From Belief to Doubt, and Beyond

[POI]

In a prior posting, I attempted to challenge 'minimal facts' Christians here --> (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40714&start=20). As with many topics, it went virtually nowhere, in regard to Christian interaction. I guess my hypothesis, in that thread, remains unchallenged. These types of Christians only wish to argue unfalsifiable stuff to protect their beloved belief(s). Thus. let's instead try another approach....

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

[1213]

...But you abort as soon as your blank assertions are challenged. Please harken back to the topic you abandoned here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40622&start=40), posts 39 and 42, to be specific.... If you really cared about truth, then why avoid exploring the Exodus claim?

Sorry, I think I have said enough in that topic already. And I don't think I can explore it more than I have already done, without time machine. It is an issue that remains a matter of belief. If you don't believe it, then so be it. I believe it happened, because I think we have enough evidence for it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But you abort as soon as your blank assertions are challenged. Please harken back to the topic you abandoned here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40622&start=40), posts 39 and 42, to be specific.... If you really cared about truth, then why avoid exploring the Exodus claim?

Sorry, I think I have said enough in that topic already. And I don't think I can explore it more than I have already done, without time machine. It is an issue that remains a matter of belief. If you don't believe it, then so be it. I believe it happened, because I think we have enough evidence for it.

Well, no. And it comes down to believe - or not vs, the evidence and reason. Sure Exodus really originally had miracle problems and we know so because some apologists tried to make the miracles natural events like wading through tidal shallows being turned into a miracle. Yes, that was always shabby apologetics (the 'Local Flood' being one of the worst) but the Fact of the Hebrews as some Demographic entity was always considered true even by me. Until trying to fit it into Egyptian history looked problematical. Archaeology has not supported the story (1), and more and more study makes it look like a later story written (as part of an origin - story, like Genesis) any time from early kingship to Exile - which i favour because of the borrowings from Babylonian stories, even with Moses in the bulrushes borrowed from the life of Sargon.

So the Exodus doesn't fail as badly as the Flood, which doesn't fail as badly as the creation - which doesn't stop the apologist denying everything - even that the sun was made before life appeared on the earth. Because of what an old book full of tall stories claims. Really, isn't it time to get real?

But no, the problem is admit one thing is wrong, admit it's all wrong. Of course that isn't true as Christian evolutionists, cherry -pickers and even 'Agnostics' will tell you, but the Bible literalist Believer fears admitting even the most glaring errors to be errors.

(1) the whole Jebl Laws Moses site of Wyatt and his followers being based - I'd say - on 'It's ok to lie, as it's true by Faith, and the public will never bother to check'. Because the cropping of the Bull altar shows deliberate deception, not self -deception.

[POI]

...But you abort as soon as your blank assertions are challenged. Please harken back to the topic you abandoned here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40622&start=40), posts 39 and 42, to be specific.... If you really cared about truth, then why avoid exploring the Exodus claim?

Sorry, I think I have said enough in that topic already.

Stating you believe it because the Bible says so, and also telling your interlocutor to read a particular book (with no follow up), is "enough time" to spend on evaluating the Exodus account?

And I don't think I can explore it more than I have already done, without time machine.

Why do you need a time machine?

I believe it happened, because I think we have enough evidence for it.

So far, I've received:

a) because the Bible says so
b) a book reference, with no follow up from you.

[1213]

Stating you believe it because the Bible says so, and also telling your interlocutor to read a particular book (with no follow up), is "enough time" to spend on evaluating the Exodus account?

I recommend the book for everyone who is really interested about the evidence. Reason why I do so is that it is written better than what I could write and also because it is not easy to fit all the information in this format.

Why do you need a time machine?

Because it would be the only way to actually see what really happened. Most of the traces of ancient events have been vanished. Even if the exodus happened as told in the Bible, it would not be possible to find much evidence for it anymore.

[1213]

...
But no, the problem is admit one thing is wrong, admit it's all wrong. ...

The problem is in, why admit something is wrong, if you can't prove it?

[POI]

Stating you believe it because the Bible says so, and also telling your interlocutor to read a particular book (with no follow up), is "enough time" to spend on evaluating the Exodus account?

I recommend the book for everyone who is really interested about the evidence.

I recommend, again, that you watch the video. You are asking others to read a book, but will not at least respond to the video? Did you at least watch it? It's way shorter than reading a book. I'll give you a starting point... The Exodus involved 3-15 million Israelites, over the course of a long period of time. And yet, no archeological findings? Nor does Egyptian history speak of them?

The reason, again, I raise the Exodus, is because it should leave behind mounds of findings.

Because it would be the only way to actually see what really happened. Most of the traces of ancient events have been vanished. Even if the exodus happened as told in the Bible, it would not be possible to find much evidence for it anymore.

Even if 95% of all the evidence vanished, we would still have a ton. The climate there is such, where things are better preserved. Check out Egyptian history and archeological findings (of the exact same time frame), for example.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
But no, the problem is admit one thing is wrong, admit it's all wrong. ...

The problem is in, why admit something is wrong, if you can't prove it?

The problem is what is considered 'proof'? I'd say that Genesis saying that daylight appeared before the sun was made is just wrong (and the cloud - cover apologetic fails'. But while this is evaded and denied, the apologist can still claim it isn't Proven. All the time they refuse to admit it. (I think that wasn't yours, but the empty tomb problem which is just as bad, may be), but I am talking generically, not personally.

But even the idea of proof is not valid. Not just because nothing could be proved by forensic examination of a crime science as science is invalid is nobody saw it happen, but is seems to demand 100% proof or visual observation of the even occurring, even though apologetics also says that human perception is unreliable (when it comes to Bible discrepancies) and is just wrong, when it comes to anything that is a dogmatic shibbioleth of the religion, like evolution, of course.

No the logical way it works is not 100% validated fact set in Dogmatic KJV blank verse, but the better hypothesis about any particular problem, claim or question. Aside that the Bible Dogmatist can refuse to admit what it pretty clear to anyone with an open mind - Daylight before the sun is wrong.

And here I say how you personally have it wrong: if your basic idea of how the logic of hypotheses works is wrong (and the Bible doesn't even approach a decent hypothesis) you are in no position to pronounce on 'proof' as you evidently do not understand how that works.

[1213]

...I'd say that Genesis saying that daylight appeared before the sun was made is just wrong (and the cloud - cover apologetic fails'. But while this is evaded and denied, the apologist can still claim it isn't Proven. All the time they refuse to admit it. ...

Why should I admit anything that has not intelligent and otherwise good argument to support it?

[1213]

The reason, again, I raise the Exodus, is because it should leave behind mounds of findings.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to assume so. I think it is more probable that everything valuable they kept with them and everything non valuable, if left behind has long time ago eroded away.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I'd say that Genesis saying that daylight appeared before the sun was made is just wrong (and the cloud - cover apologetic fails'. But while this is evaded and denied, the apologist can still claim it isn't Proven. All the time they refuse to admit it. ...

Why should I admit anything that has not intelligent and otherwise good argument to support it?

After I have put numerous good arguments that you have only been able to answer with dismissal and denial, that is not a very respectful post. I'm not bothered. It is par for the apologetics course. We are used to Christian and Bible apologists rolling up blaring that evidence and logic are on their side, then when it turns out it isn't the deny science, deny logic, deny even the bible and what it says. Never mention, trying to make us go an rewad books and watch videos that will say it better rather than making the case here.

It's all good, as I have said as it makes the religious apologetics case look bad, with all the denial, evasion and disrespect.

The reason, again, I raise the Exodus, is because it should leave behind mounds of findings.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to assume so. I think it is more probable that everything valuable they kept with them and everything non valuable, if left behind has long time ago eroded away.

I think there is a bit of a case there as archaeology deals with settlerd occupation layers, not migrations. Consider the Mongol invasions as far as Europe, and I can't think of anything that has been found to show it other than the records of those who were on the end of it.

So yes there could be a case for an Exodus not leaving any trace.The better case is that Egypt pretty much during the whole new kingdom (1)controlled Sinai and Canaan. The hebrews could not have got away from them.

The one time an Exodus might be slotted in is during the Armarna period, when Egypt rather lost control over Canaan. .

(1) can't be pre new kingdom as the Egyptians didn't have chariots. Can't be post New Kingdom as Israel was already a nation.