The Exodus Myth

[MG1962]

None of those actually answer that question, though. So please spare your fantasies about how actually asking a relevant question is just trolling and flinging poop. And actually address the question. Or don't.

Maybe you should direct that to the poster I was talking to. So far all we have been given is a mountain of assumptions about me, and very little argument to back that assumption up

Plus, it seems to me like if any of those actually answered his actual question, you COULD just copy and paste the part which does, instead of requesting that he puts in the disproportionately higher effort to see if any particular paragraph from any of those links actually answers the question at all, much less in a way that holds any water.

Perhaps then you should address that statement to the poster I was responding to. if you think highlighting the words "Cyrus the great" Is enough information for me to know what exactly it is about Cyrus the great he disagrees with, then you are clearly a better person at mind reading than I am.

Again, you don't get to be right by just hinting that the answer is somewhere out there.

How more explicit about Exodus do I need to get. It was written 700 years later to justify an event that was going on at the time. How many other ways can I say that?

Which is getting to be a deja vu issue about your posts. Lots of just claiming some explanation or reason exists, bugger all when it comes to even stating what that is, much less actually supporting the claim.

Then stop responding........simple

 

[Giordano]

There is a plain statement at Tacitus, Annals, XV, 44. This need not be accepted as independent or accurate evidence, but it IS extra-biblical evidence, in the sense that Tacitus is used as a source of information when he discusses other matters.

I mentioned that I rather not discuss if a person named Jesus existed at that time and place; I haven't formed an opinion and this has been discussed already. But do you know of any extra- biblical evidence for any of the miraculous things attributed to him?

 

[Craig B]

I mentioned that I rather not discuss if a person named Jesus existed at that time and place; I haven't formed an opinion and this has been discussed already. But do you know of any extra- biblical evidence for any of the miraculous things attributed to him?

No. I was simply noting the existence of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion. Whether it is convincing evidence is another matter. If we say, there is no evidence, but a Christian can point to evidence, then our argument is unnecessarily weakened.

 

[MG1962]

That is exactly what I just posted earlier today- evidence that the New Testament can not be correct. Evidence that Jesus, if he existed, could not have done what the Bible and his followers believe. You never replied. What was wrong with my evidence? Or are you claiming that the New Testsment was wrong and Jesus was a normal person?

Why would I respond. You are trying to turn this into a general discussion about Christ what he was/wasn't. What he could have done/didn't do. All I have to do to rebut the initial statement that started this de-rail is show something at least that was possible to have happened to Christ and I am in front of any claims of truth about Exodus.

 

[Giordano]

I find it odd that people can be so atheistic about other religions, yet find such obviously illogical reasons to believe their own. Their religion is the true one because (name a reason that is either actually shared with other religions, or is incredibly trivial). Is it just coincidence that the vast majority of believers believe what their parents believed? What luck to be born into the "right" religion verses all those deluded people born into the wrong ones..

 

[Leumas]

Or are we going to beg of that we are a little busy and can not offer a detailed reply, which is your usual MO when ever the discussion gets beyond you?

I thought about this a bit more and came to the conclusion that it is a slander that needs more of a response than I was at first inclined to give it.

I am not responding in fact because of the implied slander but rather because it proves your amazing level of faulty unreasoning.

I want you to show me where and how many times I have in fact "beg of that we are a little busy and cannot offer a detailed reply"

Now I am sure your irrationality might enable you to make a one occurrence of something into a "usual MO", but in the realm of normal rational thinking it does not.

To reply to the implied accusation that I am lying and that I am not busy but rather not able to respond might require me to use more rude language than just to call you a faulty thinker.

But, son, I want to point out something you may not know or even understand. In adult life things do require our attention and we have to prioritize our precious time and allot more time to more important things and less time to less important things.

Although you might think that you’re the most important thing on earth, I do not. So son, you are not high on my priority list and my other obligations do take precedence over trying to respond to your illogical posts.


And judging by your post here you are a worthless case so carry on.

 

[Giordano]

Why would I respond. You are trying to turn this into a general discussion about Christ what he was/wasn't. What he could have done/didn't do. All I have to do to rebut the initial statement that started this de-rail is show something at least that was possible to have happened to Christ and I am in front of any claims of truth about Exodus.

I don't believe in Exodus either, but you brought in Christ as a contrast. I explained why the two stories are not truly different. But this is probably a derail. If you wish to advocate the New Testament, then maybe we should find another thread.

 

[MG1962]

But what you ignored about the cylinder stuff is that it is PROPAGANDA which is why I cited it, to prove that Cyrus was a guy who knew very well what propaganda is and what it does.

And that changes what exactly about any statement I have made about Cyrus The Great.

The fact that the Biblical PROPAGANDA is of a very similar kind does not prove that the biblical story is true.......it proves that the same guy wrote a similar propaganda in a different place to bamboozle a different people just like the cylinder did for the Babylonians.

No because we know for an historical fact he did some of the things he claimed he would on the cylinder. The reorganization of his empire is well documented

However, the cite you give does of course the standard thing when it comes to Biblical nonsense. It assumes that the Bible is truth waiting for confirmation from archaeological evidence and any SHRED of evidence that might mention something related to the Bible then it is assumed that it verifies the Bible.

So let me get this right. I use a non Biblical source to show the Bible is wrong, and you still claim I am claiming this source is verifying the Bible

Why could it not be that the Bible is a good FICTION and like good fictions uses common knowledge and surroundings to build up the props for the tall tales? Does Harry Potter living in London and travelling via Kings Cross prove Hogwarts or that he was really a wizard?

Because Exodus did not use real props

Why should finding a stele with the word BTDWD on it prove that David existed when the same stele has on it that Chomech defeated YHWH.

And you make this point why exactly

Why can't BTDWD be a name of a village like BTEL or BTLKHM etc.? But of course due to Biblical mind numbing it becomes a cherished "proof" for King David since that is how he is mentioned in the bible.

So where have I mentioned King David?

So even archaeology used to be studied and still is by Biblical "scholars" in the same way they study the Bible.... CIRCULAR REASONING.

So then clearly yo did not look at the links I supplied. None of them came from anyone remotely linked to being Biblical scholars, except the book reference to the sources of Exodus. Which clearly talked about the origins of Exodus being 100s of years later than the events it described

 

[MG1962]

I don't believe in Exodus either, but you brought in Christ as a contrast. I explained why the two stories are not truly different. But this is probably a derail. If you wish to advocate the New Testament, then maybe we should find another thread.

I did not bring up Christ, another poster made the statement their is as little evidence for events in the New Testament as there is for Exodus. I merely pointed out Christ was well and truly in the right place to have been crucified. Everything after that is petty much everyone trying to advance their own cause...just for something to do.

 

[Giordano]

Because Exodus did not use real props

None? There was no Egypt or Sinai desert? I have learned so much here.

 

[Giordano]

I did not bring up Christ, another poster made the statement their is as little evidence for events in the New Testament as there is for Exodus. I merely pointed out Christ was well and truly in the right place to have been crucified. Everything after that is petty much everyone trying to advance their own cause...just for something to do.

So were the people in Exodus in the right time and place; there just isn't any evidence that they were captured by Egypt and enslaved. Jesus in the New Testament was also in the right time and place; there just isn't any evidence that he was the son of god, and little evidence that he was crucified. But he could have been. As the Jews could have been. Just very unlikely for either.

 

[Craig B]

So were the people in Exodus in the right time and place; there just isn't any evidence that they were captured by Egypt and enslaved. Jesus in the New Testament was also in the right time and place; there just isn't any evidence that he was the son of god, and little evidence that he was crucified. But he could have been. As the Jews could have been. Just very unlikely for either.

The question indeed hinges on evidence. There is no evidence for the Exodus on the ground, and if it happened there ought to be. There is recent evidence on the ground for a local Canaanite origin for the Israelites.

 

[ddt]

An absence of evidence is not evidence itself.

The difference is we have contradictory hard evidence that under no circumstances could the Exodus have gone down the way it was written. On the other hand there are a number of sources of widespread crucifictions in Judea. Even being nailed to cross appears to be far less unique than people originally thought at time of Christ.

According to Josephus, Varus quelled an uprising after Herod the Great's death and crucified 2,000 rebels. After Spartacus' uprising was quelled, the Via Appia was lined with the remnants of his army. Did anyone at the time think crucifixion was "unique"?

I agree with you: the crucifixion claim is very mundane and far from extraordinary, unlike the Exodus claim. If - IF - a Historical Jesus existed, the claim that he was crucified is one of the few aspects that scholars agree on.

ETA: But Jesus' birth story is quite another matter. We have two conflicting stories - Mattie and Luke - that are spaced 10+ years apart. And they're both full of it.

 

[ddt]

The question indeed hinges on evidence. There is no evidence for the Exodus on IN the ground, and if it happened there ought to be. There is recent evidence on IN the ground for a local Canaanite origin for the Israelites.

FTFY. Lest people come to think you're discussing recent settlements instead of archaeological evidence.

 

[Giordano]

If the argument is that crucifixion of Jesus was a plausible act, so was Moses waking up a hill. Neither is unbelievable on its own. But unbelievable acts were attributed to each in each of their bible stories. And neither story has any evidence in favor of the core of what they represent to their religions. So I can accept that Moses existed, and walked, and even that he wandered the Sinai desert, but I don't believe that he led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt by parting the Red Sea. In fact, I don't believe that he even existed, but I am willing to easily change my mind on that. But it would be a lot harder to convince me the Red Sea was parted by God.

 

[Leumas]

But more later.

I am working on a nice post as quickly as time and life allow.... but in the meantime this video has a lot of points that have relevence to my coming post.... please watch it... many interesting points.... I think you will recognize them when you see them.

 

[Rincewind]

Just on a personal note - this is one of the finest threads I have visited.

It has, for a 50+ year old man, opened my eyes again and given me arms, which I often never had, helping me understand, and now back-up, my very early (when about 5 years old) religious misgivings (about the bible both OT and NT), strongly condemned both at home and school when I dared to espouse them.

Both the OT and NT and the continuations based on them i.e. Islam, Mormonism - were/are/will be based on bollocks.

Thank you to the gorilla guy, and the OP opener too, and all others who have clarified things, and also thanks to those who have tried to continue to muddy the waters allowing even more clarity to shine through...

This is good JREF stuff.

Thank you - I didn't realise that it would stir up so much excellent stuff!

 

[Rincewind]

Primarily because of the utter lack of physical and historical evidence.

The only source of information you use for the "exodus" is the inconsistently-edited, heavily redacted, sectarially-canonized collection of myths from at least four different sources, into at least two different traditions, in language(s) you cannot read and do not accurately interpret.

It seems you still have not figured out the problem with circular reasoning.

Indeed!

So - Paul, when are you going to provide the evidence to back up your claim that the Exodus actually happened?

When are you going to crush these impudent challenges?

Soon?

 

[Craig B]

FTFY. Lest people come to think you're discussing recent settlements instead of archaeological evidence.

Thank you.

 

[Craig B]

In fact, I don't believe that (Moses) even existed, but I am willing to easily change my mind on that. But it would be a lot harder to convince me the Red Sea was parted by God.

You may not need to be convinced of the latter event. The expression in the Book of Exodus is Yam Suph which seems to mean "Sea of Reeds", not "Red Sea". Modern translations reflect this understanding.

Exodus 15:4 KJV: "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea."
NJPS: "Pharaoh's chariots and his army he has cast into the sea: and the pick of his officers are drowned in the Sea of Reeds."

Where or what the Sea of Reeds may have been is a matter of vigorous contention. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph