that Egypt is relatively weak and seems to have no presence within Canaan by the time of Joshua, so it seems likely to me that Egypt would not have remote bases in the desert at that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Exodus itself gives no useful dating information on when the story is meant to take place. So I can't say what the situation would be at the time of the story, except by inferring from what the story says - or in this case, more what it doesn't say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I would guess that the majority don't have a firm idea of the date. Because - as Theodoric has pointed out - it is not settled or anywhere near settled. (And that's likely because the story isn't very close to whatever actual events it is based on).
Exodus 1:11 is suggestive but it may well be one of the anachronisms within Exodus, referring to a later name or a later city nearby.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024