• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Archeologly proves the Bible?

You listed some of the things Conservapedia said (which I haven't checked) but I noticed you didn't give any evidence to the contrary.

If you haven't checked the links, how do you know?

EDIT: And, in any case, the reason he didn't give a rebuttal is because Conservapedia isn't worthy of a rebuttal. It's a complete and utter waste of time; the entire thing is hopeless BS, and no amount of refutation of the facts will change that. Conservapedia doesn't want to tell the truth; it wants to be famous. It achieves this through hate-mongering, fear-invoking and general demagoguery.
 
Last edited:
I still have no response from either Kurious Kathy or DOC to my very specific points on:

1) The failure of archaeology or history to support the Exocdus and Conquest narratives...

History does support Moses being in Egypt, read Josephus and his claim Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war (which is information that is not in the Bible). And I would imagine 3000 years of hot desert temperatures and windy sand storms would have a way of destroying or covering any evidence of a group of people walking through a desert. And if what you say is true, the fact that evidence has not been found doesn't mean it isn't there. And I"ve already pointed out the building foundation found in Egypt that is similar to other foundations commonly used by the Israelites. I'll try to look into your other points as time permits. I am involved in other threads like the slavery thread and my 6000 posts Evidence thread in the History and Literature Forum - that along with my full time job and other activities.
 
Last edited:
If you haven't checked the links, how do you know?


The mission statement of Conservapedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About
Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike.
At the onset, they describe themselves as a biased source. One in which they actively suppress writings which go against the viewpoint of the owners.


Mission statement of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/) is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based mostly on anonymous contributions. The name "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative Web site) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information.

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by an international (and mostly anonymous) group of volunteers. Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles. There are no requirements to provide one's real name when contributing; rather, each writer's privacy is protected unless they choose to reveal their identity themselves. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference web sites, attracting around 65 million visitors monthly as of 2009. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 13,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. As of today, there are 3,041,055 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics.)
Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute. Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research). This means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.
They mention quite clearly that ANYONE can edit documents. This is mentioned multiple times.

Funny enough, even in the "about" file of Wikipedia, they provide cautionary information regarding the reliability of wikipedia and links to a very detailed article regarding the problems of wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great



So, which is more biased?
The Site which actively promotes one view point over others?
or
The Site which actively promotes everyone to join and make contributions, while simultaneously remaining completely transparent about the potential inherent problems with such a system?


Conservapedia is a joke.
 
If you haven't checked the links, how do you know?

EDIT: And, in any case, the reason he didn't give a rebuttal is because Conservapedia isn't worthy of a rebuttal. It's a complete and utter waste of time; the entire thing is hopeless BS, and no amount of refutation of the facts will change that. Conservapedia doesn't want to tell the truth; it wants to be famous. It achieves this through hate-mongering, fear-invoking and general demagoguery.

What links, all he gave were links to Conservapedia, he didn't give any refuting evidence.

And give some examples of their supposed hate mongering, fear invoking, and general demagoguery.
 
Last edited:
History does support Moses being in Egypt, read Josephus and his claim Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war (which is information that is not in the Bible).

It's also a claim that has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been verified. Josephus was speaking centuries later, and there's no more reason to think his account was correct than if someone today said that Moses owned a brothel.

And I would imagine 3000 years of hot desert temperatures would have a way of destroying or covering any evidence of a group of people walking through a desert.

You would imagine incorrectly, actually. Quite a number of archaeological sites are found in that area, often in an excellent state of preservation. And we're not talking about a handful of people, here; a moving settlement of thousands would leave some sort of imprint.

Once again, you show your ignorance of archaeology. You should really stop trying to discuss subjects you know nothing about.

And if what you say is true, the fact that evidence has not been found doesn't mean it isn't there.

OMG...You said something correct. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm floored--I think this might be a pivotal moment. Congratulations!

And I"ve already pointed out

You mean "claimed."

the building foundation found in Egypt that is similar to other foundations commonly used by the Israelites.

Well, yes, the two civilizations lived close to each other, and it makes sense that archaeological styles would be similar. This is not evidence of Exodus, this is evidence of close chronological and geographical proximity.
 
What links, all he gave were links to Conservapedia, he didn't give any refuting evidence.

Because quoting Conservapedia is like quoting Metapedia, or the Raelians (who have their own, uh, interesting take on the events in the Old Testament). The source is so bat-**** crazy it doesn't warrant anything more than laughter.

And give some examples of their supposed hate mongering, fear invoking, and general demagoguery.

Already been done.
 
The mission statement of Conservapedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About

At the onset, they describe themselves as a biased source. One in which they actively suppress writings which go against the viewpoint of the owners.

So they are biased because they say they don't allow liberal bias??

And where do they say they actively suppress writings. I just see them saying they are seeking the truth.

And I have yet to see anyone bring in any evidence that what they report is incorrect.
 
So they are biased because they say they don't allow liberal bias??
Active supression of a viewpoint (preceived liberal bias) is a bias. Yes.

And where do they say they actively suppress writings. I just see them saying they are seeking the truth.
when they said, "We do not allow liberal bias..."
That's an active suppression of viewpoints.

And I have yet to see anyone bring in any evidence that what they report is incorrect.
It was already.
The mind control of Obama is but one example.
 
You listed some of the things Conservapedia said (which I haven't checked) but I noticed you didn't give any evidence to the contrary of what they said.


Obama's claims that he is a Christian, Obama's consistent attendence to Christian churches and services, and comments by various Christian spiritural advisors contradict Conservapedia's claims that he is a Muslim.

Do you believe Obama is a Muslim or do you consider him a Christian?


ETA: And one comment regarding the anti-Semitic tendencies of Conservapedia, go to the link to the article on Asia I provided earlier. Read the list of Asian countries. Notice anything missing?
 
Last edited:
It's also a claim that has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been verified. Josephus was speaking centuries later, and there's no more reason to think his account was correct than if someone today said that Moses owned a brothel.



.

Besides Josephus was a Jew Writing about another Jew. We all know how those Jews will lie for each other.:rolleyes:

But wait!! Jesus was a Jew so...:eek:
 
ETA: And one comment regarding the anti-Semitic tendencies of Conservapedia, go to the link to the article on Asia I provided earlier. Read the list of Asian countries. Notice anything missing?
That's funny. They even list Palestine.
 
hi,DOC
History does support Moses being in Egypt, read Josephus and his claim Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war (which is information that is not in the Bible).

We've gone over this before, as DOC well knows.

And I would imagine 3000 years of hot desert temperatures and windy sand storms would have a way of destroying or covering any evidence of a group of people walking through a desert.

A group of people? How many people?
 
History does support Moses being in Egypt, read Josephus and his claim Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war (which is information that is not in the Bible). And I would imagine 3000 years of hot desert temperatures and windy sand storms would have a way of destroying or covering any evidence of a group of people walking through a desert. And if what you say is true, the fact that evidence has not been found doesn't mean it isn't there. And I"ve already pointed out the building foundation found in Egypt that is similar to other foundations commonly used by the Israelites. I'll try to look into your other points as time permits. I am involved in other threads like the slavery thread and my 6000 posts Evidence thread in the History and Literature Forum - that along with my full time job and other activities.

Josephus, as Cleon has already noted, was writing in the first century CE, over 1,000 years after the time the Exodus was supposed to have taken place. Though Josephus is a reliable source for events of his day, he used legend blended with history when dealing with more ancient events. One example of this is to be found in Wars of the Jews Book 7, chapter 7, item 4, in which he refers to the iron gates Alexander the Great had used to close off a pass in the Caucasus in order to keep the Sarmatians from invading th civilized lands. Alexander's Gate is part of a corpus of legends that grew up around the great conquerer. There is no historical or archaeological basis for this iron barrier, but Josephus treated it as historical and real.

Regarding Moses leading an Egyptian army against Ethiopia, in Antiquities of the Jews Book 2, chapter 10, item 2, Josephus tells how Tharbis, daugher of the king of Ethiopia, looking down from the wall at Moses leading the Egyptians beseiging her father's city, fell in love with him at first sight. She betrayed the city's secret entrance to him, and he married her. This story of a love-lorn princess betraying her father's city because she has fallen in love with the virile young king or general beseiging it has parallels in Greek and Roman mythology.

The idea that Moses had an Ethiopian wife came from a misreading of Numbers 12:1, in which Aaron and Miriam speak against Moses because he has a Cushite wife. Josephus, among others, assumed that "Cushite" refered to the biblical land of Cush, south of Egypt, and, by inference, Ethiopia. Hence, the legend inventing Tharbis as the Cushite (Ethiopan) wife of Moses. The refernece in Num. 12:1 to Moses' "Cushite" wife was something of a puzzle, since the only wife of Moses in the Bible is Zipporah, who ws a Midianite.

The puzzle is resolved by a verse found in one of the 12 minor prophets (Habakkuk 3:7):

I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction;
the curtains of Midian did tremble.

This couplet utilizes a convention of West Semitic poetry by which a person, nation, etc. is referred to twice, using a different name in the second reference. Perhaps the most famous use of this convention is to be found in Zecharaiah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on an ass,
on the colt the foal of an ass.

Since Zion is the Temple mount in Jerusalem, the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem are one and the same. Likewise, the ass and the colt, the foal of an ass are one and the same (though the author of Matthew, writing in Greek and not understanding the Semitic poetic convention, had jesus "fulfill" the prophecy in Zech. 9:9 by riding into jerusalem on Palm Sunday on two beasts at the same time).

If we understand Hab. 3:7 in terms of this poetic convention, it is clear that Cushan and Midian are two names for the same land. This explains Moses' "Cushite" wife in Num. 12:1 as a woman of Cushan rather than Cush. She is none other than Zipporah, the only wife the Bible mentions Moses
having.

Thus, Josephus' reference to Moses as a general in the Egyptian army beseiging the city of the Ethiopian king, and that king's daughter, Tharbis, falling in love with him, is nothing more than legendary elaboration on the biblical text, part typologocial myth, part textual misunderstanding. In any case, any "history' of Moses by Josephus would be nothing more than what Josephus had read in the Torah.

There is no history here.
 
Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/) is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based mostly on anonymous contributions. The name "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative Web site) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information.

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by an international (and mostly anonymous) group of volunteers. Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles. There are no requirements to provide one's real name when contributing; rather, each writer's privacy is protected unless they choose to reveal their identity themselves. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference web sites, attracting around 65 million visitors monthly as of 2009. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 13,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. As of today, there are 3,041,055 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics.)
Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute. Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research). This means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.
They mention quite clearly that ANYONE can edit documents. This is mentioned multiple times.

Funny enough, even in the "about" file of Wikipedia, they provide cautionary information regarding the reliability of wikipedia and links to a very detailed article regarding the problems of wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...s_not_so_great

I agree, and that's true even though I do have serious problems with Wikipedia's accuracy when it comes to some things. But those relate to extremely specific issues surrounding, say, psychopharmaceuticals, and they're often the same kinds of problems that a physical encyclopedia would have. Mostly, I just think that it's vital for people to keep in mind that Wikipedia really is not 100% reliable, just as plenty of types of media sources are not, and there are times when this just does not happen. But that's an entirely different issue from an overall bias, and there's no way around the fact that Conservapedia does have that.
 
I agree, and that's true even though I do have serious problems with Wikipedia's accuracy when it comes to some things. But those relate to extremely specific issues surrounding, say, psychopharmaceuticals, and they're often the same kinds of problems that a physical encyclopedia would have. Mostly, I just think that it's vital for people to keep in mind that Wikipedia really is not 100% reliable, just as plenty of types of media sources are not, and there are times when this just does not happen. But that's an entirely different issue from an overall bias, and there's no way around the fact that Conservapedia does have that.
I fully agree. Although, I've seen many Wiki articles on Thermodynamics to be superior to many text books. Text books often have many typos in equations that can make it difficult to follow. Students often refuse to accept the idea that a textbook can be(and often is) imperfect.
 
What links, all he gave were links to Conservapedia, he didn't give any refuting evidence.

And give some examples of their supposed hate mongering, fear invoking, and general demagoguery.

Have you ever actually read any of their articles?

Ever?

So they are biased because they say they don't allow liberal bias??

Yes. Refusing to allow one viewpoint to be spoken is bias.

And where do they say they actively suppress writings. I just see them saying they are seeking the truth.

Uh.

IN THEIR ABOUT SECTION. The one joobz posted.

And I have yet to see anyone bring in any evidence that what they report is incorrect.

Again. Have you ever actually read any of their articles? Ever?

I fully agree. Although, I've seen many Wiki articles on Thermodynamics to be superior to many text books. Text books often have many typos in equations that can make it difficult to follow. Students often refuse to accept the idea that a textbook can be(and often is) imperfect.

BLASPHEMER!
 
Josephus, as Cleon has already noted, was writing in the first century CE, over 1,000 years after the time the Exodus was supposed to have taken place.
(...)
There is no history here.

Frack! That was a really, really interesting reading, thanks!
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom