Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists

.......Or if you people didn't have so much at stake ideologically by admitting some things rather than microanalyzing, nitpicking, spinning, distorting, segmenting, isolating statements from context and every other stratagem of evasion you can think of after the workable Biblical account is matched with what has been shown to have been observed and what has been shown about what exactly the scriptures say when the various contexts are objectively presented.For example I provide a link with scripture reference which clarly shows Yum Suph to apply to Aqaba which has no reeds in other Biblical texts and when my statement and the whole Biblical text in Exodus clearly states that the Hebrews ate manna for forty years before arriving at the borders of Caanan where their wilderness journey ended. It's becoming a waste of my time for the need to continually unscramble all of Brian's spin jobs and other manipulation tactics he uses to confuse rather than debate objectively in good faith. I'm becoming weary of all this. I guess I should expect it though, for any big guns here in town to admit the obvious here, a lotta retooling would need be considered in a number of the established theories of this establishment.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘at stake ideologically’ if you mean something like ‘vested interest in the scientific method’ then I’d agree with that, though that would be only my personal assessment. However, if your hypothesis, the video, is somewhat ‘a a spin job’, then is hardly seems fair to take Brian to task for following you. ;-)I’ve read all of this thread and at least one other very similar and have done so within the last few days. I mention this so you’ll understand my comments have a bit more to do with how yours and the other’s here arguments have unfolded, rather than this being a response to the last few posts.My personal bias is that it doesn’t seem that many creationists understand constitutes science. I know many assume it would be what a scientist does. It might surprise you and others to hear that there are scientists that do little if not any science. This isn’t surprising since many scientists blur the line as well.Now, first I should say that these aren’t necessarily ‘the definitions’ to use, but that they are a set of definitions that may be useful or at the very least a place to start.Let's start off from minimal basics.False = unsupportable.
True = supported.
Falsifiable = testable.
Consistent = provides a framework logical with other claims.Here’s a couple more.Theory = 'fact(in the common sense of the term)', tested/provable.
Hypothesis = an assumption unproved by experiment or observation.That’s been a huge problem in any of these discussions. I constantly see people through out language, That’s just a theory. In science you don’t start out with a theory, you start out with a hypothesis.As to if scientists have an axe to grind, yes and no. Scientists are people and of course they have their individual biases, but this is exactly why science requires peer review. Science is concerned with what works. That is the ‘heart’ if you will of science. So over time science has developed methods which work. By work I mean those which produce results. Or to put it in the vernacular, those which Show me the money. Further, we know that by not using these methods leads to all types of problems. So if scientists have an axe to grind it expect it to be with those that do not use scientific methods.So you’re right in that real scientists are often dismissive of creationist claims. Still this is more based on how these claims are presented then anything else. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that an extraordinary claim may require extraordinary proof. However, and this next is key, all hypothesis require that they can be falsifiable, have as little assumptions as possible, and a framework.Lastly, and I might not understand you correctly, but your second paragraph seems to indicate to me that you feel there is some resistance to adopting your view other than on the merits. I’m not sure what view you mean. If you mean that Exodus happened, then yes, I suppose that would require books to be rewritten, but you’d have to admit that the people writing those books would have a paycheck to look forward to. Even if you are right and the establishment opposed it, the ‘young guns’ would make it into new carriers. If on the other hand, what I suspect you’re saying is that this would prove to the scientific community the existence of God, let me assure you that there is no resistance on that part — God cannot be proved by science.[Edited: Buzsaw pointed out that I had included the phrase ‘scientific fact’ in my definition of theory. As used without explanation this would certainly lead to confusion. While a theory may be a scientific fact, theories are not automatically considered scientific facts. While both are to my mind terms used to assign levels of certainty, with ‘scientific facts’ having a higher perceived level of certainty, it cannot presumed that because a theory is not considered a scientific fact that the theory must be considered to be somehow lesse.]This message has been edited by Trae, 06-19-2004 07:28 AM

Along the lines of reading the thread as a whole, I kept wondering if what were missing were maps. Not that either Buzzsaw or Brian was being vague, but because it just seemed and perhaps I’m just projecting here, that Brian seemed to visualize the area with more confidence, so I wonder if he’s aware of more information that hasn’t been pointed out here. Specifically, I noticed the very long list you (Brian) posted of places the Hebrews camped. Other then the few places you have mentioned, how many others on the list have been found and identified with certainty. This would seem to me to be possibly critical and not addressed here as of yet.

Hi Trae. Welcome! I had the way that which is observed is interpreted by secularist scientists in mind as well as the way that biased opinion has permeated the schools of thought and their educational materials from preschool all the way up. Creationists believe there is actually existing in the universe an invisible to human higher dimension of life which we call the spiritual which secularists calously reject regardless of evidence to the contrary such as the Aqaba discovery, the documented fulfilled prophecies and so forth. Creationist scientists interpret that which has been observed differently also. When the spiritual dimension and powers greater than we humans are capable of are factored into science, factors like appearance of age at creation and unknown conditions millions to billions to years ago are considered. We are not the narrow minded ones when it comes down to it with science. The secularist folks are, imo. ....and most secularists would include the spiritual dimension here so I would change that to = that which has been proven to be untrue.....but just because evolution or creationism are supported, that doesn't necessarily make them true. It all depends on how that support is obtained and how it is interpreted. Something must be proven not to be false before it can be established as truth, imo. .....Theory may be considered by some to be proveable, but that doesn't make it fact until it has been proven, and my understanding is that, for example, TOE has not yet been proven, though some may contend that it has been observed. I understand that, but the problem comes with us creos because the evo establishment have wedged their way into the educational thought system so as to take it over and they act as though their theories are indeed proven fact. Based on the evidence, I'd say the theoretical God concept/supernatural has more evidence than theoretical evolution via fulfilled prophecies and discoveries like the Aqaba chariots.

As I've stated in the thread, since Mt Sinai is not where tradition has it the maps have cities placed in the wrong supposed locations. These were claimed by early Catholic bishops who had no supporting evidence whatsoever and during the dark ages no one dared challenge the then powerful Roman Catholic establishment so the maps are wrong anyhow. The encampments in the wilderness were likely not cities as much as little known areas of the wilderness either named by nomadic herdsmen or maybe some by the Hebrews themselves. I'm just guessing here about this.

quote:

---

The encampments in the wilderness were likely not cities as much as little known areas of the wilderness either named by nomadic herdsmen or maybe some by the Hebrews themselves. I'm just guessing here about this.

---

Instead of guessing wouldn’t it be better to know, if knowing is possible? Perhaps, these locations are not known. It wouldn’t be surprising if many were in dispute. But what if there were two or even three undisputed locations which via the Exodus account showed a logical path? Would that not be potentially useful information? Please understand, I am not suggesting that this knowledge invalidates your claim, I only suggest that if there is such knowledge it must be addressed.

Buzsaw, thank you for the welcome and thank you for providing me with an opportunity to think about and discuss scientific methodology.

quote:

---

Creationists believe there is actually existing in the universe an invisible to human higher dimension of life which we call the spiritual which secularists calously reject regardless of evidence to the contrary such as the Aqaba discovery, the documented fulfilled prophecies and so forth. Creationist scientists interpret that which has been observed differently also. When the spiritual dimension and powers greater than we humans are capable of are factored into science, factors like appearance of age at creation and unknown conditions millions to billions to years ago are considered. We are not the narrow minded ones when it comes down to it with science. The secularist folks are, imo.

---

It may seem like a callous rejection, but is that relevant if the rejection is necessary? At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I think you’re expressing something near the lines of what I have heard from others, Clearly, with all we can observe it isn’t unreasonable to believe in God. Or even, Since we can’t know everything, not recognizing that God might be behind everything, is being dogmatic in a ‘belief from ignorance’. Since scientists (as a group) seem to reject ‘all and any of this evidence’ out of hand without apparently even considering it, they must seem to be rather foolish to many.I sensed a bit of this, which was what led me to post message 227. The creationist position on the scientific method might be stated along the lines of, Scientists must consider all possibilities. If scientists cannot disprove the existence of God, they must leave room for the possibility of God; therefore scientists cannot dismiss God’s possible influence. Since this type of thinking is in line with most people’s understanding of science, it would seem to be a reasonable one. Reasonable or not, it is inconsistent with scientific methodology. [More on this following]

quote:

---

....and most secularists would include the spiritual dimension here so I would change that to = that which has been proven to be untrue.

---

Secularists might, but the scientific methodology would ignore them or anyone else as much as possible. I’ll expand on this comment when I readdress scientific methodology.

quote:

---

....but just because evolution or creationism are supported, that doesn't necessarily make them true. It all depends on how that support is obtained and how it is interpreted. Something must be proven not to be false before it can be established as truth, imo.

​

[and then]

​

.....Theory may be considered by some to be proveable, but that doesn't make it fact until it has been proven, and my understanding is that, for example, TOE has not yet been proven, though some may contend that it has been observed.

---

We’re bouncing a bit around here between words like, theory, truth, false, interpretation, proof, and support — let’s see if about putting this all in some sort of framework.Science has its methods and its definitions. Science also has its restrictions and its limits. Science’s methodology is not founded empirical observation as most people would assume, but is instead whether something is Falsifiable. Falsification is the cornerstone of modern science. Because of this, in modern science the methodology would be something along the lines of the following: formulate a hypothesis (for instance, if the Hebrews of Exodus took the path proposed we might find signs of chariots in the Red Sea) then attempt to falsify it. This is where creationists and hobbyists seem to get it backwards. One does everything one can to test the hypothesis against everything one can think of to prove it wrong.Think of it this way, which approach is more certain to bear fruit, Hey, I wondered if it might be possible that all these things I’ve found mean X. Or I’ve used methods proven over time to reach some conclusions. I then applied even more methods to see if my conclusions held. I then took those conclusions ALONG with my evidence to experts to see if they could shoot the idea down. Finally, I published so that even more people could check for flaws — including but not limited to flaws in my methods. Keep in mind this is the sort of definition one might get over a few beers. The process is not as limited as the previous would suggest. ;-)I hope my explanation is starting to illuminate why science would be dismissive of any God hypotheses or spiritual dimension. In short, science has no mechanism to account for a God who cannot be falsified. Further, because falsification is required of modern science one cannot create a mechanism to include either the ‘God hypotheses’ or ‘spiritual dimension’ you cite. It simply isn’t possible to factor those things into science and have the result be science. They can’t be included, not because science has a specific grudge against them, but because they, by definition, exist outside of science.This isn’t to say one can’t be inspired by whatever one wants, but science is only going to be interested in that which fits within the framework of science.I read your comments about the definitions and feel I need to clarify a few. You are correct and I can see that putting ‘scientific fact’ as a definition of theory would be misleading. Theories are however, by definition ‘proved’, and apart from hypothesis there is no such animal within science as an ‘unproved theory’. Perhaps, you’re thinking of a theory which has been disproved? There can be unproven hypothesis connected to a theory or unproven hypothesis which attempt to expand same and I personally think this is what confuses most people.Still if you’re not going to accept that in science theory = proven (to science), then you’re not talking the same langue as science. For reasons such as clarity I’d suggest staying away from concepts such as true and false, other then as shorthand terms used for evaluation purposes. I think it is more useful to ask, What does science believe about X? then it is to ask, Does science thing X is true.I’m purposely trying to avoid addressing the Theory of Evolution as this topic is already broad. If there is another thread where you would like to discuss it, let me know. I hope that discussing the methods by which this topic can be reviewed scientifically falls within the guidelines of being on topic.We’ve only touched on the topic and I’m struggling with a way to wrap this up without going on much longer. It might be more useful to take something specific and proceed from there. I am mindful that you do want the weight of your evidence to be considered, this is not an unreasonable request and I will keep that in mind.

I think you should know that Buzsaw's just accusing people of being biased because they follow the evidence rather than uncritically accepting his opinions. Even reading the Bible rather than simply accepting his (in this case twisted) interpretation of it has been enough to trigger this sort of accusation.It's sour grapes. And nothing more.

Hi again, Trae. I'm quite positive the location of most of these encampments is not known. The Exodus Video and the book, The Exodus Story, imo, give us an idea where the ones before the crossing of the sea took place as has been explained in either this or the other Exodus thread. Then we loose them until they get to Elath and the area nearer to Caanan.As for responses to your well put post, it would draw this thread off topic to do that and I'm really too involved in other topics of my interest along with my very busy schedule at home and business to get into it.

.....not to mention Paul's rejection of the imperical evidence we have here, being the discovery of the chariot junkyard in the sea supported by corroborating factors, all in the order they should be for compatibility to the Biblical record.

Really Buz you're just demonstrating exactly the behaviour I talkked about.Perhaps you could tell me where I rejected the meagre and inadequate evidence produced in favour of the existence of a "chariot graveyard" rather than asking for more ?The same goes for your other "corroborating evidence"What you mean is that you want me to uncritically accept your interpretation of these "evidences" without actually looking into the details.And please, Buz, please tell me why it requires an "ideological bias" to refuse to accept your interpretation of the Bible over what the Bible really says ?

Paul, as you are well aware of, I've already addressed your objections in one or other of the two Exodus threads multiple times and have not the time to rehearse it all again. Go read.

BuzYou have never addressed the issues regarding ANY of what you call evidence. Saying that you did so is simply assertion unless you can provide references and links to support it.The wheels have not yet even been shown to really exist. They have not been counted, verified, placed on a coordinate grid or examined.But let's get to one specific question.Since the wheels are of a style that could have been used at anytime during about a 1000 year period, how can you prove they were related to a particular incident?Just that one question. Then we will deal with your other assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, I am NOT aware of any such thing. Perhaps you could start by showing where there is better evidence of your "chariot graveyard" than a few poor-quality photographs and the word of the people pushing the story. Exactly which message did you deal with that issue in ?

Paulk,And I too have addressed you by providing all the overwhelming, indepth scientific data as to the makeup of these Egyptian remains at the bottom of Aqaba. A few pages pack I posted one massive topic split in two containing pictures and what not. There is a TON of information that you as well as many others have completely ignored.Poor-quality photographs my foot. Those photos are of pretty good quality, especially for how dark the water is at these depths (approx. 300+ feet deep). If you want even better quality, I suggest you watch the video, The Exodus Revealed. I'm sure you can find it online somewhere for around $10 bucks. You'll see live moving footage of these wheels, not just shots. The documentary is approx. 2.Hrs. long (about 3hrs with Extra Features).You can get it for a fairly good price here:Amazon.comIn fact, how about this proposal: Why don't you order the video, watch the whole thing, and then come back to these forums? This I strongly suggest. This goes for Brian too. And I don't believe you guys can't invest $13 bucks for it either.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 06-20-2004 11:42 PM

---

~Lysimachus