Exodus Story In Doubt

[Peter666]

I've heard that those wheels are 8th Century BC Assyrian.

But regardless, Sklansky is sending us on a wild goose chase when he says that we should care what 90% of historians or archaeologists think when the foundation of their claims are made on the absence of evidence. Exactly what are 600,000 nomadic slaves suppose to leave behind to prove their existence 3000 years into the future?

This is the approach we should use on the sceptics: http://www.parkstreet.org/pulpit/Historicity2.pdf

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This ain't nothing new!!! Ever heard of Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, etc. As long as there will be religion, any religion, there will be phoney's trying to get rich off of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to hijack the thread, but if this sort of fraud is common knowledge, where are the responsible religious leaders speaking out against the Hinns/Falwells of the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably do. They may not say it in an open forum/pulpit/on TV/etc...that would cause...umm...legal problems if you know what I mean. My pastor isn't afraid to speak out against it either but doesn't name names.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> As I've said before, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that something having the appearance of design is designed. </font>

Agreed. As long as we are aware that there is more than one method of design. Evolutionary design is one. As would be the physical laws governing the properties of the universe.

It's also worth pointing out some very poignant flaws in the design we do see. Humans have an appendix and tailbone, for example. Human males have nipples. Some snakes have remnants of legs. Some flightless birds have feathers or remnants of wings. This points AWAY from an intelligent designer. Surely, you respect God's perfection enough to think He wouldn't have somehow forgotten the appendix is utterly pointless to humans as He was making us in His image?

<font color="blue"> The Bible is consistent over thousands of transcripts copied over thousands of years. </font>

I'm no biblical scholar, but I believe there are countless inconsistencies just in the first few pages alone. But I'll leave that alone for now. There are also discrepencies among it's authors. I believe two of them had different names for the coming Messiah. One called him something other than Jesus (Emmanuel?). At least one author makes no mention of the the very important fact that Jesus was born of a virgin birth. I could go on and on. Or is your point that the story hasn't changed since the last author?

<font color="blue">If you knew for a fact that the Red Sea had parted would you be certain it was done by God? If so, would you be certain it was done by the God of the Bible? If so, would you be willing to worship Him? </font>

This is where you have me pegged all wrong. If it were fact that the Red Sea had one day inexplicably parted without any cause in foreseeable sight, I would quickly re-assess my own position and the likelihood for the existence of God. I would most likely believe. Would I believe it was the Christian God? That would depend on whether or not there was greater reason to believe in the Christian God as opposed to Allah, for example. It would depend on whether or not I thought the Jews made a stronger case for who Jesus was than Christians do. In other words, once being convinced of God's existence, I would thoroughly look into what He would want and expect of me. And yes, I would worship Him.

I'm not like some who claim they wouldn't worship the Christian God because they believe He is a tyrant and don't agree with His moralistic principles. If I knew the Christian God existed, I would get down on my knees, ask for forgiveness, and worship Him immediately. So you have me all wrong, or are lumping me in with a group of defiant atheists which I am not a part of. If there were a God, it certainly wouldn't bother me as it would some.

But we have strayed way off my main point, which was: Knowledge of Christianity is available to almost everyone. That everyone doesn't see it as so obviously true as you seem to, should be concerning to you. That people like Sklansky don't seem all that concerned with the fate of their souls, should be doubly concerning. You think HE (and many more like him), can't properly analyze and apply the correct concepts of thought to a given topic? Do you think if he thought there was any chance he'd be going to hell if he weren't a Christian, that he'd become a Christian? I'm sure he doesn't feel much differently than I do (or many other atheists for that matter). If we thought the Christian God existed, we'd be Christians. And I'll go a step further. Many of us, would probably be better Christians than the majority of those who are now.

[andyfox]

I found this to be of considerable interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that those wheels are 8th Century BC Assyrian.

But regardless, Sklansky is sending us on a wild goose chase when he says that we should care what 90% of historians or archaeologists think when the foundation of their claims are made on the absence of evidence. Exactly what are 600,000 nomadic slaves suppose to leave behind to prove their existence 3000 years into the future?

This is the approach we should use on the sceptics: http://www.parkstreet.org/pulpit/Historicity2.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

One of your worst posts. I doubt the figure is 90%. However those archaeologist who say they doubt exodus, while not physicists or chemists, are still undoubtedly smart enough to distinguish between mere lack of evidence, and how lack of evidence impacts the probability of somethings non existence. In fact this is the point I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL ALONG. ie Exodus non evidence is more meaningful than ressurection non evidence. And no one has responded to it.

To illustrate suppose a doctor is asked to guess whether a person he is examining had a specific disease. If the disease in question was mumps, the fact that he found no evidence of it probably doesn't prove much. But if it was chicken pox it probably does. Remember that in the case of the slaves in Egypt it would not be just them who might leave evidence.

PS Please don't misinterpret the above. Just because lack of evidence is much more damning regarding the historical facts of exodus than the ressurection doesn't mean it is in any way less likely. Baye's Theorem. Its actually still a million times MORE likely since it postulates no miracles.

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
PS Please don't misinterpret the above. Just because lack of evidence is much more damning regarding the historical facts of exodus than the ressurection doesn't mean it is in any way less likely. Baye's Theorem. Its actually still a million times MORE likely since it postulates no miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you able to determine that resurrection is a million times less likely than parting a massive body of water? Or even less likely at all?

After reading your last post I can either conclude that a) you've performed similar miracles and are thus able to accurately estimate the difficulties in pulling off the two at hand, or b) that you are once again subjectively applying mathematical terms to bolster your opinions. Since I have no mathematical framework on which to measure whether a is more likely than b, I must myself be subjective...

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I can only say you shoulda seen me before I was a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you were previously sinful and then "found Jesus" does help explain a lot about your need to proselitize and your zealotry.

I think it would be interesting if you were to post on 2+2 the story of how you became a Christian.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS Please don't misinterpret the above. Just because lack of evidence is much more damning regarding the historical facts of exodus than the ressurection doesn't mean it is in any way less likely. Baye's Theorem. Its actually still a million times MORE likely since it postulates no miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you able to determine that resurrection is a million times less likely than parting a massive body of water? Or even less likely at all?

After reading your last post I can either conclude that a) you've performed similar miracles and are thus able to accurately estimate the difficulties in pulling off the two at hand, or b) that you are once again subjectively applying mathematical terms to bolster your opinions. Since I have no mathematical framework on which to measure whether a is more likely than b, I must myself be subjective...

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe David was talking about the resurrection being a million time more likely than the Exodus story, since there is no apparent physical law being broken.

Even so, I'd still put the resurrection as being quite a bit bigger longhshot than the Red Sea parting.

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS Please don't misinterpret the above. Just because lack of evidence is much more damning regarding the historical facts of exodus than the ressurection doesn't mean it is in any way less likely. Baye's Theorem. Its actually still a million times MORE likely since it postulates no miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you able to determine that resurrection is a million times less likely than parting a massive body of water? Or even less likely at all?

After reading your last post I can either conclude that a) you've performed similar miracles and are thus able to accurately estimate the difficulties in pulling off the two at hand, or b) that you are once again subjectively applying mathematical terms to bolster your opinions. Since I have no mathematical framework on which to measure whether a is more likely than b, I must myself be subjective...

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe David was talking about the resurrection being a million time more likely than the Exodus story, since there is no apparent physical law being broken.

Even so, I'd still put the resurrection as being quite a bit bigger longhshot than the Red Sea parting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't read it that way, but which he asserts to be more likely than the other is irrelevant. The fact that he claims to be able to determine which is more likely is absurd and is based on no mathematics. However, when he invokes the term Bayes Theorem, he makes readers who do not catch this subtlety believe that he has used some mathematical principles to reach this conclusion. It is a tactic that he has used repeatedly and has been called on repeatedly. It is also a tactic which I can only assume has caused many of the better SMP posters to lessen their contributions to the detriment of us all (PairTheBoard and Jason1990 to name two).

Zeno's prediction said it best. I predict it will continue. I'm sure many could list their favorites to do so.

PS. Lestat, I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread.

[Leaky Eye]

You are being unnecessarily argumentative. He said it postulates no miracles. Which makes it obvious he was referring to the likelihood that jewish slaves existed in ancient egypt and escaped together. Not that moses miraculously parted the red sea while doing so.