Was the Exodus natural or supernatural, fact or fiction?

[konradv]

Because you reject the biblical testimony for one thing. It doesn't count as evidence apparently. Also, if you knew more about the biblical account you would realize that the observation you just made in the above is of no import or at best misleading.

You can't use the Bible as proof of its own authenticity. I could ask you why you reject archaeological evidence. That's the evidence of real import.

Nonsense. Archeological evidence is not always available . . . and in many instances it's not even reliable in terms of testimony. It is well known that Egyptian pharaohs, for example, routinely revised the accounts of historical defeats or failures, or erased the records of banished/renegade nemeses. We also know that the Hebrew scribes of the 6th and 7th Century B.C. assumed extant names of towns for locations that were no longer known under their original names from oral tradition.

The matter is very complex, and once again, we do have plenty of textual and archeological evidence which strongly points to the historicity of the Exodus. But it is a puzzle. The absence of a universally conclusive archeological record is not a proof that the Exodus did not occur.

There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

But you seem to be completely discounting the archaeological evidence found in Palestine. It's not all negative evidence. Pottery is usually the most telling evidence of how people are related and it tells us that the Israelites and the Canaanites were the same. To debunk that theory, you either have to find differences in the pottery or find concentrations of Canaanite pottery in Egypt. You keep talking about archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus, but you have yet to mention anything specific.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You can't use the Bible as proof of its own authenticity. I could ask you why you reject archaeological evidence. That's the evidence of real import.

Nonsense. Archeological evidence is not always available . . . and in many instances it's not even reliable in terms of testimony. It is well known that Egyptian pharaohs, for example, routinely revised the accounts of historical defeats or failures, or erased the records of banished/renegade nemeses. We also know that the Hebrew scribes of the 6th and 7th Century B.C. assumed extant names of towns for locations that were no longer known under their original names from oral tradition.

The matter is very complex, and once again, we do have plenty of textual and archeological evidence which strongly points to the historicity of the Exodus. But it is a puzzle. The absence of a universally conclusive archeological record is not a proof that the Exodus did not occur.

There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

But you seem to be completely discounting the archaeological evidence found in Palestine. It's not all negative evidence. Pottery is usually the most telling evidence of how people are related and it tells us that the Israelites and the Canaanites were the same. To debunk that theory, you either have to find differences in the pottery or find concentrations of Canaanite pottery in Egypt. You keep talking about archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus, but you have yet to mention anything specific.

Not at all. I unmistakably wrote in the above that perhaps the Hyksos are of Jacob's line, not unrelated to that faction of Abraham's origin following out of Mesopotamia that may have remained behind in Cannon during the Egyptian sojourn. The matter is more complex than the naysayer fad of the last decade would have it, and there certainly is not any universal consensus among scholars and archeologists that the line of Jacob’s sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus are not historical.

I gave you a host of links. Why are saying I haven't given anything specific. This is mystifying.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[
There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

I see one good reason to discount it as a real and true story.

Because to believe it as written, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic along with a God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.

Regards
DL

So even if there were dramatically conclusive archeological evidence of the Israelis' wilderness sojourn, you wouldn't buy the story anyway in terms of divinity?

Very strange reasoning. If the God of Israel were real, one would expect miracles. But of course what does one say to the irrationality that rejects the proof of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of salvation and divinity? The resurrection, for example, is magic? The resurrection is the whole point!

As for this:

“God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.”


Ignore? I know the difference between “moral people” and the thoughtless accusers of God in a fallen world. The Israelis were commanded to obliterate these peoples, their cultures and their habitats. You think that’s evil. I say the Israelis failure to do so in many instances kept infecting their numbers and nearly led to their destruction more than once in the hands of resurgent evil. God was raising up a people out of whom He would bring the Savior of a world in the hands of Satan. You talk as if the ancient Hebrews sojourn was occurring today and not in the midst of the Bronze Age. But then you don’t believe in any of this in the first place.

 

[konradv]

Nonsense. Archeological evidence is not always available . . . and in many instances it's not even reliable in terms of testimony. It is well known that Egyptian pharaohs, for example, routinely revised the accounts of historical defeats or failures, or erased the records of banished/renegade nemeses. We also know that the Hebrew scribes of the 6th and 7th Century B.C. assumed extant names of towns for locations that were no longer known under their original names from oral tradition.

The matter is very complex, and once again, we do have plenty of textual and archeological evidence which strongly points to the historicity of the Exodus. But it is a puzzle. The absence of a universally conclusive archeological record is not a proof that the Exodus did not occur.

There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

But you seem to be completely discounting the archaeological evidence found in Palestine. It's not all negative evidence. Pottery is usually the most telling evidence of how people are related and it tells us that the Israelites and the Canaanites were the same. To debunk that theory, you either have to find differences in the pottery or find concentrations of Canaanite pottery in Egypt. You keep talking about archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus, but you have yet to mention anything specific.

Not at all. I unmistakably wrote in the above that perhaps the Hyksos are of Jacob's line, not unrelated to that faction of Abraham's origin following out of Mesopotamia that may have remained behind in Cannon during the Egyptian sojourn. The matter is more complex than the naysayer fad of the last decade would have it, and there certainly is not any universal consensus among scholars and archeologists that the line of Jacob’s sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus are not historical.

I gave you a host of links. Why are saying I haven't given anything specific. This is mystifying.

The Hyksos weren't slaves. They actually became one of the Egyptian dynasties. IMO, this is just a case of Biblical literalists trying to graft a legend onto real history.

Links aren't discussion. I've been kind enough to post my position, while you just piled on links. Tell us what they said and we'll discuss it. You don't even know when the Exodus supposedly happened, since you said we needed to study three different time periods. How does that bolster your case that it was a singular event as described in the Bible? That seems to support my case that the Israelites were just another Canaanite people with some going back and forth to Egypt from time to time with legends developing over the centuries.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But you seem to be completely discounting the archaeological evidence found in Palestine. It's not all negative evidence. Pottery is usually the most telling evidence of how people are related and it tells us that the Israelites and the Canaanites were the same. To debunk that theory, you either have to find differences in the pottery or find concentrations of Canaanite pottery in Egypt. You keep talking about archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus, but you have yet to mention anything specific.

Not at all. I unmistakably wrote in the above that perhaps the Hyksos are of Jacob's line, not unrelated to that faction of Abraham's origin following out of Mesopotamia that may have remained behind in Cannon during the Egyptian sojourn. The matter is more complex than the naysayer fad of the last decade would have it, and there certainly is not any universal consensus among scholars and archeologists that the line of Jacob’s sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus are not historical.

I gave you a host of links. Why are saying I haven't given anything specific. This is mystifying.

The Hyksos weren't slaves. They actually became one of the Egyptian dynasties. IMO, this is just a case of Biblical literalists trying to graft a legend onto real history.

Links aren't discussion. I've been kind enough to post my position, while you just piled on links. Tell us what they said and we'll discuss it. You don't even know when the Exodus supposedly happened, since you said we needed to study three different time periods. How does that bolster your case that it was a singular event as described in the Bible? That seems to support my case that the Israelites were just another Canaanite people with some going back and forth to Egypt from time to time with legends developing over the centuries.

Actually, I’m not talking about the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom proper, but the proverbial Hyksos of the post Hyksos era. After the indigenous and understandably xenophobic Egyptians expelled the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom, the term Hyksos apparently became a slur (“foreigner”) applied to the people of Jacob who had settled in Goshen. To avoid the confusion, let us just say the people of Jacob’s line. The links I gave save time. That’s all. I’ve been over that information before with others. You’re welcome to read them . . . or not. My position is set too. As for the time period, the naysayers would that the Egyptian sojourn necessarily occurred during the latter of the three periods, but that may not be the case. That’s all.

 

[konradv]

Not at all. I unmistakably wrote in the above that perhaps the Hyksos are of Jacob's line, not unrelated to that faction of Abraham's origin following out of Mesopotamia that may have remained behind in Cannon during the Egyptian sojourn. The matter is more complex than the naysayer fad of the last decade would have it, and there certainly is not any universal consensus among scholars and archeologists that the line of Jacob’s sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus are not historical.

I gave you a host of links. Why are saying I haven't given anything specific. This is mystifying.

The Hyksos weren't slaves. They actually became one of the Egyptian dynasties. IMO, this is just a case of Biblical literalists trying to graft a legend onto real history.

Links aren't discussion. I've been kind enough to post my position, while you just piled on links. Tell us what they said and we'll discuss it. You don't even know when the Exodus supposedly happened, since you said we needed to study three different time periods. How does that bolster your case that it was a singular event as described in the Bible? That seems to support my case that the Israelites were just another Canaanite people with some going back and forth to Egypt from time to time with legends developing over the centuries.

Actually, I’m not talking about the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom proper, but the proverbial Hyksos of the post Hyksos era. After the indigenous and understandably xenophobic Egyptians expelled the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom, the term Hyksos apparently became a slur (“foreigner”) applied to the people of Jacob who had settled in Goshen. To avoid the confusion, let us just say the people of Jacob’s line. The links I gave save time. That’s all. I’ve been over that information before with others. You’re welcome to read them . . . or not. My position is set too. As for the time period, the naysayers would that the Egyptian sojourn necessarily occurred during the latter of the three periods, but that may not be the case. That’s all.

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Hyksos weren't slaves. They actually became one of the Egyptian dynasties. IMO, this is just a case of Biblical literalists trying to graft a legend onto real history.

Links aren't discussion. I've been kind enough to post my position, while you just piled on links. Tell us what they said and we'll discuss it. You don't even know when the Exodus supposedly happened, since you said we needed to study three different time periods. How does that bolster your case that it was a singular event as described in the Bible? That seems to support my case that the Israelites were just another Canaanite people with some going back and forth to Egypt from time to time with legends developing over the centuries.

Actually, I’m not talking about the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom proper, but the proverbial Hyksos of the post Hyksos era. After the indigenous and understandably xenophobic Egyptians expelled the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom, the term Hyksos apparently became a slur (“foreigner”) applied to the people of Jacob who had settled in Goshen. To avoid the confusion, let us just say the people of Jacob’s line. The links I gave save time. That’s all. I’ve been over that information before with others. You’re welcome to read them . . . or not. My position is set too. As for the time period, the naysayers would that the Egyptian sojourn necessarily occurred during the latter of the three periods, but that may not be the case. That’s all.

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I can never understand some Christians' dogged determination to take the stories of the OT as literal factual events. The Jews by-and-large certainly don't do that. They acknowledge that there is some symbolic meaning involved. It's a Christian tendency to take the OT so literally.

There's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Hebrew Exodus is not historical. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence proves nothing. For decades it was thought by liberal scholars that Abraham and the land of Ur never existed, but behold, archeological discoveries of the 1930s proved otherwise.

Who ever said it was not historical? That still does not make it literal. The Iliad and The Odyssey are historical too, that doesn't make them literal depictions of historical events. They are, like the Bible, fables set in an historical context, and so there are some real events and people mixed into the fables. Despite them being significantly fable and legend, the Iliad and Odyssey were accepted as factual history for centuries. The King James version of the Bible contains references to unicorns, satyrs, and other mythical creatures, which is a common component of fable. Does that mean that unicorns existed?

Even history in and of itself cannot be taken as literal. Homer's works were intended to establish the greatness of the Greeks, just as OT scriptures were intended to establish the greatness of the Hebrew God. This makes them historical. It does not make them accurate or literal.

People have a tendency to believe that because somebody thousands of years ago took the time to write something down on papyrus, that it happened just as it was written.

 

[konradv]

Actually, I’m not talking about the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom proper, but the proverbial Hyksos of the post Hyksos era. After the indigenous and understandably xenophobic Egyptians expelled the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom, the term Hyksos apparently became a slur (“foreigner”) applied to the people of Jacob who had settled in Goshen. To avoid the confusion, let us just say the people of Jacob’s line. The links I gave save time. That’s all. I’ve been over that information before with others. You’re welcome to read them . . . or not. My position is set too. As for the time period, the naysayers would that the Egyptian sojourn necessarily occurred during the latter of the three periods, but that may not be the case. That’s all.

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

You have a book. What happened to the evidence? Are you saying God plays games with us?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can never understand some Christians' dogged determination to take the stories of the OT as literal factual events. The Jews by-and-large certainly don't do that. They acknowledge that there is some symbolic meaning involved. It's a Christian tendency to take the OT so literally.

There's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Hebrew Exodus is not historical. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence proves nothing. For decades it was thought by liberal scholars that Abraham and the land of Ur never existed, but behold, archeological discoveries of the 1930s proved otherwise.

Who ever said it was not historical? That still does not make it literal. The Iliad and The Odyssey are historical too, that doesn't make them literal depictions of historical events. They are, like the Bible, fables set in an historical context, and so there are some real events and people mixed into the fables. Despite them being significantly fable and legend, the Iliad and Odyssey were accepted as factual history for centuries. The King James version of the Bible contains references to unicorns, satyrs, and other mythical creatures, which is a common component of fable. Does that mean that unicorns existed?

Even history in and of itself cannot be taken as literal. Homer's works were intended to establish the greatness of the Greeks, just as OT scriptures were intended to establish the greatness of the Hebrew God. This makes them historical. It does not make them accurate or literal.

People have a tendency to believe that because somebody thousands of years ago took the time to write something down on papyrus, that it happened just as it was written.

LOL! So the translations of Hebrew terms in accordance with the legends that existed nowhere but in the minds of 15th-Century scholars are biblical? You don't really know what you're talking about here, do you?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

You have a book. What happened to the evidence? Are you saying God plays games with us?

That can easily be concluded if one takes the Bible literally. The behavior or the Universe wildly contradicts any literal interpretation of the Genesis story, but if one takes it as metaphor, then the order that things are given work just fine with a concept like the Big Bang.

I'm just fine with the idea of the scriptures being inspired or influenced by God, but to take them as literal requires a leap of faith that in some cases requires a complete disregard of reality.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

There's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Hebrew Exodus is not historical. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence proves nothing. For decades it was thought by liberal scholars that Abraham and the land of Ur never existed, but behold, archeological discoveries of the 1930s proved otherwise.

Who ever said it was not historical? That still does not make it literal. The Iliad and The Odyssey are historical too, that doesn't make them literal depictions of historical events. They are, like the Bible, fables set in an historical context, and so there are some real events and people mixed into the fables. Despite them being significantly fable and legend, the Iliad and Odyssey were accepted as factual history for centuries. The King James version of the Bible contains references to unicorns, satyrs, and other mythical creatures, which is a common component of fable. Does that mean that unicorns existed?

Even history in and of itself cannot be taken as literal. Homer's works were intended to establish the greatness of the Greeks, just as OT scriptures were intended to establish the greatness of the Hebrew God. This makes them historical. It does not make them accurate or literal.

People have a tendency to believe that because somebody thousands of years ago took the time to write something down on papyrus, that it happened just as it was written.

LOL! So the translations of Hebrew terms in accordance with the legends that existed nowhere but in the minds of 15th-Century scholars are biblical? You don't really know what you're talking about here, do you?

Sigh. I'm well aware that the King James translation introduced these creatures in contradiction of Hebrew. It also translated the Hebrew "sheol" as Hell, which is not the same thing. You're missing the point. Fable is fable. Christ himself spoke in parables, metaphors not to be taken literally. Is there a significant difference between a parable and a fable? They essentially serve the same purpose.

Jews and Christians alike interpret the OT as their affirmation of the oneness of God. After that, they differ wildly. Jews take a much more metaphorical and symbolic view of OT scriptures. Christians, particularly those of the fundamentalist ilk, tend to take a much more literal view. Some Talmudic traditions see the Book of Job, for example, as almost complete parable, a motif intended to make a point about superficial faith, and that Job either never existed or that it's not important either way.

Whatever value I gain from the scriptures has nothing to do with a literal belief in them as accurate depictions of events. Isn't timelessness the point of the scriptures? Why is proving them as a literal representation of history so important?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

You have a book. What happened to the evidence? Are you saying God plays games with us?

But we do have both textual and archeological evidence, just not the sort of definitive evidence of the Israelis' sojourn in Egypt required by science. We also know that Kenyon's determination of 1550 B.C. for Jericho, for example, is utterly wrong, based on a fallacious assumption, akin to the very same kind of assumptions made by Finkelstein. You just keep saying we don't have evidence based on the assessments of those who feed your bias as you disregard the assessments of archeologists and scholars who disagree with those assumptions. Once again, I have given you plenty of links demonstrating long-held counterviews in terms of theory and dating. You're making the same error as the naysayers of the 19th Century who scoffed at the existence of Ur and Abraham, only to be overturned by the Mesopotamian discoveries of the 1930s.

Here’s another link for you: https://www.biblearchaeology.org/po...the-evidence-disprove-or-prove-the-bible.aspx

The secular world trumpets the opinions of the naysayers as is their wont as they disregard the opinions of many others. I understand the world’s mentality, the mentality of their god, perfectly.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

You have a book. What happened to the evidence? Are you saying God plays games with us?

But we do have both textual and archeological evidence, just not the sort of definitive evidence of the Israelis' sojourn in Egypt required by science. We also know that Kenyon's determination of 1550 B.C. for Jericho, for example, is utterly wrong, based on a fallacious assumption, akin to the very same kind of assumptions made by Finkelstein. You just keep saying we don't have evidence based on the assessments of those who feed your bias as you disregard the assessments of archeologists and scholars who disagree with those assumptions. Once again, I have given you plenty of links demonstrating long-held counterviews in terms of theory and dating. You're making the same error as the naysayers of the 19th Century who scoffed at the existence of Ur and Abraham, only to be overturned by the Mesopotamian discoveries of the 1930s.

Here’s another link for you: https://www.biblearchaeology.org/po...the-evidence-disprove-or-prove-the-bible.aspx

The secular world trumpets the opinions of the naysayers as is their wont as they disregard the opinions of many others. I understand the world’s mentality, the mentality of their god, perfectly.

Part of the reason for the scorn of the secular world is due to fallacious assumptions made by fundamentalists obsessed with literal interpretations of the Bible. It's a vicious cycle that is easy to avoid. Stop being so literal about the Bible.

I see people all the time claim faith in the scriptures and that is all they need, yet spend so much energy trying to prove the historicity of the Bible. It's kind of like a person saying they are secure in their masculinity but have to constantly prove it to everyone around them.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Actually, I’m not talking about the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom proper, but the proverbial Hyksos of the post Hyksos era. After the indigenous and understandably xenophobic Egyptians expelled the Hyksos of the Middle Kingdom, the term Hyksos apparently became a slur (“foreigner”) applied to the people of Jacob who had settled in Goshen. To avoid the confusion, let us just say the people of Jacob’s line. The links I gave save time. That’s all. I’ve been over that information before with others. You’re welcome to read them . . . or not. My position is set too. As for the time period, the naysayers would that the Egyptian sojourn necessarily occurred during the latter of the three periods, but that may not be the case. That’s all.

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

No, you have a bunch a very supersticious men, who wrote a book trying to prove god's existance and offering fables to prove his greatness.

If you want to believe the fables, then that's your right. But don't offer the bible as any kind of proof of your prefered diety's existance.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Who ever said it was not historical? That still does not make it literal. The Iliad and The Odyssey are historical too, that doesn't make them literal depictions of historical events. They are, like the Bible, fables set in an historical context, and so there are some real events and people mixed into the fables. Despite them being significantly fable and legend, the Iliad and Odyssey were accepted as factual history for centuries. The King James version of the Bible contains references to unicorns, satyrs, and other mythical creatures, which is a common component of fable. Does that mean that unicorns existed?

Even history in and of itself cannot be taken as literal. Homer's works were intended to establish the greatness of the Greeks, just as OT scriptures were intended to establish the greatness of the Hebrew God. This makes them historical. It does not make them accurate or literal.

People have a tendency to believe that because somebody thousands of years ago took the time to write something down on papyrus, that it happened just as it was written.

LOL! So the translations of Hebrew terms in accordance with the legends that existed nowhere but in the minds of 15th-Century scholars are biblical? You don't really know what you're talking about here, do you?

Sigh. I'm well aware that the King James translation introduced these creatures in contradiction of Hebrew. It also translated the Hebrew "sheol" as Hell, which is not the same thing. You're missing the point. Fable is fable. Christ himself spoke in parables, metaphors not to be taken literally. Is there a significant difference between a parable and a fable? They essentially serve the same purpose.

Jews and Christians alike interpret the OT as their affirmation of the oneness of God. After that, they differ wildly. Jews take a much more metaphorical and symbolic view of OT scriptures. Christians, particularly those of the fundamentalist ilk, tend to take a much more literal view. Some Talmudic traditions see the Book of Job, for example, as almost complete parable, a motif intended to make a point about superficial faith, and that Job either never existed or that it's not important either way.

Whatever value I gain from the scriptures has nothing to do with a literal belief in them as accurate depictions of events. Isn't timelessness the point of the scriptures? Why is proving them as a literal representation of history so important?

Forgive me. I misunderstood you on that score. The larger point, however, is not lost on me at all. I have made the same *sigh* numerous times in the face of fundamentalism's pre-scientific hermeneutics. Job may or may not be an historical event. True. Certainly it is didactically theological and philosophical in nature. Moreover, in my opinion, a number of other stories are both metaphoric and historical, that is to say, they contain both elements expressed in a narrative fashion. I suspect that is precisely how they were understood by the ancients as well.

On the hand, I believe that the Creational Hymn is both a theological and an historical assertion, though, with regard to sense of the latter, it cannot be properly understood in terms of the fundamentalist's hermeneutics, i.e., in terms of the ancients' cosmology. God leaves scientific discovery to us, albeit, as guided by the parameters of this word. And the Bible does not allow for a mere metaphoric interpretation of the Exodus. It's clearly intended to be understood as an historical event. The Talmud certainly holds it to be an historical event. There‘s no mistaking the fact that Christ spoke of it in the terms of an historical event, not metaphor. Moreover, I believe there is plenty of evidence supporting its historicity. I'm not impressed by Finkelstein, Kenyon et al.'s presuppositions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem is that your theory is all conjecture with no solid proof for any of it, unlike pottery evidence and lack of signs of destruction in Canaanite towns and cities.

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

No, you have a bunch a very supersticious men, who wrote a book trying to prove god's existance and offering fables to prove his greatness.

If you want to believe the fables, then that's your right. But don't offer the bible as any kind of proof of your prefered diety's existance.

I'll invoke the Word of God as commanded by Christ, for “t is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Dismiss it and go on with your fables and ignorance at you're own peril.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

LOL! So the translations of Hebrew terms in accordance with the legends that existed nowhere but in the minds of 15th-Century scholars are biblical? You don't really know what you're talking about here, do you?

Sigh. I'm well aware that the King James translation introduced these creatures in contradiction of Hebrew. It also translated the Hebrew "sheol" as Hell, which is not the same thing. You're missing the point. Fable is fable. Christ himself spoke in parables, metaphors not to be taken literally. Is there a significant difference between a parable and a fable? They essentially serve the same purpose.

Jews and Christians alike interpret the OT as their affirmation of the oneness of God. After that, they differ wildly. Jews take a much more metaphorical and symbolic view of OT scriptures. Christians, particularly those of the fundamentalist ilk, tend to take a much more literal view. Some Talmudic traditions see the Book of Job, for example, as almost complete parable, a motif intended to make a point about superficial faith, and that Job either never existed or that it's not important either way.

Whatever value I gain from the scriptures has nothing to do with a literal belief in them as accurate depictions of events. Isn't timelessness the point of the scriptures? Why is proving them as a literal representation of history so important?

Forgive me. I misunderstood you on that score. The larger point, however, is not lost on me at all. I have made the same *sigh* numerous times in the face of fundamentalism's pre-scientific hermeneutics. Job may or may not be an historical event. True. Certainly it is didactically theological and philosophical in nature. Moreover, in my opinion, a number of other stories are both metaphoric and historical, that is to say, they contain both elements expressed in a narrative fashion. I suspect that is precisely how they were understood by the ancients as well.

On the hand, I believe that the Creational Hymn is both a theological and an historical assertion, though, with regard to sense of the latter, it cannot be properly understood in terms of the fundamentalist's hermeneutics, i.e., in terms of the ancients' cosmology. God leaves scientific discovery to us, albeit, as guided by the parameters of this word. And the Bible does not allow for a mere metaphoric interpretation of the Exodus. It’' clearly intended to be understood as an historical event. The Talmud certainly holds it to be an historical event. There‘s no mistaking the fact that Christ spoke of it in the terms of an historical event, not metaphor. Moreover, I believe there is plenty of evidence supporting its historicity. I'm not impressed by Finkelstein, Kenyon et al.'s presuppositions.

Fair enough. I'm not here to advocate Finkelstein or Kenyon. I never brought them up in this thread. Others did that. I do not believe remotely that the Genesis is a literal narrative or even close to it. As a metaphorical one I think it has merit.

Be that as it may, I do not ridicule people for their faith. If you recognize that at least, then that's good enough for me.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Nonsense. We have God's testimony. That's all I need.

No, you have a bunch a very supersticious men, who wrote a book trying to prove god's existance and offering fables to prove his greatness.

If you want to believe the fables, then that's your right. But don't offer the bible as any kind of proof of your prefered diety's existance.

I'll invoke the Word of God as commanded by Christ, for “t is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Dismiss it and go on with your fables and ignorance at you're own peril.

Ah, belief out of fear, the ultimate trump card for christianists.

 

[uscitizen]

It was fact!
Charlton Heston did lead the children of Israel out of Egypt.