The books of the Bible were themselves written at specific times and places, and few non-fundamentalist scholars are going to buy the notion that the books of the Pentateuch were actually written by Moses, for example. In fact, none of the books of the Bible were put into written form until many centuries after the time when such events as the life of Abraham or the Exodus would have taken place. You can hardly go making up stuff about who was king ten or twenty years ago; people would be bound to notice. Even for events of a hundred years ago there will be some common knowledge about the major happenings of that time period. But if you’re writing about things that happened 400 years or 600 years or 1400 years ago, things are bound to be a lot fuzzier. It’s not of question of “lying” of course, but details get hazier, and as you go back in time further and further from when your humble scribe is trying to set things down, the distinctions between history and legend and myth tend to blur.
**
My apologies- I misunderstood your intent. And I wholeheartedly agree that the OP was poorly phrased.
**
Yes, but as has been pointed out to you several times before, “Asimov says so” isn’t a sound argument. I’m not trying to argue for one position or the other with regard to this point- I’m just asking what, exactly, this evidence is, and despite repeated requests you have neither provided it, nor have you stated that you are at the moment unable to do so. Can you see why I sometimes find it frustrating to have discussions with you? Already I’ve had to repeat a number of questions several times, only to get several nonhelpful replies from you.
**
But the problem is the “very little.” It’s as if a student had handed in a history paper and gotten an F, and then argued that he should have gotten an “A” because Marie Antoinette, Louis XIV, and Robespierre were all real people. The problem is that the “F” came from the one fact he got wrong- the Scarlet Pimpernel didn’t really exist. Accuracy isn’t judged by what you get right, but by what you get wrong. If Exodus is entirely wrong (and it is,) then I think that the Bible suffers as a result. Who cares if the Bible gets trivial details right? The accuracy of the Bible is essentially the same as that as the Book of Mormon. In cases where the authors were reporting the common knowledge of their day, both scriptures succeed. In cases where unusual or divine knowledge was needed, both scriptures fail. The Book of Mormon only stands out because it took more chances than the Bible did.
**
Again, you are just weaselling. It’s not just a question of “no evidence.” It’s a question of an event that, if real, had to leave massive evidence. It seems to me that your position is fundamentally little different from that of creationists. Knowledgeable experts consider both your beliefs (on Exodus) and theirs (on evolution) to be quite literally laughable, so you just take it on faith. If you want to do that, fine, but don’t keep trying to tell us how different you are from the fundies.
**
So? I never said you did.
**
Huh? If I’m not mistaken, you are arguing that Exodus has to be taken on faith (unless you’ve changed your mind in the last few months and decided that it’s a myth.) See above.
-Ben
I felt that this old article might be of some interest:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/4/4five95.html
-Ben
I believe Pliny (the Elder or Younger) may have mentioned Jesus in a letter to a friend. Something along the lines of “Jesus, who was called the Christ, was executed, but now his perverted followers are starting a cult,” or something to this effect.
There may have been another Roman writer besides him and Josephus (who was that Roman historian?) who mentions Jesus in passing and across a good span of years from the actual events.
I have no sites and my memory from college is fairly fuzzy. Also believe they found Caiphas’ tomb, FWIW, FWI Proves.
Sir
Note, that I also said the Oxford Guide to the history of the region. If you want actual page numbers & quotes, fine, but since my copy is lent out, you will hafta wait. But are you asking because you doubt this fact? Have you found a source that says I am wrong? And Asimov is quite respected as a source- so saying “well he is no good” does not cut it- if you don’t accept him, then YOU need to come up with a source that contradicts him. Then we can argue which source is better- but as I have a source- and you none- mine is clearly better. At least I have one, besides my own “IMHO”.
So you want to debate Exodus? Fine, then let us debate Exodus- start a thread. But I am afraid that I beleive that much of Exodus is either mythological, or the result of Gematria. Ie, the numbers who left was the result of needing to fit a mystic number, and so with the 40 years in the wilderness. In “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” Kenneth Davis list & expounds some theories which would leave the basic fact of the Exodus as quite possible- but leave out the Gematria & possible mistranslations. I do NOT 'accept" Exodus on faith- but I have no fault with those that do so. Asimov & Oxford also accept that there well could have been “AN exodus”- but discount the numbers. So, there are 3 sources, all of which say there very well could have been an Exodus (but the details appear wrong), and just you saying it is impossible. Exodus as literal, including the Miracles & numbers- I am afraid I do not accept that, nor have i ever said i did.
I have said, several times- that many of the numbers in the OT are based on mystical Gematria, instead of what we modern folks would consider “real”. But that does not make them “lies”- some would consider it a “deeper truth”.
And getting vast amounts of later history right on, to the extent of Archeologists using the Bible for places to dig- these are hardly “trivial details”. Yes- earlier sections of the Bible- like all histories- are not as verifieable as later sections. But, they are usually more accurate than other period sources.
Ben- it would be helpful if i could know exactly what it is you are disagreeing with, what your reasons are for doing so, and what are your sources. Ask me straight out, instead of innuendoes. Several times you have asked me to prove some fact, and I have- but then you went on to say that the truth of that fact is not meaningful, as you accpt that point anyway. It is annoying if you ask me to support a fact- but don’t seem to really care if i do so or not. At times, it seems like you go over my posts, and ask me to verify all my facts- even those you have no particular arguement with. If my fact or cite is not important in our debate- then demanding i verify it is puerile.
I think you have got it in your head that becuase i am a Christian, and defend the OT as a historical work- that I am some sort of “fundie” that thinks every word is inerrant. I am not, and I don’t. My Church specifically rejects the inerrancy of the Bible, and so do I.
And, just what questions have you had to ask me repeatedly? Except did i consider that Ameratsu was real, which was hardly germane, and in no way did I think you wanted an answer. Now, above you have stated just one opinion of your own- that the Exodus did not happen, and is impossible. But I never said the Exodus was to be taken as literal truth, and i have cited sources, above, which say that a NON-literal exodus is very possible, and even likely.
So- ask me a question- straight out, and i will answer it.
But you need some cites, too, you know. And, you saying that YOU don’t accept Asimov is bogus- he is respected & unbiased- and a LOT better than no sources at all.
Sorry… I was being vague on purpose, so as not to get someone ‘offended’. IE: “Why are you picking on my religion.”
I know more about the Judeo/Chritian Bible than I do about others, so I will ask questions based on that.
Are there historical texts that also tell us about:
- Parting of the Red Sea
- The Great Flood (Noah)
- God stopping the Earth for Joshua’s battle. (The Chineese were avid astronimers, do they have record of this?)
- Jesus’ feeding of the masses?
- Jesus curing the blind man. (Lets through all of the miracals in here…if these were such big events, surely more that just those that were around fell witness to this would have heard.)
And any others anyone can think of…
I think it’s safe to say that there are no extra-Biblical texts which corroborate any of those incidents.
What about ANY major events? IE: The “King David” debate.
What about the discovery of Jeus’s empty tomb?
Well, we’ve been kicking around the whole King David issue in this thread for a while now. Generally, King David is probably about where things start to seriously transition from outright legend to history. Somewhere in all those kings after David and Solomon you start getting guys who actually show up in Assyrian or Babylonian or Egyptian records.
Nobody’s found Jesus’ empty tomb. I guess a fundamentalist could point out that no one’s ever found Jesus’ full tomb either, so there you go…
You really should look into Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. It’s not a bad popular introduction to Biblical history.
Bemusing, indeed.
The Bible text contains lots and lots of stuff. It is not just a collection of stories about miraculous events.
The Bible text contains some moral codes, for instance, that say things like don’t mistreat others, don’t steal, don’t kill. You will not be able to find outside “verification” of these rules to good moral conduct, but I venture to suggest that they are still valid.
The Bible contains some stories and poems that are clearly designed to teach moral lessons, and not designed to describe scientific phenomenon. The creation of all humankind, for instance, from one man is meant to teach the common brotherhood of all humankind. It is not meant to teach about the biology of spontaneous generation. The Bible abounds with such moral tales.
The Bible contains some stories that are clearly designed to describe history, such as the battles of the Maccabbees or the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Many of these stories (especially those after about 900 BC) are validated by outside archaeological or written documentation. Ben asks: << Who cares if the Bible gets trivial details right? >> and the answer is: archaeologists and historians. The Bible is a valuable text to understanding life and events in the times it records.
The Bible contains other stories that touch on the miraculous, the intervention of God in human history. This is where Doubleclick has focused: parting of the Sea, shattering the walls of Jericho, turning loaves into fishes, rising from the dead. Some will argue that this are the same as stories designed to teach moral lessons, not physics or chemistry or biology. Others will argue that these are historic events accurately described, and divinely inspired.
The point is that there will not and cannot ever be outside evidence to prove such stories beyond question. If there is a God, He clearly wants us to take those miracles on faith; we will never find evidence because He clearly doesn’t want us to find clear, exact, unambiguous, definite evidence. If these isn’t a God, of course, these are just stories told over generations, and there won’t be any proof because they didn’t happen.
In either event, you can’t expect to find outside verification of these stories. At best, you might find outside verification of the existence of the characters in the time and place formulated. It would be something to have evidence that a king named David or a judge named Joshua really existed. It is too much to hope that we could find outside verification of every (or any) story about such a person.
to answer the OP query- there is no outside verification of any of the miracles. The closest of the “Big” miracles is the fact that there was a huge flood that drowned the entire (then) known world about the right time for Noah. However, it certainly did not cover the entire globe- nor is there any evidence of a “Noah”.
As to the “healing” miracles of JC- about that time, there were many holy men & Prophets who were going around Isreal & doing faith healing. None of their exact feats have bben documented- because in those days- unless you healed a King or a Ceasar- very little of any of that stuff was documented anyway. The fact that there is very little documentation, outside the Gospels, of JC’s life is hardly surprizing- some Emperors are poorly documented- so it would ne a shock to see any mention of JC. So the fact that He was mentioned a couple of times, second-hand, is actually pretty good.
However, about 900BC- the historical facts of the OT begin to be very strongly verified by outside sources & digs. The
looting of jerusalem by shishak, the reign of Omri, the attacks of Shalmanassar & sargon upon Isreal, the Siege of jerusalem, the Assasination of Sennacherib, the military campaigns of Assurbanipal- the battle of Megiddo, etc etc - are all verified by outside sources. However, note that before that- the only 'outside" records are the Egyptians, and they are full of propaganda & concerned only with Egyptian history- so it is hardly surprising that there are poor records- outside the OT- of Ot events.
**
But the problem is that you are basically saying, “Asimov says I’m right, so I win.” But what does Asimov say? I keep asking for sources because opinions aren’t very educational. It matters not a whit to me that Asimov’s opinion agrees with your own. What I keep asking is that you explain to us what evidence Asimov used in forming his opinions. Bear in mind, too, as has been explained to you many, many times before Asimov isn’t an expert on the Bible. People have, in the past, given you quotes from professional archaeologists whose work bears on the question of Exodus, and you’ve dismissed them in favor of Asimov.
**
Then what, exactly, do you believe about Exodus? Again, it’s very difficult to have a conversation with you about Exodus when you’re being so vague.
**
No, those are three opinions which happen to agree with you. I keep asking you for primary sources- but in this and all other conversations you keep insisting that Asimov is all the proof you need. Don’t you understand that Asimov and Davis aren’t archaeologists?
But as I have explained before, this is not at all unexpected. Archaeologists could use movies like “Independence Day” to figure out where to dig for ancient landmarks, and there’s nothing surprising in that fact.
You keep complaining that I seem to think you’re a fundie. It seems to me that you think I’m one of those mythical anti-literalists who thinks that the Bible is 100% wrong in every word it utters.
As for my cites, they are the ones you already saw before, which Opus1 provided here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29023
Although most of the cites deal with the “conquest model,” here is a highlight about Exodus:
“The literal biblical story of an Exodus from Egypt, and
a subsequent pan-Israelite conquest of Canaan can no longer
be salvaged, for all the wishful thinking in the world.”
Where does this come from? A popular work by a non-specialist? No, Opus got the cite from:
**
I ask you again: will you provide real cites, or are you just going to quote secondhand opinions?
-Ben
**
Look- this is asinine. I made it plain that I think that sometimes you use very bad arguments to try to prove valid points. Why is it puerile to insist on intellectual integrity even when people agree with me?
**
As you have told us time and time again. It seems to me that every time someone criticises you for your behavior, you turn around and say that the only reason they’re criticising you is because you’re a Christian, and therefore they assume that you’re a fundie. As I said before, I know you’re not a fundie- I’m just saying you act like one.
**
How about: "I’m afraid that this adds little, if anything, to your original comment. Who mentioned James, what did he say, when did he say it, and where was it written? "
Or:
"What is the nature of this evidence? Do we have a genealogy of Rehoboam which dates to 928BC? "
**
If you make an argument to prove the Christian scriptures, and someone points out that the same argument can be used to prove non-Christian scriptures, then I think that’s entirely a germane point. Maybe to you Christianity looks respectable and Shintoism looks ridiculous. If so, I suggest you think about whether non-Christians necessarily agree with you on that point.
But you’re just giving us a fundie quotefest. You can dig up Big Famous People who agree with you. I could, if I cared to, dig up Big Famous People who agree with me. The question is, what do the experts in the field think?
Look, I am willing to admit that I have had a hard time understanding your position in this thread, and there have been misunderstandings on both sides. Let me say this: until we resolve the issue of evidence, we’re going to get nowhere. I’m going to start a new thread on the issue of what constitutes appropriate evidence, and we can discuss that issue specifically.
-Ben
Excuse me? “Drowned the entire (then) known world”?
As we used to say back in the day, Back it up or back down, boy.
And let’s not forget- known to whom?
-Ben
Qute from one of the first & most well known Archeologists- Prof Leonard Wooley “it was a vast flood, (or series of floods) in the valley of the Tigris & Euphrates which drowned the whole of the habitable land between the Mountains and the desert; for the people who lived there it was indeed all the world”. Next- from Davis “Researchers working… have since found evidence of numerous floods at sites in modern Iraq, some of them showing eveidence of extensive destruction”. Again tho- this in no way shows that these floods were nessesarily the “Flood of the Bible”, nor do they show that Noah & his Ark existed- and they specifically state that there is absolutely NO record of any flood that covered the entire globe. So- at best- the Biblical writeres used some artistic hyperbole. At worst- they was a vague remeberance of a huge flood, and the Noah story was made up to explain it.
ben- you are right- I am offering just their opinion of Exodus- and that IS certainly 'argueing from authority". It is my opinion also, that if you discount the numbers as gematria- that the basic story holds up fine. Ie, that some of the early Jews, enslaved by the Egyptians, escaped and returned to their original homeland. The numbers, while not as large as cited in Exodus, must have been enuf to tip the balance of military power in Canaan/palestine/ Isreal. However, a mere couple of thousand warriors could have done that- so, a WAG might have an “exodus” of maybe 10,000. Now, do you have any evidence or arguements to the contary?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ben *
**
No, you or others have never quoted “real archeologists”. And Opus did not get the cite from “The Rise of ancient Isreal…”. Opus never saw, read or touched that essay.
What you have used as a ‘cite" is “infidels”, which misquotes, bends, and especially takes out of context some essays from "real archeologists’. Have you actually READ any of those essays in their original? I have, and “infidels” has very badly misused the scope, quotes and conclusions of the original authors. I do not accept 'infidels" as it is biased- AND it is not the “original” source you ask for. Those original sources are on the web- you can search for them, find them, read them- and then- use THAT as a cite to refute my secondary sources. If you do so, i will agree tht a primary source is better than a secondary source- as long as that primary source is not biased. (I am reluctant to use some of the isreali sources, that are published internaly for Isreali sources- as some have an axe to grind- I do not cite them, even tho they support my postion, as I am doubtful of their objectivity.)
But what you are doing is rejecting my unbaised secondary sources in favor of your own, highly & admittedly biased secondary sources. I hardly see that as an improvement. Either come up with unbaised secondary sources of your own, or better- primary sources.
I asumed that the ameratsu query was a rhetorical question. And, Shintoism is also a legitimate faith- but that does not make THEIR Holy works any more “inerrant” than mine- and like I said- mine are in no way inerrant. If they wish to beleive that Ameratsu is the ancestor of the Emperors- that is OK- as an article of Faith. But not of History. I beleive JC is the Son of G-d; but there is no historical evidence to back me up- just my faith. There is some small evidence that JC as a man really existed- but that in no way validates that He is the Messiah.
But Ben, you seem to only attack my arguements, over & over. But that is not a debate. A debate is where I state my position, you state your position- I back up mine, you back up yours. A debate is NOT where you simply pick nits about every word i post. So= what is YOUR position? Do you have one? So far, the only opinion you have espoused, other that I am wrong, is that the Exodus is “impossible”. And, if by that you mean that “the exact literal, take every number as a real actual number used in the modern mathematical sense”- then yes- you are right. Barring a great miracle, it is at least, highly unlkely. But if you mean- “Nope, didn’t happen, nothing like that, made up entirely, mythological”, then you are IMHO wrong. So, what DO you mean? What is YOUR postition?
For the edification of the general board population: When I posted my query about Japan’s sun goddess, the query was not rhetorical.