POI wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:17 am
The Tanager wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:05 pm
And that "science" doesn't show the Exodus definitely happened isn't the same thing as debunking it.
Hmm. So "the Exodus" may have happened? Please tell me why you believe so, aside from the Bible's say-so?
The Tanager wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:05 pm
Tolkien’s works don’t express that they are meant to be figurative. By this logic, they aren’t meant to be works of fiction then. You are using such an obviously silly principle instead of supporting your interpretation.
What I find silly, is your response. The 'nuances' dictate that 'The Lord of the Rings" is fiction. I doubt we need to dispute this claim. On the other hand, is the Bible fiction, and/or intended to speak of imaginary events?
Yes. This kind of wonky thinking - of the kind we don't use in the normal way - is why I'm glad I'm not religious or a cultist.
I'd guess the illogic is in thinking the 'Exodus' is historically valid unless one can definitely show it didn't happen. Of course people may not know the arguments against but that's forgivable. I get that the 'historical' claim in the Bible is there and the burden of debunk does fall on the skeptic, but the doubts about it (1) make the event so improbable (even without the miracles and other more solid Biblical debunks) that I'd say the probability is against the Exodus rather than for it. As usual, it is not a matter of convincing those who will not be convinced by any evidence, but which way the (cumulative circumstantial) evidence points.
I also find very odd the comparison of for sure fiction like LoR with the Bible, which is supposed to record actual events. I already argued that 'Metaphorically true' is Theist -speak for 'Not true at all'.
(1) mainly the story fails on chronology. The story of Joseph places the events after the Hyksos because of the use of chariots. That means that Egypt controlled the Sinai and Canaan and escape and a free hand to conquer Canaan by the Israelites is against probability. The only possible time for such a thing is during the lapse of Egyptian power under Akhenaten where the depredations of the 'Habiru' could be argued as the conquest. But the problem is that the Ramessids re-established control and Canaan is still there. The first mention of Israel is of course bt Ramesses IInd's son, but the Bible places the Exodus later after Ramesses III and the settlement of the 'Philistines' which the Exodus had to avoid, so the Bible says. In fact the anachronism suggests it was all written much later, in Babylon where Mesopotamian material, such as Sargon in the bulrushes was used for Moses' story. Also i recall that Josephus (citing Manetho) equated the Hyksos (Shepherd kings) with the Exodus, so the evidence is that earlier Hebrews would have made the same (dubious) connection.
" Ultimately, the Hyksos were overthrown and eventually, according to Manetho, “took their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness … [and] they built a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem” (as quoted by the first-century c.e. historian Josephus in Against Apion, 1.14)." (Armstrong institute of Biblical Archaeology)
And even if one argues a garbled account written later on of a real event, the evidence is really strongly negative for an enslaved Israelite demographic. But I do suspect a garbled story of Ahmose I pushing the Hyksos out of Egypt into Canaan turned into Moses Leading his people into Canaan.
