Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,058 Year: 5,315/9,624 Month: 340/323 Week: 184/160 Day: 1/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 5 of 348 (550304)
03-14-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ZenMonkey
03-14-2010 12:28 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-14-2010 12:28 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 21 of 348 (550357)
03-15-2010 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
03-14-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2010 8:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 6:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 27 of 348 (550417)
03-15-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ZenMonkey
03-15-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-15-2010 1:28 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-15-2010 1:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 43 of 348 (550489)
03-15-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
03-15-2010 6:48 PM


Yah, and the debate goes on numerous reputable scientists on both sides of the debats
quote:
The dating is debatable. It is not uncommon for Kings to skew dates, obscure and/or erase evidence of defeat in order that enemies would not discover weakness and other reasons.
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:
That has not been verified because the Saudi's do no allow access to it by researchers. It must be understood that any research in the region is risky and dangerous, given the Muslim Saudis have no desire to support the Biblical record relative to anything supportive to Israel and Jews.
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:
LOL on this one, Paul. It was the land of Midian which is on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba where the OT text says Moses met with his father in law, Jethro, priest of Midian. It all jives nicely with both OT and NT.
Where does it say that they met in Midian ? (Aside of the time of Moses exile BEFORE he returned to Egypt).
quote:
1) That though there may be an occasional spit rock in various locations, this spiit rock has a dry bed flow evidence of a significant flow of water, enough to cut a stream. There would be no reason for a stream flowing from this relatively small rising other than a flow of water from the crack in the rock.
2. This unusual phenomenon just happens to be in prezactly the right location needful for corroborating the Nuweiba site where the wheel and axle shaped formations were photographed.
You say that it's unusual but how unusual is it ? Can we see evidence of the alleged water flow ?
quote:
And a host of creationists aren't buying the relative scanty allegements of species transional evidence. We maintain that there should be a great abundance of transitionals from numerous stages of transition.
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:
Yah, and the debate goes on numerous reputable scientists on both sides of the debate.
And the only reason the debate goes on is because it is based on subjective assessments, with no hard evidence.
quote:
Here you show either your ignorance or your deliberate choice to sweep under the proverbial rug all of the data in these chapters which obviously allude to a future time. This all corroborates with Jesus's prophecy that Jerusalem would be occupied by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
Paul you keep on ignoring my citing significance of the Six Day War
when Jews restored occupation and control of the old walled city just as prophesied By Ezekiel, Jesus and other prophets. This all corroborates the futuristic understanding of Ezekiel 38 and explains the stuff in those chapters which in no way applied to ancient events.
Paul, this is what I mean about the uselessness of debating with you on anything smacking of miracle. You wouldn't acknowledge it if it if it were able to bite your butt.
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:
The biggy divine part in question here is the divine fulfillment of prophecy. The odds of a tiny nation of identifiable people being scattered globally for nearly two millenniums and return as as the same identifiable people would be beyond realistic calculation.
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:
The important thing relatively to the prophecy is that the Semetic Gentiles that occupy the land of Edom, being the very location of the Semetic descendents of Hagar, and Esau who are claiming two nations i.e. their own and Israel's as per the prophecy in Ezekiel 35:10, the prophecy concerning Edom.
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:
The primary people cited in these prophecies is Judah and Ephraim. The significant thing is that it will be restored as one nation and not two as was the case in ancient days.
Your lack of Biblical knowledge is showing again. Ephraim refers to the Lost Tribes.
quote:
Though the Israel/Ethiopia relations have been relatively good, there have, according to the Wiki link below been shaky times when relations have been broken or in question due to pressure from the Arab block nations.
Regardless of the state of relations Ethiopia is hardly in a position to attack Israel.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 6:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 9:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 64 of 348 (550532)
03-16-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Huntard
03-15-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Some comments on the video
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 03-15-2010 7:09 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 03-16-2010 6:24 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 69 of 348 (550553)
03-16-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 9:15 AM


Re: Yah, and the debate goes on numerous reputable scientists on both sides of the de
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:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 75 of 348 (550581)
03-16-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Incessantly Denying The Evidence
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 12:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 2:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 78 of 348 (550588)
03-16-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 2:16 PM


Re: Incessantly Denying The Evidence
It was in one of the old threads here... It'll take a while to track it down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 2:16 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 80 of 348 (550591)
03-16-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 2:49 PM


Re: More on Gulf of Aqaba
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 2:49 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 03-16-2010 4:33 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 89 of 348 (550616)
03-16-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
03-16-2010 5:00 PM


Re: Jews In Egypt, Etc
quote:
There has been a lot of debate as to who the Hyksos were and other stuff relative what you allude. I'm not sure anything conclusive can be claimed on that count.
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 Jews came from some location. Why not Egypt? There's no other viable option, so far as I'm aware.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2010 5:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 116 of 348 (550700)
03-17-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
03-17-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Techy Evidence
quote:
Perhaps it's time to move on to some more of the corroborating evidences of the veracity of the Biblical record; prophecies relative to modern technology.
Prophet John; NT; you read it first in your Bible; technology of television prophesied 2 milleniums before the fact:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 03-17-2010 11:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 138 of 348 (550768)
03-18-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
03-17-2010 10:29 PM


Re: Techy Evidence, Etc
quote:
There you have your corrobrating support, my friends, Peg, et al, for this terminology every tribe tongue and nation being global and the techy support of the speaking image, your TV and your up and coming global monetary system of marks and numbers which is emerging on our planet as we type.
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:
t's important to understand the above relative to the global Islamic phenomena emerging rapidly. Mohammed who wrote the Quran & his successor apostles who wrote the Sunnahs and Haddith, regarded by Islam equal to the Quran, advocated global Jehadist global fatah, if you wll, which demands that Islam was/is to become the global religion submitting (meaning of Islam) nation, tribe and tongue to Islam.
It is significant, relative to the above prophecy that this emerging global empire will be religious requiring every tribe, tongue and nation to worship a speaking image.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 03-17-2010 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 8:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 140 of 348 (550778)
03-18-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by hERICtic
03-18-2010 8:25 AM


Re: Exodus
quote:
In the story of the Exodus, didn't the Egyptians have military outposts throughtout the desert? The story states the Israelits left, the Egyptians gave chase but could never catch up. Wouldn't the Israelites have run into Egyptian military forces constantly anyway?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 8:25 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 9:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 142 of 348 (550788)
03-18-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by hERICtic
03-18-2010 9:55 AM


Re: Exodus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 9:55 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 12:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 145 of 348 (550823)
03-18-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by hERICtic
03-18-2010 12:16 PM


Re: Exodus
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 12:16 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by hERICtic, posted 03-18-2010 3:49 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024