How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

Pharaoh's heart hardening is a recurring theme in the Exodus account.

"The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is referred to no less than twenty times in the course of the story of the Exodus."
https://aish.com/the-weighing-of-the-heart/

Exod 8:32 (KJV)
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

In this passage, harden in Hebrew is kabad (כָּבַד). This word has a minimum of 3 meanings and most likely all three were implied by Moses here.

One is harden, as in a stubborn heart and not pliable to change. Another meaning is glorify/honor as in Pharaoh glorified his own wishes. A third meaning is make heavy. So, another way to translate this passage is "and Pharaoh made his heart heavy at this time also".

In the Book of the Dead, the Egyptians believed their hearts were weighed in the afterlife and it had to be light in order to pass judgment.

The Weighing of the Heart from the Book of the Dead of Ani. At left, Ani and his wife Tutu enter the assemblage of gods. At center, Anubis weighs Ani's heart against the feather of Maat, observed by the goddesses Renenutet and Meshkenet, the god Shay, and Ani's own ba. At right, the monster Ammut, who will devour Ani's soul if he is unworthy, awaits the verdict, while the god Thoth prepares to record it. At top are gods acting as judges: Hu and Sia, Hathor, Horus, Isis and Nephthys, Nut, Geb, Tefnut, Shu, Atum, and Ra-Horakhty.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _Heart.jpg

After confirming that they were sinless, the deceased was presented with the balance that was used to weigh their heart against the feather of Maat.[23] Anubis was the god often seen administering this test. If the deceased's heart balanced with the feather of Maat, Thoth would record the result and they would be presented to Osiris, who admitted them into the Sekhet-Aaru. However, if their heart was heavier than the feather, it was to be devoured by the Goddess Ammit, permanently destroying the soul of the deceased

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _the_Heart

The heart was considered the most important body part according to the Ancient Egyptians. They felt that the heart was the most important because it was the only part of the body that knew what a person was feeling and thinking and the good or bad deeds that they had done.

The heart was so important that Ancient Egyptians would not remove the heart when someone died, and it was the only organ that would stay in the body. When a person became a mummy, they still had their heart in their body.

https://www.historyforkids.net/ancient- ... heart.html

The heart was the seat of a person’s personality and spirit, and so the most important part of the body. It was not removed during mummification, but was protected by a powerful amulet – the heart scarab.

When a person entered the Hall of Judgment after death, it was their heart that was weighed against the feather of Ma’at to determine whether they had lived a good life and deserved to join the blessed dead. Part of this ritual was the Negative Confession (recorded in the Book of the Dead) , in which the deceased listed the crimes that they had not committed. If they failed this test, their heart was thrown into the lake of fire or gobbled up by the fearsome Ammit and they suffered the feared second death.

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/soul/

The heart was weighed against the Maat. Maat was the cosmic order of truth and justice and it was the responsibility of the Pharaoh to establish Maat.

The feather represented Ma’at, the central Egyptian value that included the concepts of truth, balance, order, harmony, justice, morality, and law. Not only was this fundamental to Egyptian culture. It was the task of the Pharaoh to ensure that it prevailed. This had been an Egyptian principle since a thousand years before the Exodus, found in Pyramid texts dating from the third millennium BCE. Ma’at meant cosmic order. Its absence invited chaos. A Pharaoh whose heart had become heavier than the Ma’at feather was not only endangering his own afterlife, but threatening the entire people over whom he ruled with turmoil and disarray.

https://aish.com/the-weighing-of-the-heart/

During the series of plagues, Pharaoh continually hardened his heart (made his heart heavier) and so it was a reference to his ultimate judgment when his heart would be weighed in the afterlife.

[Diogenes]

Your cited sources all freely admit their bias is not to seek truth, but to validate the Bible through archeology.

Please cite where my sources state they are not out to seek the truth. Sure, they have a bias to validate the Bible, but that does not mean they are not out to seek the truth. I can as well claim those who are out to disprove the Bible are not out to seek the truth.

I agree, those "setting out" to disprove the Bible do not have truth as their goal.
Those with a bias to validate the Bible also are not after truth.

That is the POINT about bias; it tries to prove its POV, not truth.

Scholars, actual scholars, should not have either bias. Scholars should only be about investigating, not about proving a thesis as broad as proving or disproving the Bible. Do the mainstream scholars TRY to disprove the Bible? Is there evidence that, that is their goal, collectively?
Whereas, that IS the goal of Tim Mahoney as previously documented and as is reiterated here:
https://patternsofevidence.com/homeschool/

That is the whole impetus for much of the 'homeschooling' movement, teaching kids the Bible is inherent whether it comes to evolution or archeology. The very existence of Albright's school and the whole 'Biblical Archeology' movement is not to seek truth, but to find evidence to support the inherent archeological claims of the Bible. This is classic BIAS and it has no place in academia.

At any rate, Albright and his school of thought have failed.
"[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

That Albright's views have been disproved is so accepted that even a Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research disagrees with him.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-con ... say-348464

[otseng]

I agree, those "setting out" to disprove the Bible do not have truth as their goal.
Those with a bias to validate the Bible also are not after truth.

That is the POINT about bias; it tries to prove its POV, not truth.

And how does one arrive at the truth?

Scholars, actual scholars, should not have either bias.

Everyone has biases, whether they admit to it or not.

Scholars should only be about investigating, not about proving a thesis as broad as proving or disproving the Bible.

Motivation has no part in what is actually the truth. The truth stands apart from the reason why anyone would initially seek to investigate something.

Do the mainstream scholars TRY to disprove the Bible? Is there evidence that, that is their goal, collectively?

I have my opinion, but yes, I believe they have motivations for it. But, it's only my opinion.

However, the fundamental issue is the assumption of mainstream scholars that miracles are impossible. They assume that supernatural events cannot occur, so the Bible must fit within the naturalistic paradigm.

[Diogenes]

I agree, those "setting out" to disprove the Bible do not have truth as their goal.
Those with a bias to validate the Bible also are not after truth.

That is the POINT about bias; it tries to prove its POV, not truth.

And how does one arrive at the truth?

By seeking out the best sources, the most professional, peer reviewed. When most of the best scholarship, including those who would like to "prove the Bible" agree the archeological record does not support the Biblical exodus, we accept that (at least provisionally).

When 99% of the biologists accept the absolute FACT of evolution and the age of the Earth, we accept that as truth.

What the person who seeks truth does NOT do, is form his own, non scientific group that cherry picks 'evidence' to try to twist that evidence to conform to his prejudice. Yet that is exactly what this thread is all about, trying to prove the Bible is from God because it's perfect, instead of accepting the facts. That is what being a Christian Apologist is all about; trying to twist both facts and scripture to conform to the apologists' IDEA of 'truth.'

However, the fundamental issue is the assumption of mainstream scholars that miracles are impossible. They assume that supernatural events cannot occur, so the Bible must fit within the naturalistic paradigm.

Ahhh... and there you have it. Those silly 'mainstream scholars' actually assume the universe operates by fundamental laws. Things like gravity and the speed of light. The problem with accepting miracles ('God just did it') is that nothing could be proved and ANYthing is possible.

What the apologist does is to accept science ONLY when it appears to conform to his preconceptions. Why accept archeology at all? Why use archeology to 'prove the Bible true,' when all findings can be invalidated by a 'miracle.'

The classic example is the apologists' solution to the age of the Earth by claiming God must have used old planets to make the Earth, complete with dinosaur bones. When one accepts 'miracles' as an answer, one should abandon science altogether.
[edit]
1. What sort of 'miracle' is needed to account for the lack of evidence for an exodus like the Bible describes? A William Lane Craig like time distortion to account for all the discrepancies?
2. Science IS open to believing 'miracles,' what appear to be miraculous events, upon sufficient evidence. Past examples:
In addition to A. Conan Doyle getting tricked by "fairy" photos, there is a lengthy list of things people once thought miraculous:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articl ... es-solved/

In addition we could compile a long list of phenomena once considered 'acts of god' and now explained by science, by objective, rational examination:
lightening
thunder
earthquakes
volcanoes
lameness (and a host of other infirmities once attributed to 'sin.')

[TRANSPONDER]

I've been watching this thread go on and on (up to 100 pages now!) and it enlightens me even more about christainty. Centuries of tales, witnesses, wars, deaths, converts, deconversions, church splits, arguments over what's the bible 'says' and what it 'means', evidence the bible isn't 'error proof', zero proof of god and or jesus existing... and the arguing continues. It's a very 'christian' thing.

This qualifies as a rant or random rambling than anything substantive.

Surely you get the point that for someone with a half -way normal life span, if Senusret III and the Hyksos are 200+ years apart Joseph can't live in both of them.

As I mentioned in post 794, the Hyksos entered Egypt starting in the 12th Dynasty, so this would be the time Joseph.

"Tell el-Dab'a is an archaeological site in the Nile Delta region of Egypt where Avaris, the capital city of the Hyksos, once stood. Avaris was occupied by Asiatics from the end of the 12th through the 13th Dynasty (early second millennium BC)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_El-Dab%27a

During this time would be the reign of Senusret III. In post 836, I discussed Senusret III and the alignment with his reign and what happened during the time of Joseph.

So, exactly what 200+ year gap are you referring to?

And I'm sorry if you have the idea that you get to decide what questions and doubts about the Bible I post, but I shall post whatever I choose with one eye on the topic.

It's an open forum, you can post anything you want. But, I will only be addressing one topic (or closely related topics) at a time. My time is very limited and this topic of archaeology is very broad and deep, esp the topic of the Exodus. If you want to me to address anything else, you'll have to add it to the queue and wait. And I believe one of the next topics in the queue was cosmology.

I had to go and check what (so far as I can see) you are trying to argue.

From 1991 -1778 BC you have the 12th dynasty with Senusret III about the middle ending 1839 BC. Let's make Joseph his adviser at age 20 earliest. The 13th dynasty is from 1803 - `1660 BC

After that we get the 14th dynasty 1720's - and they show Canaanite ruiership as well as some Egyptian rulers. Thus you have 140 years until any detectable Canaanite influence. And that doesn't mean Hebrew, of course.

So before this colour -coated statue can even appear (I'm supposing it's Semitic in style, not Egyptian) it is around a century after Joseph in line with the average lifespan for the time has passed on. And even then the Hyksos period was 1650 - 1550 so there's another 100 years for that statue of Joseph to be in the palace before the Hyksos rule ended.

Reasonably, it is a stretch to have Joseph as even a young man as advosor to Senusret III and have a statue of himself in the Hyksos palace 200 years after he must have died. That's why I argue that you can't maintain both claims.

Of course I'm sure that you can make something up or just maintain that Joseph was advisor to Senusret III and that statue in Avaris is something to do with him (and thus is 'evidence' for the Joseph story) even though you might not explain how.

But that only works by assuming the story is true to begin with and matching it to things that look similar to you even though Senusret getting control over his governors is no evidence that Joseph was his adviser and a Hyksos statue some 200 years later painted in 3 co,lours (at least) is not really evidence for Joseph. No more than your attempts to match numbers of Egyptian festivals to the Exodus story.

That's not 'evidence'. You can match the Bible narrative to any similar points, just as you match Egyptian brick making to the story of the slavery, but unless you believe the story first, it is evidence of nothing.

The only evidence that you have so far is that list of slaves with some names that do look rather Hebrew. I have a possible explanation, but it is a fair bit of evidence. Nothing else that you have put forward is evidence. It is just pointing to commonplace correspondences while not taking on board this problem with Joseph around in both the 12th dynasty and the Hyksos.

I however have produced some decent evidence for the Exodus being of Babylonian date. And my suggestion that the Exodus is indeed the expulsion of the Hyksos - but the Biblical account has been tweaked from the source they used to the way it appears in the Bible.

I'll have a look to see whether Moses actually has a Hebrew meaning. Because if not, that is a slight clue that it may be Ahmose adapted a bit.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pharaoh's heart hardening is a recurring theme in the Exodus account.

"The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is referred to no less than twenty times in the course of the story of the Exodus."
https://aish.com/the-weighing-of-the-heart/

Exod 8:32 (KJV)
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

In this passage, harden in Hebrew is kabad (כָּבַד). This word has a minimum of 3 meanings and most likely all three were implied by Moses here.

One is harden, as in a stubborn heart and not pliable to change. Another meaning is glorify/honor as in Pharaoh glorified his own wishes. A third meaning is make heavy. So, another way to translate this passage is "and Pharaoh made his heart heavy at this time also".

In the Book of the Dead, the Egyptians believed their hearts were weighed in the afterlife and it had to be light in order to pass judgment.

The Weighing of the Heart from the Book of the Dead of Ani. At left, Ani and his wife Tutu enter the assemblage of gods. At center, Anubis weighs Ani's heart against the feather of Maat, observed by the goddesses Renenutet and Meshkenet, the god Shay, and Ani's own ba. At right, the monster Ammut, who will devour Ani's soul if he is unworthy, awaits the verdict, while the god Thoth prepares to record it. At top are gods acting as judges: Hu and Sia, Hathor, Horus, Isis and Nephthys, Nut, Geb, Tefnut, Shu, Atum, and Ra-Horakhty.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _Heart.jpg

After confirming that they were sinless, the deceased was presented with the balance that was used to weigh their heart against the feather of Maat.[23] Anubis was the god often seen administering this test. If the deceased's heart balanced with the feather of Maat, Thoth would record the result and they would be presented to Osiris, who admitted them into the Sekhet-Aaru. However, if their heart was heavier than the feather, it was to be devoured by the Goddess Ammit, permanently destroying the soul of the deceased

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _the_Heart

The heart was considered the most important body part according to the Ancient Egyptians. They felt that the heart was the most important because it was the only part of the body that knew what a person was feeling and thinking and the good or bad deeds that they had done.

The heart was so important that Ancient Egyptians would not remove the heart when someone died, and it was the only organ that would stay in the body. When a person became a mummy, they still had their heart in their body.

https://www.historyforkids.net/ancient- ... heart.html

The heart was the seat of a person’s personality and spirit, and so the most important part of the body. It was not removed during mummification, but was protected by a powerful amulet – the heart scarab.

When a person entered the Hall of Judgment after death, it was their heart that was weighed against the feather of Ma’at to determine whether they had lived a good life and deserved to join the blessed dead. Part of this ritual was the Negative Confession (recorded in the Book of the Dead) , in which the deceased listed the crimes that they had not committed. If they failed this test, their heart was thrown into the lake of fire or gobbled up by the fearsome Ammit and they suffered the feared second death.

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/soul/

The heart was weighed against the Maat. Maat was the cosmic order of truth and justice and it was the responsibility of the Pharaoh to establish Maat.

The feather represented Ma’at, the central Egyptian value that included the concepts of truth, balance, order, harmony, justice, morality, and law. Not only was this fundamental to Egyptian culture. It was the task of the Pharaoh to ensure that it prevailed. This had been an Egyptian principle since a thousand years before the Exodus, found in Pyramid texts dating from the third millennium BCE. Ma’at meant cosmic order. Its absence invited chaos. A Pharaoh whose heart had become heavier than the Ma’at feather was not only endangering his own afterlife, but threatening the entire people over whom he ruled with turmoil and disarray.

https://aish.com/the-weighing-of-the-heart/

During the series of plagues, Pharaoh continually hardened his heart (made his heart heavier) and so it was a reference to his ultimate judgment when his heart would be weighed in the afterlife.

I am disinclined to even bother with effort to relate the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God, be it noted, not by the Pharaoh, who was inclined to let the Hebrews go, to the importance the Egyptian placed on the heart. Like nobody else did, even though few people realised that it was the brain, not the heart (the Egyptians threw the brain away, but mummified the heart).

Instead this comment on Moses (Wiki) is interesting.
The Hebrew etymology in the Biblical story may reflect an attempt to cancel out traces of Moses's Egyptian origins.[32] The Egyptian character of his name was recognized as such by ancient Jewish writers like Philo and
Josephus.[32] Philo linked Moses's name (Ancient Greek: Μωϋσῆς, romanized: Mōysēs, lit. 'Mōusḗs') to the Egyptian (Coptic) word for 'water' (möu, μῶυ), in reference to his finding in the Nile and the biblical folk etymology.[33] Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, claims that the second element, -esês, meant 'those who are saved'. The problem of how an Egyptian princess, known to Josephus as Thermutis (identified as Tharmuth)[29] and to 1 Chronicles 4:18 as Bithiah,[34] could have known Hebrew puzzled medieval Jewish commentators like Abraham ibn Ezra and Hezekiah ben Manoah. Hezekiah suggested she either converted or took a tip from Jochebed.[35][36]

It's a point that was noted that 'Mose' could be derived from Egyptian 'Son'. If we are looking for an Egyptian name (Like Ahmose) rather than a Hebrew one (which a 12th dynasty Princess would hardly know) then this isn't a bad link to a history of Ahmose ejecting the Hyksos (whether that was true or Egyptian propaganda) and adapted it with the tale of Sargon of Akkad in the bulrushes being an origin story they couldn't resist, since 'Mose' with a tweak could mean to deliver or pull out (of the water - implied). It fits at least as well as many Egyptian festivals somehow proving that Amenemhat III didn't honour the Hebrew tribal god.

[otseng]

By seeking out the best sources, the most professional, peer reviewed. When most of the best scholarship, including those who would like to "prove the Bible" agree the archeological record does not support the Biblical exodus, we accept that (at least provisionally).

You'll need to clarify this. Are you saying the hypothesis of the peer reviewed articles can be accepted as truth?

When 99% of the biologists accept the absolute FACT of evolution and the age of the Earth, we accept that as truth.

No, it's not a fact, nor do we need to accept it as truth when 99% of any group of people accept it as truth. This would be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

What the person who seeks truth does NOT do, is form his own, non scientific group that cherry picks 'evidence' to try to twist that evidence to conform to his prejudice. Yet that is exactly what this thread is all about, trying to prove the Bible is from God because it's perfect, instead of accepting the facts.

Never claimed the Bible or God is perfect in this thread. As a matter of fact, I accept the Bible is not perfect.

When you claim I cherry pick the evidence, the proper way to counter is through presenting your own evidence.

That is what being a Christian Apologist is all about; trying to twist both facts and scripture to conform to the apologists' IDEA of 'truth.'

What twisting are you referring to that I have presented?

However, the fundamental issue is the assumption of mainstream scholars that miracles are impossible. They assume that supernatural events cannot occur, so the Bible must fit within the naturalistic paradigm.

Ahhh... and there you have it. Those silly 'mainstream scholars' actually assume the universe operates by fundamental laws. Things like gravity and the speed of light. The problem with accepting miracles ('God just did it') is that nothing could be proved and ANYthing is possible.

We've gone down this road before. First off, nobody is claiming mainstream scholars are silly. As for proving supernatural causation, it can be done through evidence. If all the evidence points to an explanation that is a supernatural origin, then why should it not be a possible answer? We see this in scientists proposing a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.

What the apologist does is to accept science ONLY when it appears to conform to his preconceptions. Why accept archeology at all? Why use archeology to 'prove the Bible true,' when all findings can be invalidated by a 'miracle.'

If a naturalistic explanation is the best explanation, then of course the naturalistic explanation should be preferred. However, if there is no naturalistic explanation that is viable, then a supernatural explanation should be preferred.

The classic example is the apologists' solution to the age of the Earth by claiming God must have used old planets to make the Earth, complete with dinosaur bones.

We've touched on evidence already that does not fit with an old earth starting in post 703.

When one accepts 'miracles' as an answer, one should abandon science altogether.

Nobody is saying we should abandon science.

1. What sort of 'miracle' is needed to account for the lack of evidence for an exodus like the Bible describes?

What lack of evidence? I've already presented 20 pages of evidence (and still counting).

2. Science IS open to believing 'miracles,' what appear to be miraculous events, upon sufficient evidence.

Sure, naturalistic explanations can often explain miraculous claims. We should not blindly accept any claim of the miraculous and I fully support for naturalistic explanations to be sought after. But, there are cases where there is no viable naturalistic explanation and in those cases the supernatural cannot be ruled out.

In addition we could compile a long list of phenomena once considered 'acts of god' and now explained by science, by objective, rational examination:

Sure. But also note science is continually changing and even naturalistic explanations are thrown out. So, whether supernatural explanations or natural explanations are discarded does not mean either the natural or supernatural should be rejected.

[otseng]

So before this colour -coated statue can even appear (I'm supposing it's Semitic in style, not Egyptian) it is around a century after Joseph in line with the average lifespan for the time has passed on.

Not sure of your argument why the statue was built a century plus after the lifetime of Joseph. But even if it was true, of course Joseph would not be alive when that statue was built. We have statues built all the time after the lifetime of those it represents.

You can match the Bible narrative to any similar points, just as you match Egyptian brick making to the story of the slavery, but unless you believe the story first, it is evidence of nothing.

As I stated at the onset in post 720:
"Even with a large body of archaeological evidence, I do not claim archaeology will prove, or even support, all the claims in the Bible. But, I will claim that archaeology confirms and aligns with many claims of the Bible."

All I'm doing to providing alignment with archaeological data and the Biblical account. As we see more pieces of the puzzle fitting together, it makes the Biblical account more plausible as historically accurate.

Also note in several cases, there is no other explanation for the archaeological data except the Biblical account. For example, there is no other explanation for why local leaders willingly ceded authority to Senusret III as I presented in post 836. And in some cases archaeology also confirms the Biblical account is more accurate than extra-Biblical accounts (like Manetho explaining the Hyksos). Also, we don't see incorrect accounts in the Bible (like slaves hauling stones instead of making bricks).

[TRANSPONDER]

So before this colour -coated statue can even appear (I'm supposing it's Semitic in style, not Egyptian) it is around a century after Joseph in line with the average lifespan for the time has passed on.

Not sure of your argument why the statue was built a century plus after the lifetime of Joseph. But even if it was true, of course Joseph would not be alive when that statue was built. We have statues built all the time after the lifetime of those it represents.

You can match the Bible narrative to any similar points, just as you match Egyptian brick making to the story of the slavery, but unless you believe the story first, it is evidence of nothing.

As I stated at the onset in post 720:
"Even with a large body of archaeological evidence, I do not claim archaeology will prove, or even support, all the claims in the Bible. But, I will claim that archaeology confirms and aligns with many claims of the Bible."

All I'm doing to providing alignment with archaeological data and the Biblical account. As we see more pieces of the puzzle fitting together, it makes the Biblical account more plausible as historically accurate.

Also note in several cases, there is no other explanation for the archaeological data except the Biblical account. For example, there is no other explanation for why local leaders willingly ceded authority to Senusret III as I presented in post 836. And in some cases archaeology also confirms the Biblical account is more accurate than extra-Biblical accounts (like Manetho explaining the Hyksos). Also, we don't see incorrect accounts in the Bible (like slaves hauling stones instead of making bricks).

The point I'm getting at is that the gap between the 12th dynasty and the Hyksos makes it less credible for Joseph to be Senusret's advosor AND have a statue relating to his colored coat a couple of centuries later. Statues at that time tend to be of people alive at the time not 200 years dead. If it had been dateable to 40 years after Senusret III, it would fit quite nicely, but it doesn't, so you are having to explain (or not, apparently) how these two bits of evidence can credibly relate to the same person.

The more credible explanation is that they don't especially as there is no shred or credible evidence to make Joseph Senusret's adviser, nor that statue with just three colors to be seen, anything whatsoever to do with Joseph, apart from them being two centuries apart. I already explained that Senusret is quite capable of extending his own authority without the need of a Grima - figure whispering in his ear, nor that if he did, that has to be Joseph. It will fit, but there is no reason to postulate it other than you desire to make the Bible look credible. You have, as I said before, no evidence. You are even having a task to make the story fit.

You are still confused over the point about hauling stones (which they did whether Manetho says so or not) The point is that evidence of bricvk -making in Egypt is no evidence at all that it was Hebrew slaves doing it, no more than - IF the Bible had said they were forced to haul blocks, evidence that there was block -hauling in Egypt would prove that it was Hebrew slaves doing it. Ordinary jobs done by paid workers or slaves is no real support for a Biblical tale to the Hebrews doing it.

[TRANSPONDER]

By seeking out the best sources, the most professional, peer reviewed. When most of the best scholarship, including those who would like to "prove the Bible" agree the archeological record does not support the Biblical exodus, we accept that (at least provisionally).

You'll need to clarify this. Are you saying the hypothesis of the peer reviewed articles can be accepted as truth?

When 99% of the biologists accept the absolute FACT of evolution and the age of the Earth, we accept that as truth.

No, it's not a fact, nor do we need to accept it as truth when 99% of any group of people accept it as truth. This would be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

What the person who seeks truth does NOT do, is form his own, non scientific group that cherry picks 'evidence' to try to twist that evidence to conform to his prejudice. Yet that is exactly what this thread is all about, trying to prove the Bible is from God because it's perfect, instead of accepting the facts.

Never claimed the Bible or God is perfect in this thread. As a matter of fact, I accept the Bible is not perfect.

When you claim I cherry pick the evidence, the proper way to counter is through presenting your own evidence.

That is what being a Christian Apologist is all about; trying to twist both facts and scripture to conform to the apologists' IDEA of 'truth.'

What twisting are you referring to that I have presented?

However, the fundamental issue is the assumption of mainstream scholars that miracles are impossible. They assume that supernatural events cannot occur, so the Bible must fit within the naturalistic paradigm.

Ahhh... and there you have it. Those silly 'mainstream scholars' actually assume the universe operates by fundamental laws. Things like gravity and the speed of light. The problem with accepting miracles ('God just did it') is that nothing could be proved and ANYthing is possible.

We've gone down this road before. First off, nobody is claiming mainstream scholars are silly. As for proving supernatural causation, it can be done through evidence. If all the evidence points to an explanation that is a supernatural origin, then why should it not be a possible answer? We see this in scientists proposing a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.

What the apologist does is to accept science ONLY when it appears to conform to his preconceptions. Why accept archeology at all? Why use archeology to 'prove the Bible true,' when all findings can be invalidated by a 'miracle.'

If a naturalistic explanation is the best explanation, then of course the naturalistic explanation should be preferred. However, if there is no naturalistic explanation that is viable, then a supernatural explanation should be preferred.

The classic example is the apologists' solution to the age of the Earth by claiming God must have used old planets to make the Earth, complete with dinosaur bones.

We've touched on evidence already that does not fit with an old earth starting in post 703.

When one accepts 'miracles' as an answer, one should abandon science altogether.

Nobody is saying we should abandon science.

1. What sort of 'miracle' is needed to account for the lack of evidence for an exodus like the Bible describes?

What lack of evidence? I've already presented 20 pages of evidence (and still counting).

2. Science IS open to believing 'miracles,' what appear to be miraculous events, upon sufficient evidence.

Sure, naturalistic explanations can often explain miraculous claims. We should not blindly accept any claim of the miraculous and I fully support for naturalistic explanations to be sought after. But, there are cases where there is no viable naturalistic explanation and in those cases the supernatural cannot be ruled out.

In addition we could compile a long list of phenomena once considered 'acts of god' and now explained by science, by objective, rational examination:

Sure. But also note science is continually changing and even naturalistic explanations are thrown out. So, whether supernatural explanations or natural explanations are discarded does not mean either the natural or supernatural should be rejected.

We looked at this and it turns out that organic deposits that old havbe such a miniscule percentage of C14 left that it is not suitable for C 14 dating. Dating of rocks by other methods validates an old earth. But we never got onto argon -dating or other methods. Nor for that matter, stratification of fossils or other evidence that put the Young earth theory under pressure, like fossil sea -beds in strata on top of mountains which shows they were raised up through tectonic pressure and were not the remains of the supports of a lid of the hydroplate reservoir, the remains of old mountains revealed by the erosion of the recent ones and the meanders of the Grand Canyon refuting a sudden carving -out. You were left with nothing but a hypothesis that you were trying to make work and appealing to a resemblance between the erosion cause by sand and erosion caused by water and swearing that one must be the other, just as you tried to argue that a vague pointiness in Ziggurats, pyramids and Maya Temples meant that they must have all been copied from the Tower of Babel.

I'm going to keep doing this, every time you pretend you came up with some kind of atheist -stumper case.