By Faith. Why?

[Redemptionsong]

Your argument is flawed. Yes, there are a people that it is based upon, but that has nothing to do with why large parts are known, not "dismissed" to be myth. We know that there were never only two people, we know that there was never a worldwide flood or even one that threatened humanity. We know that the Exodus story as told is not true. The list goes on and on. If you want to claim that the Bible is reliable you have a much heavier burden of proof then saying "Well there are still Jews in the world.".

The Bible has some history. That is not denied. It also has a lot of myth in it. That cannot be denied either.

Well, l disagree with your conclusions.

But let's try to get to the detail. I want to know why you dismiss the Exodus from Egypt, since this single event is so much a part of the story of the Jews. Let's not forget that every Passover, Jews sit together, read the Haggadah and remember their freedom from slavery in Egypt. Yet, you, Subduction Zone, seem to think it's okay to dismiss this story as a myth, and declare that it's not genuine history.

Then we can begin to consider the family of Jesse, the Bethlehemite. Was his son, David, not king of Judah and lsrael? And do Jews not have a prophecy that says that the seed of David will be Messiah?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, l disagree with your conclusions.

But let's try to get to the detail. I want to know why you dismiss the Exodus from Egypt, since this single event is so much a part of the story of the Jews. Let's not forget that every Passover, Jews sit together, read the Haggadah and remember their freedom from slavery in Egypt. Yet, you, Subduction Zone, seem to think it's okay to dismiss this story as a myth, and declare that it's not genuine history.

Then we can begin to consider the family of Jesse, the Bethlehemite. Was his son, David, not king of Judah and lsrael? And do Jews not have a prophecy that says that the seed of David will be Messiah?

The numbers are too large for one thing. By the numbers in the Bible there would have been on the order of two million people. There is no trace of this supposed Exodus and archaeologists can find evidence of much smaller groups. It is a case of a lack of evidence being against a claim.

And please do not use loaded language such as "dismissed". The reason that it is thought to be myth or a legend at best is because of the what the story predicts that we would find and that we do not find. Even Jewish historians tend to agree that it simply did not happen at all as told in the Bible. And if you read and understand the story you would see this as a good thing. As with myths from many ancient tribes they did not have a well developed sense of morality. God is on their side and therefore the evil and self contradictory acts of the god involved were ignored.

As to your demands that it is all true because parts of it are true is totally devoid of logic. Parts of the Vedas are true. Does that make all of them true? That sort of thinking can be applied to any mythic belief all around the world. We do not need to know exactly when it stopped being myth and started to become history. There probably is not a hard line. Have you ever seen Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter? Your "logic" amounts to saying: "We know that Abraham Lincoln was real so that movie must be true too." it simply does not work that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Israelites who sacrificed their children to Bel, which today is the god of convenience, were quickly rounded up by Assyria, and sold into slavery. The same will happen again, but to the nations/Gentiles, per Joel 3:5-8 at the time of the "day of the LORD", the day of judgment (Joel 2:31-32). And the Commandment of God is: "thou shall not kill". Take it or leave it.

Sorry, but that is likely just a myth in the Bible. And abortions are not "sacrifices" to Bel or any other deity. Is that the best that you can do? If so then Exodus 21 22, the pre-Roe V Wade translation refutes you. So does the Test of an Unfaithful Wife. You have Hebrew priests performing chemical abortions in that particular passage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, l disagree with your conclusions.

But let's try to get to the detail. I want to know why you dismiss the Exodus from Egypt, since this single event is so much a part of the story of the Jews. Let's not forget that every Passover, Jews sit together, read the Haggadah and remember their freedom from slavery in Egypt. Yet, you, Subduction Zone, seem to think it's okay to dismiss this story as a myth, and declare that it's not genuine history.

Then we can begin to consider the family of Jesse, the Bethlehemite. Was his son, David, not king of Judah and lsrael? And do Jews not have a prophecy that says that the seed of David will be Messiah?

I would suggest that if you want an answer you drop the loaded language. I do not "dismiss" it.

If you want a debate or a polite discussion then loaded language is a no no. Especially when you have been corrected on that multiple times.


But one of the reasons to deny it is you should ask yourself. Is God evil?

 

[Redemptionsong]

The numbers are too large for one thing. By the numbers in the Bible there would have been on the order of two million people. There is no trace of this supposed Exodus and archaeologists can find evidence of much smaller groups. It is a case of a lack of evidence being against a claim.

That's no longer true. Evidence of Mount Sinai existing in Arabia is now widely accepted, and even large numbers of slaves escaping from the Paraoh's rule is not going to be a matter of pride for the record keepers of Egypt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's no longer true. Evidence of Mount Sinai existing in Arabia is now widely accepted, and even large numbers of slaves escaping from the Paraoh's rule is not going to be matter of pride for the record keepers of Egypt.

Really? I seriously doubt it. There have been no such major finds that I am aware of . And please, please be careful when you find a source. Don't make me laugh when you do.

And here is a link to a Jewish source that explains why at best it is based upon legend:

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...dus-myth/0000017f-f246-da6f-a77f-fa4ef8220000

 

[Redemptionsong]

I would suggest that if you want an answer you drop the loaded language. I do not "dismiss" it.

If you want a debate or a polite discussion then loaded language is a no no. Especially when you have been corrected on that multiple times.


But one of the reasons to deny it is you should ask yourself. Is God evil?

It's very clear to me that you have dismissed the Exodus.

Here are your words:

Then you have not seriously and honestly studied the Bible. Genesis is mythical. Exodus appears to be so too. At the very least it is closer to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter than a history of Lincoln.

For someone to dismiss the documentary evidence of the Bible, recorded by the very people to which the history relates, indicates that you must have a better idea of lsrael's history.

Maybe you would like to improve on the history found in the Bible, and in Josephus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's very clear to me that you have dismissed the Exodus.

Here are your words:


For someone to dismiss the documentary evidence of the Bible, recorded by the very people to which the history relates, indicates that you must have a better idea of lsrael's history.

Maybe you would like to improve on the history found in the Bible, and in Josephus.

What "documentary evidence"? The Bible is not documentary. You do probably do not even know who wrote it when. You are making all sorts of claim that require immense amounts of evidence and I doubt if you can find any. I have looked into this. I am not dismissing anything. You seem to be dismissing the work of actual scholars that have studied it.

But please note, I have given you the benefit of the doubt. I have not made the "dismiss" claim when you are probably far more likely guilty of it than I am.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What "documentary evidence"? The Bible is not documentary. You do probably do not even know who wrote it when. You are making all sorts of claim that require immense amounts of evidence and I doubt if you can find any. I have looked into this. I am not dismissing anything. You seem to be dismissing the work of actual scholars that have studied it.

But please note, I have given you the benefit of the doubt. I have not made the "dismiss" claim when you are probably far more likely guilty of it than I am.

What do you mean, 'The Bible is not documentary'?!

The texts that make up the Hebrew canon of scripture provide scholars with 'documentary evidence'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean, 'The Bible is not documentary'?!

The texts that make up the Hebrew canon of scripture provide scholars with 'documentary evidence'.

No. Where did you get that idea from?

You really really need to study your Bible. Perhaps it would be easiest if you studied some of the simpler science first. Like in how we know that there never was a worldwide flood.

The Bible has been shown to be largely a book of myths. It appears that you are "dismissing" the works of actual scholars.

By the way, where is your evidence for the Exodus? Where is your evidence for Mt. Sinai?

 

[shunyadragon]

You say, 'The scientific method is a problem solving method that allows us to accumulate knowledge'. Well, at last, I can agree with you on something. This means that science is not deductive, because it 'accumulates knowledge' by problem solving.

Does it always solve the problems? Clearly not.

Aside from this, you're still not answering my question. There is no point in discussing 'myths' if you cannot first tell me what is real history. All I'm asking is that you tell me when the history of the nation of Israel becomes factual.

I question your question as to what is 'real history.' This is not the terminology used for academic history. Please define 'real history/'

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean, 'The Bible is not documentary'?!

The texts that make up the Hebrew canon of scripture provide scholars with 'documentary evidence'.

No the Bible does not provide scholars with 'documentary evidence.' Documentary evidence cannot be used to support a subjective or anecdotal judgement such as the existence of God or Revelation from God.

Documentary evidence - Wikipedia

Documentary evidence is any evidence that is, or can be, introduced at a trial in the form of documents, as distinguished from oral testimony. Documentary evidence is most widely understood to refer to writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), but the term can also apply to any media by which information can be preserved, such as photographs; a medium that needs a mechanical device to be viewed, such as a tape recording or film; and a printed form of digital evidence, such as emails or spreadsheets.

Normally, before documentary evidence is admissible as evidence, it must be proved by other evidence from a witness that the document is genuine, called "laying a foundation".

For example: Is the Bible documentary evidence that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Mo, because there is no evidence outside the Bible that Moses wrote anything much less ever even existed.

If the text author is unknown and it cannot be documented as original as claimed it does not represent documentary evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean, 'The Bible is not documentary'?!

The texts that make up the Hebrew canon of scripture provide scholars with 'documentary evidence'.

The Bible would not be considered documentary, because it would not meet the legal standard as documentary evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what?

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. And the alleged racist motives of Sanger are not well supported and even if true it is only a red herring.

Do you have a valid argument against abortion?

Despite the side issues I believe the Declaration of Independence can be considered a legal document, It's author(s) and origin can be documented beyond any reasonable doubt. The contents of the Bible on the other hand cannot be determined to documentary evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's very clear to me that you have dismissed the Exodus.

Exodus can be dismissed as documentary evidence, because the author is unknown, time written and history in Exodus is unknown and insufficient to meet the legal standard of documentary evidence.

Exodus may be considered an ancient literary work describing what the author(s?) believed to be an account of the Jews being led from exile to their homeland by Moses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Despite the side issues I believe the Declaration of Independence can be considered a legal document, It's author(s) and origin can be documented beyond any reasonable doubt. The contents of the Bible on the other hand cannot be determined to documentary evidence.

Yes and no. It is a legal document between the US and Great Britain. But as to setting up the rules that Americans follow it is at best a general guideline and has nothing in it that could be properly used by either side in the abortion debate.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No the Bible does not provide scholars with 'documentary evidence.' Documentary evidence cannot be used to support a subjective or anecdotal judgement such as the existence of God or Revelation from God.

Documentary evidence - Wikipedia

Documentary evidence is any evidence that is, or can be, introduced at a trial in the form of documents, as distinguished from oral testimony. Documentary evidence is most widely understood to refer to writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), but the term can also apply to any media by which information can be preserved, such as photographs; a medium that needs a mechanical device to be viewed, such as a tape recording or film; and a printed form of digital evidence, such as emails or spreadsheets.

Normally, before documentary evidence is admissible as evidence, it must be proved by other evidence from a witness that the document is genuine, called "laying a foundation".

For example: Is the Bible documentary evidence that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Mo, because there is no evidence outside the Bible that Moses wrote anything much less ever even existed.

If the text author is unknown and it cannot be documented as original as claimed it does not represent documentary evidence.

Documentary evidence refers to any evidence using written sources, and the Bible is most definitely documentary evidence, even if sceptical modern scholars have chosen to question the authorship of certain books. This questioning of the authorship comes thousands of years after the events, and makes it impossible to prove beyond doubt. However, religious tradition amongst the Jews is strong, and these traditions are supported by the history recorded in the Bible.

It is good to see that, at last, you are beginning to recognise that for history to be an accurate representation of events as they occurred, there must be witnesses to those events whose testimony can be trusted. This is not the realm of science, but the realm of humanities, where evidence of a different sort (eyewitness statements, for example) must be judged on their merits. It is much more like a court of law than a laboratory.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No. Where did you get that idea from?

You really really need to study your Bible. Perhaps it would be easiest if you studied some of the simpler science first. Like in how we know that there never was a worldwide flood.

The Bible has been shown to be largely a book of myths. It appears that you are "dismissing" the works of actual scholars.

By the way, where is your evidence for the Exodus? Where is your evidence for Mt. Sinai?

The Israelites journeyed from Egypt through northern Sinai seeking to cross over to Midian, to the land of Moses' father-in-law, Jethro. This is where Moses had set off from when called by God to free the Hebrew slaves.

The evidence in support of Midian being in Arabia is strong, because place names can be linked to the territory. Madyan, an Arabian town, is believed to be the original Midian. Other places in Arabia fit the descriptions recorded in the Exodus, including the rock, struck by Moses, from which water gushed forth in great quantities. There are also inscriptions and religious symbols that show evidence of the gathering of a large religious community in the desert around Jebel el Lawz.

You could do some research of your own to find out more. The Arabian authorities are aware of the interest in the area and have fenced off parts of the site.

 

[shunyadragon]

Documentary evidence refers to any evidence using written sources,

Not true documentary evidence is a specific legal definition that I cited in a post you have not responded.

and the Bible is most definitely documentary evidence, even if specific modern scholars have chosen to question the authorship of certain books. This questioning of the authorship comes thousands of years after the events, and makes it impossible to prove beyond doubt. However, religious tradition amongst the Jews is strong, and these traditions are supported by the history recorded in the Bible.

'Some?' most of the books are without known authors and do not have original provenance of the original composition, which negates them from consideration as 'documentary evidence' in a court of law.

It is good to see that, at last, you are beginning to recognize that for history to be an accurate representation of events as they occurred, there must be witnesses to those events whose testimony can be trusted. This is not the realm of science, but the realm of humanities, where evidence of a different sort (eyewitness statements, for example) must be judged on their merits. It is much more like a court of law than a laboratory.

The Bible is not an 'accurate' representation of the historical events. There is no evidence that those who compiled, edited and redacted the texts were witnesses to the events. There are no otiginal documents that date to the time they were claimed to have been written. There is evidence that those eho compiled, edited and redacted te books of the Bible used third hand evidence, earlier documents, oral testimony, and other sources to Create the text.

As defined in a previous post, the Bible cannot be used in in a court of law to support the the recorded events and religious claims as true. The courts of law require documentation of original authors, objective outside evidence as to the events described and provenance as to the time they were written. This is lacking in one way ot another in all the books of the Bible, Yes, 'some' events, people and places can be documented by outside 'documentary evidence' such as archaeology, but the Bible does not meet this criteria.

The Books of Genesis and Exodus are probably the worst documented books of the Bible, and based for the most part on mythology and
third hand creating of records of events with no documentation. In fact they are in conflict with known archaeology and geologic history.

By the way the historical records of Josephus concerning the life of Jesus are third hand told to him by later believers, and his historical records contain numerous errors. There are no complete original historical records writen by Josephus, Historians consider the references to Jesus tp be possible added or altered from the original text.

You continue to misuse basic English concerning what is objective, subjective, anecdotal and documentary evidence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not true documentary evidence is a specific legal definition that I cited in a post you have not responded.



'Some?' most of the books are without known authors and do not have original provenance of the original composition, which negates them from consideration as 'documentary evidence' in a court of law.



The Bible is not an 'accurate' representation of the historical events. There is no evidence that those who compiled, edited and redacted the texts were witnesses to the events. There are no otiginal documents that date to the time they were claimed to have been written. There is evidence that those eho compiled, edited and redacted te books of the Bible used third hand evidence, earlier documents, oral testimony, and other sources to Create the text.

As defined in a previous post, the Bible cannot be used in in a court of law to support the the recorded events and religious claims as true. The courts of law require documentation of original authors, objective outside evidence as to the events described and provenance as to the time they were written. This is lacking in one way ot another in all the books of the Bible, Yes, 'some' events, people and places can be documented by outside 'documentary evidence' such as archaeology, but the Bible does not meet this criteria.

The Books of Genesis and Exodus are probably the worst documented books of the Bible, and based for the most part on mythology and
third hand creating of records of events with no documentation. In fact they are in conflict with known archaeology and geologic history.

By the way the historical records of Josephus concerning the life of Jesus are third hand told to him by later believers, and his historical records contain numerous errors.

You continue to misuse basic English concerning what is objective, subjective, anecdotal and documentary evidence.

As l suspected, even an historian who went to great lengths to provide an accurate and reliable history of the Jews gets trashed by you!

So, according to your definition of 'documentary evidence' the Bible is without any reliable evidence. Despite all the chronicles kept of the kings of lsrael and Judah, it's all unreliable. Why? Because we don't have the DNA of the man who wrote it down!

What an absolute load of nonsense.

We would have no history of the ancient world based on the principles you apply. Archaeology on its own tells us very little. It's the 'documentary evidence' from written sources that supplies the detail and narrative.