Religion
Related: About this forumHow Did Moses Part the Red Sea?
Ridley Scott’s “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” which opens in movie theaters across the country Dec. 12, will include, of course, the most famous of all biblical miracles: the parting of the Red Sea. But its depiction will look quite different from the one in Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 classic “The Ten Commandments.” In the earlier movie, Charlton Heston as Moses parted the sea into two huge walls of water, between which the children of Israel crossed on a temporarily dry seabed to the opposite shore. Pharaoh’s army of chariots chased after them only to be drowned when Moses signaled for the waters to return.
(snip)
But there are problems with this version of the story, too. The period during which coastal waters draw back before a tsunami usually lasts only 10 or 20 minutes, too little time to get all the children of Israel across the temporarily dry seabed. Also, there would have been no way for Moses to know that the earthquake and tsunami were going to happen, unless God told him. That’s fine, but then the story would retain some element of the miraculous.
(snip)
In certain places in the world, the tide can leave the sea bottom dry for hours and then come roaring back. In fact, in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte and a small group of soldiers on horseback were crossing the Gulf of Suez, the northern end of the Red Sea, roughly where Moses and the Israelites are said to have crossed. On a mile-long expanse of dry sea bottom exposed at low water, the tide suddenly rushed in, almost drowning them.
(snip)
Moses had lived in the nearby wilderness in his early years, and he knew where caravans crossed the Red Sea at low tide. He knew the night sky and the ancient methods of predicting the tide, based on where the moon was overhead and how full it was. Pharaoh and his advisers, by contrast, lived along the Nile River, which is connected to the almost tideless Mediterranean Sea. They probably had little knowledge of the tides of the Red Sea and how dangerous they could be. Knowing when low tide would occur, how long the sea bottom would remain dry and when the waters would rush back in, Moses could plan the Israelites’ escape. Choosing a full moon for their flight would have given them a larger tidal range—that is, the low tide would have been much lower and the sea bottom would have stayed dry longer, giving the Israelites more time to cross. The high tide also would have been higher and thus better for submerging Pharaoh’s pursuing army.
Timing would have been crucial. The last of the Israelites had to cross the dry sea bottom just before the tide returned, enticing Pharaoh’s army of chariots onto the exposed sea bottom, where they would drown as the returning tidal waters overwhelmed them. If the chariots were expected to arrive before the tide came back in, Moses might have planned some type of delaying tactic. If the chariots were expected to arrive after the tide came back in, he could have gotten the Israelites across and then, at the next low tide, sent a few of his best people back onto the temporarily dry sea bed to entice Pharaoh’s chariots to chase them.
(snip)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-did-moses-part-the-red-sea-1417790250
Dr. Parker is the former chief scientist of NOAA’s National Ocean Service and is currently a visiting professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. He is the author of “The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, Rogue Waves, and Our Quest to Predict Disasters.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(130,895 posts)11 Nov 2002
Fresh evidence that the Biblical plagues and the parting of the Red Sea were natural events rather than myths or miracles is to be presented in a new BBC documentary.
Moses, which will be broadcast next month, will suggest that much of the Bible story can be explained by a single natural disaster, a huge volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in the 16th century BC.
Using computer-generated imagery pioneered in Walking With Dinosaurs, the programme tells the story of how Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt after a series of plagues had devastated the country. But it also uses new scientific research to argue that many of the events surrounding the exodus could have been triggered by the eruption, which would have been a thousand times more powerful than a nuclear bomb.
Dr Daniel Stanley, an oceanographer who has found volcanic shards in Egypt that he believes are linked to the explosion, tells the programme: "I think it would have been a frightening experience. It would have been heard. The blast ash would have been felt."
Computer simulations by Mike Rampino, a climate modeller from New York University, show that the resulting ash cloud could have plunged the area into darkness, as well as generating lightning and hail, two of the 10 plagues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3301214/Biblical-plagues-and-parting-of-Red-Sea-caused-by-volcano.html
had great timing. 
elleng
(130,895 posts)
question everything
(47,476 posts)Wonder whether it still is, after the economic events that Greece has gone.
lob1
(3,820 posts)question everything
(47,476 posts)However, as Dr. Parker says in my OP - how could Moses have anticipated this eruption?
While with tides, they happened all the time and he was familiar with the cycle.
Response to elleng (Reply #1)
Sweeney This message was self-deleted by its author.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I was in one on a very small scale and it was exceedingly impressive and just mind boggling as a never-experienced-before event.
I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like on a much larger scale.
Response to cbayer (Reply #59)
Sweeney This message was self-deleted by its author.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)sense of an impending tsunami. Perhaps some people knew how to read the signals.
We were on the Southern California coast after fukishama. That wave came across the ocean faster than any jet could have. It was an intense and overwhelming experience. We were on the boat and in a relatively shallow harbor. Had we known what was coming, we would have headed out to sea and probably noticed nothing at all.
Response to cbayer (Reply #65)
Sweeney This message was self-deleted by its author.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The most intense I experienced was in Mexico and a good 200 miles from the epicenter. The sense of disorientation was profound.
I've seen my share of natural disasters and I have learned from each of them. We are not in charge, that is my conclusion.
Response to cbayer (Reply #70)
Sweeney This message was self-deleted by its author.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Pretty hard nor to pronounce it correctly :p
Nevermind about the "pretty hard" part 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you are going to dish it out, you better be ready to take it, darkangel.
Oh, and BTW, it's not, not nor. That's a really easy one to pronounce.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Did you grow up overseas too?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What's the word for cohabit in your native tongue?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Why would I tell you about my native language, so you can know where I grew up? No thanks.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So we were both rude or we were both polite. You decide.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You corrected me in regard to an old post, and that is not by any means polite.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you are putting yourself up as the standard for politeness, I think I will pass.
What are your thoughts on evolution?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And aren't we discussing evolution down the thread? You still haven't answered my Q.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
edhopper
(33,575 posts)but tell me you don't believe this story?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The lehend might be different than the reality though.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)the Jewish people were never in Egypt as slaves, they didn't build the monuments, there was no mass exodus, no Moses.
Not only its there not a single shred of evidence for this and there is lots of evidence against it.
It is no less a myth than Noah's Ark.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)
edhopper
(33,575 posts)can't have a discussion that counters factual claims with support for myths with "when we die".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)Moses never existed, but was based on Dionysus and bits of other myths taken from the region at that time, correct?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Being a reasoned and rational person who likes to have data before weighing in on many things, I went to the google machine on this.
And it is a matter of debate.
That is, of course, unless you have some hard data that hasn't been shared with the rest of humankind to submit.
No? Didn't think so.
There is and will always be debate about these kinds of historical figures and stories.
It is so silly to try and win this debate. There are people much smarter and more informed on this than either of us and they don't agree.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I notice your google machine didn't cough up any links. You and I both know why that is: the only "debate" is among axe grinding biblical "historian" nutcases desperate to create something out of nothing at all.
I'll help out here since you failed to provide any links:
Mainstream historical consensus
Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt.[2]
Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.
The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[3] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult objects are of the Canaanite god El, the pottery is in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing Israelite villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones.
It is considered possible that those Canaanites who started regarding themselves as the Israelites were joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt, possibly the Hyksos people, possibly carrying stories that made it into Exodus. As the tribe expanded, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps sparking the tales of conflict in Joshua and Judges.
William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.”[4]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
The list of nutjobs providing evidence for exodus include Immanuel Velikovsky, Paul Hansen of Answers in Genesis etc.
if you find rational wiki a bit harsh you can go to Wikipedia and get the more polite version:
The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the improbability of the Exodus story originates because it was written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel.[3] Some have suggested that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not a number, but a gematria (a code in which numbers represent letters or words) for bnei yisra'el kol rosh, "the children of Israel, every individual;"[23] while the number 600,000 symbolises the total destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to see the Promised Land.[24]
.
That's "biblical scholars" not archeologists.
Archaeology
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.[25] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
Please do provide your evidence that credible archeologists have found evidence to substantiate exodus.
phil89
(1,043 posts)You won't believe anything presented that contradicts your beliefs. Present me with evidence of Moses and I'll certainly believe. Which is more likely... Moses was a version of a myth almost identical to others in the region... Or that he existed and spoke with God, split the Red Sea, etc.? What century are we living in again?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I care a great deal about evidence. In fact, I am rather particular about demanding it when someone makes a definitive claim.
I could not care less whether Moses existed or not, and even less whether you believe it or not.
What I object to is people taking definitive stance that the lack of existence can be based on the lack of evidence. That's just plain bad science.
We are living in the 21st century and they will be rolling on the floor in 1,000 years when they review what we think its THE TRUTH at this time.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Moses trundled around the countryside in a chariot pulled by leopards, followed by a troupe of homicidal drunken women and man-goat hybrids
Just like Jesus.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Non-existence doesn't allow much time for introspection.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)Lotta borrowings from Egyptian language and culture.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)not as slaves. Later interactions occurred.
Even the written language ow2es more to cuneiform than hieroglyphics.
aquart
(69,014 posts)It's great that someone can finally tell me when the Exodus never happened. I know it didn't happen last week. Can you tell me exactly when else it didn't happen?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)claimed in the Bible.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and thus a cultural influence on the entire Levant. "they" were never "in Egypt" as a people.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Now there's an opening in the Red Sea wide enough to drive a tribe through.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is the story of all the jews - they were all enslaved in Egypt, for 400 years, 300,000 or so of them. Yes one can invent a different story, and claim "that could have happened", and that would be a dishonest attempt to construct a plausible narrative, but it has little to do with the actual story.
aquart
(69,014 posts)When did they invent Passover? Why?
Be sure to dig up Schliemann and tell him myths ain't true.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)for one thing.
Did Schliemann prove the Iliad was true? Did everyone think Troy did not exist before him? Or that Troy was in the approximate location it was said to be, though different from were others thought?
But never mind that. What are you arguing in defense of.
This is a long thread and i am not sure what you wish to say.
That the story of exodus is true?
That the Hebrews might have been slaves in Egypt?
That a man named Moses lead them out via the Red Sea?
What is you position on the myth vs real confict?
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)No historical record for Jesus either.
You can't make a scratch in the smug self-satisfaction of sanctimony, though.
Final answer: You'll be sorry when you're dead but they'll be in Heaven. There's just no answer to pious conceit.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Just (another) ridiculous story from that ridiculous book.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, or a mass exodus of them, or for the existence of Moses. The claim that the Israelites had their origins like that has as much basis as the claim that the Scots originated in Scythia. Both appear in documents about the founding of a nation. Both are fiction. People make up stories. We love a good story about origins.
It really is pointless to start talking about tsunamis and tides. Either you believe in a God that kills the firstborn of Egypt after forcing the pharaoh to refuse to let the slaves go, just so that He'd have an excuse for the genocide, and can break the laws of physics when He wants, or you accept it's a myth. The former chief scientist of NOAA’s National Ocean Service ought to know better than to try to become a new von Daniken.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But that's a not supernatural story, hey just sailed until they found some open land, which was really not that far at all.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...figuratively, allegorically, symbolically, emblematically, pictorially, graphically...
...almost anything but... Literally.
question everything
(47,476 posts)The first books of the bible are full of stories that were circulating in ancient times. Many of them, like the flood, appear in stories from different sources.
Starting with King David, however, there are archeological findings that confirm the stories in the later books.
However, if you want to form a new nation, if you want to gather a bunch of tribes and groups into a cohesive group, with new sets of beliefs, starting with the elimination of human sacrifice, there are good stories.
As an aside: my spouse and I often debate the contribution, if at all, of religion to our world. Yes, religions have contributed, still do, to a many wars and death and destruction and poverty.
Yet many religions do command us to care for the poor and the elderly and the sick. I think that many of our laws that at least attempt to provide a safety net come from these commandments.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)I do not believe that many of our laws derive from commandments. The written non-religious concepts re-iterated within the commandments predate the torah/bible by at least 1000-years, see Code of Hammurabi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
Religion is a tool that has served its purpose and it is time to move on to better means of determining, defining and developing morality.
--Heinrich Heine
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the so called sacred texts are not the source of morality, nor are supernatural beings, we are the source of our morality and the ancient holy books merely reflect the common morality we all share, except of course when they don't, which most of us recognize when these books are in conflict with common morality and we rightly reject their admonitions.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)based on Syrian myth of Mises.
Exodus story, told by the Jews in Babylonian slavery, which closely matched the type of slavery depicted. (the Egyptians did not have this type of harsh slavery, the monuments were built by farmers in fallow months and skilled workers who were housed and fed while they worked)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The story of the virgin birth of Jesus had to be concocted or Jesus would have no legitimate messianic claim. So they just recycled the pagan divine virgin birth story. Problem solved.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)and it is interesting which myths they co-opted and when, archeologically speaking.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Divine/human offspring outside the NT are all begotten the good old-fashioned way.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)In Greek mythology you have Perseus and others, but perhaps the best one is Dionysos, who was born of a virgin on or about Dec 25th, performed miracles like turning water into wine, in the spring died and was resurrected 3 days later ascended into heaven.
In Egyptian mythology there are several accounts of virgin births which generally parallel Greek mythology.
Eastern mythologies have several stories of virgin births, including Krishna and by some accounts, Buddha.
The NT also claims Jesus is a paternal descendant of King David which is a direct contradiction of the virgin birth. The gospels of Paul, Mark, and John make no mention of a virgin birth. The only accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus do not come from Mary or Joseph.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Dionysios' mother became pregnant by sexual intercourse with Zeus. By definition, a person who has had sex is not a virgin.
Krishna was his mother's sixth child. Please explain how she remained a virgin through five previous pregnancies.
The gospels of Luke clearly states, and Matthew strongly implies, that Mary became pregnant without sexual intercourse. No sex. None. Not with anyone.
That's a significant difference. I don't know who started up this silly talking point, but s/he's long overdue for "the talk" about where babies do and do not come from.
And for the record, I believe Jesus's father was Joseph.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Luke clearly does NOT state "that Mary became pregnant without sexual intercourse. No sex. None. Not with anyone." Here's the relevant passage:
Kinda sounds like the so-called Holy Spirit got busy to me.
Most contemporary biblical scholars believe the so-called virgin birth story was devised in the first or second century as a way to compete with paganism and to fulfill earlier Jewish prophecies, which themselves were most likely mistranslations and not virgin birth prophesies to begin with. Early church followers of John and Paul made no mention of it. It's also important to note that Jesus can't be the messiah unless he is directly and paternally descended from King David, by which the NT takes pains to attempt to connect that lineage through Joseph (even though the line specified would not qualify either). Adopted father doesn't work.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)
and to which language are you referring?
Cite the authority for your definition of "virgin."
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)A "virgin" wasn't required to fulfill the prophesy of Isaiah 7:14. The closest Hebrew word for virgin is betûlâ, but Isaiah 7:14 uses the Hebrew word "almah", which is more accurately translated as a young girl who is either unmarried or recently married and not specifically a virgin. The Isaiah 7:14 early Greek translation of almah was parthenos which does mean virgin. Both Luke and Matthew were originally authored in Greek and used the Greek word "parthenos" just like the early Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14. Luke and Matthew were obviously echoing the Isaiah 7:14 prophesy, so the logical connection to "virgin" by any definition is not as "clearly stated" as you seem to think.
How exactly did she become pregnant? The bible doesn't say. The so-called "virgin birth" is a product of 3rd century Christian doctrine which is certainly not "clearly" specified by the NT. What is "clearly" specified by Luke 1 is that Jesus did not have a human father. Then the author(s) of Luke contradicts this when specifying Jesus' genealogy through Joseph in Luke 3.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Let's break it down item by item.
Where do you get the idea that the word "virgin" refers to someone who has "never had sex with a mortal?"
Answer that first.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you want to get into English semantics, "virgin" also means an unmarried woman, by which Mary certainly wasn't by all biblical accounts on the subject. Furthermore the Greek word, parthenos, which is translated into the English "virgin", doesn't always mean a female who hasn't experienced sexual intercourse. The Septuagint refers to Dinah as a "parthenos" after she had been raped by a Hivite. So if you want to get into semantics, by all means let's go all the way with it, but first you're going to have to answer your own question and specify which language you are referring.
okasha
(11,573 posts)You said that "virgin" refers to one who has not had sex with a mortal. I want you to cite the authority for the portion of the definition in italics. Presumably you had a language in mind when you made that assertion.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)And then claiming I'm dodging the question for not providing an answer that can't possibly fit, while you refuse to provide specifics when asked about your question.
I find that more than just a bit ridiculous.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)I just had to Google "other virgin births"
to see that, well, there were other ones in mythology.
So what are we arguing about?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)What we seem to be hung up over is what "virgin" means, and going from Hebrew to Greek to English and providing an answer relevant to the context isn't very cut and dried. Lots of possibilities exist, but even if we were to cover all of them, the very best we would have is something that is very far removed from a first hand account of anything.
We seem to agree the NT story of whatever amounts to a "virgin birth" is far more mythological than historical.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)doesn't seem to be an accurate statement.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The central point seems to be the divine taking human form through birth from a mortal woman. From that basis there's plenty of pagan parallels and some of them undoubtedly influenced the accounts in Luke and Matthew. Whether or not the pagan stories were of women who gave birth without any sort of intercourse is not really all that relevant, IMO, other than as some sort of attempt to claim that Jesus was not cursed by the original sin, which wasn't part of any pagan mythology that I am aware.
okasha
(11,573 posts)That clarifies my question. Your statement that "virgin" means someone who "has never had sex with a mortal" is a definition of your own invention and therefore meaningless.
Thanks.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If so I'd be glad to hear it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that verifies the qualification that a virgin is one who has not had sex with a mortal, and I will take you seriously.
Frankly, I think you're just pulling mythicist crap off a website and don't care to admit it.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'.
I answered your question and you didn't like the answer. I could really care less if you take me seriously or or not as I can assure you this is the least of my interests. I've given you considerable information on the biblical and linguistic origins of the relevant passage and you have provided no information in return other than the assertion that claims of a "virgin birth" has not occurred in paganism which is easy enough to disprove.
okasha
(11,573 posts)What does come down in pagan mythology is stories which involve divine paternity, which is what some people seem to think "virgin birth" means. It doesn't.
Mary is unique in that Luke, Matthew and later church fathers assert that Mary became pregnant without (1) sexual contact with a human man or (2) sexual contact with an embodied god. The Holy Spirit never takes physical form, though it is sometimes represented by a dove. The traditional Christian view is that Mary's conception of Jesus was miraculous; the Holy Spirit caused an ovum to be fertilized (and provided a y chromosome) without the introduction of an actual sperm cell. She becomes pregnant by divine fiat--"Let there be a male zygote in Mary's womb."
And once again, just for clarity, my candidate for Jesus's father is Joseph.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)is very different than a golden shower?
And using modern medicine to interpret what happened in a first century myth might be the silliest thing I have seen here.
But I'll just end this here, the "specialness of Christianity" argument is one I have no patience for.
I understand you are not making the religious claim, it's just a road I see no point going down.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The dove, like the tongue of flame, is a symbolic representation of an incorporeal presence.
The "golden shower" under cover of which he visits Danae is merely an illusion to conceal Zeus's presence.
Ta.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)po ta to
okasha
(11,573 posts)Potato.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Frankly I think you're just pulling this off of some Christian apologetics website.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Anything to deflect and avoid producing a pertinent response.
You never answered rug's question, either. It's obvious why.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Including Paul who writes specifically that Jesus is the product of a normal union.
4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
The gospels of Luke and Matthew were not written by Luke and Matthew, btw.
Early Christians and Jews had no concept of the female ovum or X and Y chromosomes. They believed the man provided the seed which grew in the woman's womb and the woman provided no genetic material. That's why biblical and early Jewish texts only concern themselves with patriarchal lineage.
The Holy Spirit never takes physical form, though it is sometimes represented by a dove.
So how does a dove have a "bodily shape" and not be in physical form?
Luke 3:22
The so-called holy spirit appears in many different forms which suggests it can take whatever form it wishes.
You also keep throwing around the term "virgin birth" without specifying where your definition comes from. If the church fathers are your reference, keep in mind that Mary was considered a "perpetual virgin" despite giving birth to numerous children. It would be interesting to hear your explanation of that one, but you seem to be much better at demanding answers than answering anything.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Where do you get this stuff?
In order:
The term "church fathers" refers to early Christian theologians such as Irenaeus, Polycarp and Athanasius. Their era rather loosely spans the second through fifth centuries. This is the period during which the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds were adopted, and they do indeed assert that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy
Ghost" and" born of the Virgin Mary." Here the Holy Ghost is treated as a noncorporeal
manifestation of a triune god, and Mary as a woman who has had no sexual experience at all-- not with the HG, not with Joseph, not with anyone. The conception of Jesus is treated as an explicitly miraculous event.
Paul is classified as an Apostle, not a church father. You are correct that he doesn't seem to be familiar with the virgin birth--or with any birth narrative, for that matter.
I'm going to continue this in a second post. Phone doesn't do well with long replies.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This is what you wrote...
"Mary is unique in that Luke, Matthew and later church fathers..."
Which I took to mean you were including the apostles as "church fathers". So I was simply using your own terminology for simplicity. If that's not what you meant, then the word "later" seems redundant and misleading, no? But yes, thank you, I'm aware what "church fathers" means in the academic sense and found it too petty to correct you on such a minor point. YMMV, of course.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Yes, thank you, I'm aware that the authors of the four canonical gospels are unknown. They were attributed to MMLJ during the second century CE. the writers are referred to as evangelists, not as church fathers, by the way.
And thank you again, I'm also aware that 1st. century writers were not knowledgeable about the details of sexual reproduction. I simply put the 1st century idea of how Mary became asexually pregnant into modern terms. ( I went to a Catholic school. Jokes that "Jesus was haploid!" received stern looks from the biology teacher.)
How did the church fathers reconcile the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity with her "giving birth to numerous children?". Easy. They denied she ever had Jesus's four brothers and (at least) two sisters. They interpreted his adelphoi as referring either to Joseph's children by an earlier marriage or to rather vague "cousins" or "kinsmen,"
You really are in unfamiliar waters here, aren't you?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Maybe we can find a cockamamie explanation.
Contrary to your using name, perhaps you don't question enough? 
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I mean, if we are going to ponder about purely fictional stories, let's at least go to a great one.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)war profiteer?
But who is Ishmael? He doesn't say "my name is Ishmael" he says "call me, Ishmael".
Also, did Gandolf know Bilbo had the ring all along?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So let's get started, and call me, Ishmael.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts) NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)... a "magical ring", he just did not know that it was the "One Ring" 
until it was almost too late.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)"Who farted?"
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)It's *#^@(*()*$ almost 2015 and I have to read this shit on a 'progressive' website...
It's so sad. Actually arguing 'HOW" moses parted the red sea???
Seriously?
Why not debate exactly how the whale swallowed jonah - was it 1 giant gulp or did he do some nibbling first?
I fear for your country when people take this shit as literal...
If you can believe this garbage,what WON'T people believe???
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The article is about how scientifically based events might explain how this story came to be. It's a way of challenging literalism, not promoting it.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)because it was co-opted from other myths, specifically Babylonian.
Any bullshit that tries to show how any of the Exodus story could have been true is just lending credence to fantasy stories that never happened.
There was no Moses, no slavery in Egypt, no parting the Red Sea.
Should we look for evidence of a real Gilgamesh and Enkidu and Utnapishtim.
This shit is as bad as Velikovsky.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)but I have enjoyed reading the back and forth.
I reject literalism and was raised with religion as stories, allegory and metaphor.
Anything that challenges literalism is ok by me, but it never looks like a score to me. I don't particularly care what may or may not be literally true.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)
over what may or may not be true.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Really?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)I was just pointing to how the story and it's truth or not is significant. It was in response to you saying it doesn't matter.
In fact all the Fundy Christian support for Israel is because of Biblical stories.
I think Israel was a response to a horrible event and there was historical support for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)personally in terms of whether Jews have a right to the area.
The fundy support for Israel is manufactured and self serving, imo.
In the end, I think one should support what is right. If someone wants to spend their time arguing about what is literal and what is not, it may be an interesting read, but it should change nothing about what is right and what is wrong.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)not makes no difference. I see. That's a different matter.
Let's drop Israel (I'll delete from post) Too big a can of worms, i shouldn't have used it as an example.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I understand that religion plays a role in all kinds of international conflicts. The significance of that can not be denied.
Literalism is often a problem in those conflicts because people honestly believe that they and they alone have the right story.
But, when it comes down to it, it's always more complex than just a story from a sacred text and those texts are often just tools to make the case for hate and aggression.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Except, it appears, anything that challenges the literalism of the parting of the Red Sea. Then you're like, 'ZOMG, are you proposing the Jews be forcibly evicted from Israel??'
edhopper
(33,575 posts)the Red Sea is ridiculous on it's own.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that is why I deleted it.
No need to get sidetracked when the OP falls on it's own.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so much outrage. So misplaced. Do you feel the same way about attempts by the Discovery Institute to slather layers of pseudo scientific bullshit over creationism?
question everything
(47,476 posts)Who twisted your hand and forced you to dip your head in this *#$^&?
This is probably the first time that I visit this specific form. As a trained scientist I like to read stories like that and thought this would be a good place to post.
So what brought you here? It certainly is not part of the "latest," nor "greatest" threads.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While this is not the part of religious history that really interests me, it stimulated one of the better discussions that has occurred here lately and I have enjoyed reading it.
I hope you will contribute in the future.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)you choose to believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence, in fact pretty much every fact known about that period, that says it is not true.
So is there any evidence that would make you not accept the Exodus story?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... true, half-true, or false is really nit that important to me.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)If not, why not?
I believe there is one God.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Seriously, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I really do find it fascinating.
Whether I believe something or not isn't a matter of choice at all. I'm amazed that you can will yourself to believe things. I can't even imagine how that would work.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is in the end a hope.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Although Justin says it is what he chooses, I don't really buy that. I don't think he could choose not to believe.
And i don't' think most non-believers could choose to believe.
It's something intrinsic to our nature and possibly out of our control.
At any rate, I don't think Justin wills himself to believe, I just think he does believe.
And there is nothing at all wrong with that in my opinion.
The problem occurs when individuals think they are more right or correct or superior because they believe or don't believe.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)religious belief is learned, and as such it can be unlearned.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I wouldn't even label it as legendary, most likely its co-opted from similar stories around the Middle East and Mediterranean, but you might as well ask whether pegasi were viable as flying animals.
The fact is that the story of Exodus has about as much or less historical basis as the Iliad, I would actually argue less, considering that we did finally find the city of Troy and there is some basis for the Trojan war as having taken place.
The enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt never took place, in any of the possible time periods that the Egyptians documented, and that's the point, we have documentation from the Egyptians themselves, and there's no evidence that Exodus is anything but a myth.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)That is what I think.
Then he braided each side into pigtails.
SamKnause
(13,102 posts)
Iggo
(47,552 posts)It's fiction
edhopper
(33,575 posts)on this thread discussing it as if it were a real event, even though it has been shown to be a fabrication.
I thought that beliefs are suppose to be discounted if there is actual evidence that they aren't true?
Guess I was misinformed.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)around the historical accuracy of this event. There appear to be very learned and scholarly people on both sides of the issue.
This article is really interesting because it makes the case that there may have been an event of some sort.
I thought that holding something to be a fabrication required actual data and evidence.
Guess I was misinformed.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)about Climate Change, vaccinations, and even evolution. And yes this is in that category.
It is a tortured explanation for an event for which all the evidence says didn't happen.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Within the scientific community there is consensus and very little debate about climate change, vaccinations and evolution.
That is not the case for some of the parts of this story.
Show me your evidence that hasn't been countered by someone equally qualified.
Admit it. This is a question that will probably never be resolved. My best guess is that something happened and a story grew around it, just like most history.
Those that take either extreme position - it happened just like the story says/it never happened at all - are on the fringes.
that is no argument at all.
It is the same argument for denying Climate change.
Your insistence that nothing can be known is getting ridiculous.
Do you hold the same view for ancient aliens, cause there are "qualified' people out there making those claims too.
Believe what you want, insist that nobody can know anything for sure.
But the next time you claim that beliefs can be countered by evidence, I'll take this into account.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I can read data and studies and see if they are valid or not. In the case of global climate change, I have not doubt that they are correct at this time.
The same can not be said for historical events that have been told and retold over millennia. I don't know what is accurate and there is not consensus on this. If there were a scientifically viable wayback machine, then maybe one could take a definitive stand. I think there is some rather definitive scientific evidence that parts of the story could not be true, but not enough to dismiss the entire thing as fabricated.
Sorry that you find me ridiculous. I find taking a hard stand on this subject for which I can not find consensus ridiculous.
You always start making it personal when you can't convince me that you are right. I'll take that into account in the future.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)it is that simple. You've made the claim all over this discussion that the evidence is there from reputable authorities. So prove it.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)won't event like these leave some physical evidence in the landscape.
Or do earthquakes and tsunamis leave no trace now.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)You keep talking about it, but I don't see any links to support your belief.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)it's not important to you, as you have said.
I really don't feel like doing your research for you, you said you looked all around and found all these experts who support the Exodus story.
I guess you missed the ones with the evidence against it, or decided that it's all 50/50.
If you can't see how overwhelming it is, then you can't
I can't convince some people I know that supply side economics doesn't work, they got experts too.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)taking a definitive stance and bullying others with it without providing the data to back it up.
Reminds me of religious people who know the one way and want to save others.
If you can not provide evidence, then I will assume that you are saying something that you believe and have based it on faith.
Honestly, I'm going to take the NOAA Chief Scientist's ideas about this over yours.
I saw all kinds of articles. Some say there is not evidence, others say there is. What I don't see is a consensus.
If it's that overwhelming, it should be easy to support.
Seriously, this comes across like religion.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)of a large population of Jewish slaves in Egypt in the 15th Cenury BCE?
Really?
By the way, the author of the story wants to explain how somebody may have crossed the Sea. He offers no evidence, none, zero, zilch, that it happened, that Moses was real, that the Jews were slaves.
Should we figure out how Jonah lived in a Great Fish? How Noah fit in all those Animals.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Really?
I agree that the author was proposing a hypothesis on how this story may have originated.
To me, that is very interesting and I have no dog in the fight as to whether it is true or not, but you seem to have a very big dog in this fight.
I'm just guessing, but I would venture that you think if you knock down sacred stories as being false, you have scored a victory against religion.
You haven't. You are just tilting at windmills.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)he is trying to give an explanation for a fantastical tale.
He is saying IF the story was true, this could explain it without all the supernatural acts.
But first we have to assume that Moses was real.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)a tsunami occurs and the *some large number* of people show up *at just the right moment* and are able to scurry across whatever body of water this was supposed to be *without getting drowned*, which would require a miracle of course so we are back to claiming something ludicrously improbable without a shred of evidence and use that to justify belief in some ancient deity. Meanwhile there is lots of evidence that there was no mass enslavement of jews in Egypt, as in the Egyptians, who built monuments and tombs documenting just about everything they did, forgot to mention this, or the plagues or the tsunami or .... and there is plenty of evidence that the predecessors of the jews were actually living in the levant for any of the time periods that might have covered the alleged exodus. There are so many holes in the story that reputable biblical historians fall back to "well there could have been a small number of jews in Egypt as slaves at some point in time and they could have escaped". Which is not the story of exodus, of the enslavement of an entire people and their salvation by divine intervention.
The jews of course were conquered humiliated and enslaved by the babylonians, that did happen. Around the same time the mythology of the OT was more or less established in the form we have it today.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)are you really asking that?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)important to you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Honestly, these are the kind of ridiculous, irresolvable debates that make some believers and nonbelievers so tedious. Each trying to convince the other that they hold the truth, when neither one does.
It is the insistence that one be right and the need to convert or deconvert that I object to.
But most of all, I object to the bullying of individuals who see somethings differently. I do not believe that you are smarter or wiser or more rational or reasoned than Justin. You are both good people who see things differently.
I had a post hidden yesterday and I deserved it. I was bullying someone who is really harmless. He just irritates me and he is an easy target for me. It was wrong and I got what I deserved. I hope that I learned from it.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)always wondering about my thinking?
Why are you engaged in a ridiculous, unsolvable debate?
Why do you keep asking for links about a story that makes absolutely no difference to you?
Why do you have to be right that no one can ever know what the truth is?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you in terms of religion.
I told you why I was involved. It is because I don't take well to people saying that they have the truth when they don't and then bullying other people with it.
There is truth. It is fact based and can be shown and repeated. And even then, it can be changed with new information, so it's never really the whole or exact truth.
Then there is belief which is something entirely different. Both sides of this debate are involved in beliefs. If they can't talk about that without having to be right, then they are only evangelizing.
I don't have to be right about that, but that's how I see it.
How about you?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)having a heated discussion here I am somehow obsessed with what people believe.
I find it interesting, that is all.
I have had more heated discussions online about the ending of Inception or whether Rex Ryan is a good coach than talking about the Moses myth here.
These post/reply/reply.... just grow, depending on the free time of the posters, it's the nature of the thing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that 71% of your posts are in this group and 65% of mine are, and I'm pretty obsessed.
The other day, someone posted something to the effect that things would be so much better if we approached each other asking what the other person wishes for, dreams of or would like to see happen.
I found that pretty profound. If we don't ask, then all we can do is assume, and the likelihood of that being wrong seems pretty high.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)in GD.
But for some reason I don't post there as much as here.
Part of it might be I often see my view already expressed there. But not sure.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Key word: appear.
An event of some sort? Sure, possibly. Lots of fascinating geographical events have happened. Certainly how the Black Sea was formed seems to be one of the most incredible events in relatively recent history.
Moses actively causing the sea to open up, and all the Jewish people to walk completely across the seabed, and then causing the sea to come back and drown the Pharaoah's armies?
DIDN'T HAPPEN. Do you understand the difference?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Why would that be?
Oh wait, here's why: all of it is going to be from religious nut jobs. Actual archeologists and reputable biblical historians agree that exodus is a myth without historical foundation.
I've provided the links to both wiki and rational wiki for an overview of what the actual consensus is on this horseshit.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
And here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
But to be fair, here are two tortured examples of making shit up with no supporting evidence and then claiming it could have happened:
Evidence or not for the Exodus? Evidence there is none, but we can see that there was one period in Egyptian history when such an event could have taken place, one period when the three major conditions suggested by the biblical account came together and could have given it plausibility. And that would make Akhenaten the Pharaoh of the Oppression and young Tutankhamun the Pharaoh of the Exodus. And the date? That would be around 1330 BCE.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Exodus-Does-archaeology-have-a-say-348464
So Canaanites went to Egypt for a variety of reasons. They were generally assimilated—after a generation or two they became Egyptians. There is almost no evidence that those people left. But there are one or two Egyptian documents that record the flight of a handful of people who had been brought to Egypt for one reason or other and who didn't want to stay there.
Now, there is no direct evidence that such people were connected with the exodus narrative in the Bible. But in our western historical imagination, as we try to recreate the past, it's certainly worth considering that some of them, somehow, for some reason that we can never understand, maybe because life was so difficult for them in Egypt, thought that life would be greener than in the pastures that they had left.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-exodus.html
There are plenty of other examples of "see it could have happened even though". It is stunningly stupid that anyone takes this crap seriously.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)With this 'Both sides have experts and valid evidence' bullshit.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If people who reject the scientific consensus on evolution and the big bang are "dumbasses", what are people who reject the historical consensus on the Exodus myth?
Curiouser and curiouser...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Alleluia!
As I said above, I did my own research and see debate and not historical consensus.
This article is about a possible natural event that might have fed this story or been the acorn from which it grew. It was developed by a serious climate scientist.
That seems pretty rational and reasonable, so the fact that some are rejecting it out of hand based on what appear to be beliefs is disturbing.
Curiouser and curiouser indeed...
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Not "What geological events may have created a phenomenon that was later embellished to become the story about Moses parting the Red Sea?"
Do you really not see the difference?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe in the exodus more or less, so what does that make me?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I didn't call the creationists "dumbasses".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)said, oh, about 3 years ago and has been so distorted and taken out of context that it has become hilarious.
This happens from time to time and is generally a sign of frustration.
He has no "historical consensus", so the claim that there are those here that are rejecting it is hollow.
Comparing this to evolution is not very rational or reasoned.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)At least not entirely.
There are many reasons someone may believe something in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary, of which intelligence--or lack thereof--is only one.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Do you think denying the academic consensus on Exodus is qualitatively different than denying the academic consensus on evolution?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's pretty straightforward.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The kegend of the story might be exaggerated but i believe it happened.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What standard of evidence do you require that the vast majority of professional historians have been unable to meet?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What was the singular piece of evidence that convinced you of the truth of it?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Also I was taught in Catholic school in evolution.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Carbon dating tells you how old something is. It does not describe change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts) cbayer
(146,218 posts)countering creationists.
it's a counter to young earthers.
there are many creationist who aren't young earthers, they just think man was created whole by God.
Some even accept evolution for all the animals but Man.
So no, carbon dating isn't the #1 piece of evidence.
The Jeopardy answer is;
What is DNA?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)but most creationist are also young earthers and carbon dating is indisputable evidence that they are wrong.
It is much more difficult to explain evolution and it is way more complicated that the simplistic answer "DNA".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The age of the earth does not tell us anything about changes in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. We're talking about biology here, not geology.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Carbon dating is one of the reasons I don't believe in creationism.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You believe the earth is older than 6,000 years because radio carbon dating, but I take it you also accept the proposition that, over a long period of time, changes in the frequency of expressed alleles in a living population can produce speciation events. Why do you accept this?
Again, I'm looking for something specific. What evidence do feel is the strongest? What makes the theory of evolution irrefutable?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm not asking you to write a dissertation. I am asking you what it is about the evidence you find convincing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Look I don't spend much time ghinking on evolution. I just accept it.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you think the way you do. The best way to do that, in my experience, is dialectics. While that may involve asking a lot of little, ostensibly irritating questions, I think it a more productive discourse than lecturing.
Since the cat's out of the bag, however, I'll just say my peace and move on:
There's no qualitative difference between denying evolution and denying the mythicist explanation of Exodus. They are both theories held by a consensus of professionals in their respective fields. This means each theory has overwhelmingly met academic standards of evidence.
Consensuses in the hard sciences are uncommon, but in history--when so much is left to interpretation--they are even harder to come by. That a sweeping majority of historians do not believe Exodus to be based on actual events should tell you something.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm not asking you to write a dissertation. Something brief would be great.
And if it's something that can be easily presented to deniers, that would be a huge bonus.
Or you could just keep on pushing on Justin who has given you perfectly legitimate and reasonable answers until you get him into whatever corner you are looking for.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Do you just deny evolution as in how Homo sapiens came to be? Or you deny evolution period.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)species of plants and animals were formed at exactly the same time. Of course, god did it first with playdoh, because he didn't want to make any mistakes. Evidence of those playdoh models have been found and they all date back to the exact same second.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It may have been some sort of intelligent design ( notice I said "may have been", not saying I know what happened).
Can an alien species perheps be the gods so many civilizations have decribed?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I"m pretty skeptical about the whole god thing, but I don't pretend to know what may or may not be the truth.
What do you think?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I do believe in a spirit, but thats pretty much the extent of what I'm certain of.
For all I know the whole world could be just a cell belonging to something much bigger.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't know and don't expect to ever know, and I don't really care. If there was something that proved either the existence or non-existence of a god like entity, I don't think it would change anything for me.
But I also tend to think that we are very, very small in the big scheme of things.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)We are pretty insignificant, if not annoying, to whatever is out there.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Both the killing of all Egyptian firstborn by God, and the genocide of the innocent inhabitants of Canaan when the Israelites arrive there? These are pretty important parts of the story. Do you believe they happened?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yes I think they happened.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)That he directly killed innocent children (and, although this is a detail you could choose not to believe, made sure the pharaoh didn't let the Israelites go until he had done the massacre), and that he also ordered the Israelites to massacre strangers (and, in some details, helped them).
It's possible that God is a reformed character, of course, although many Christians claim his essence is eternal and unchanging. But it would indicate that it was God who had as much need of being forgiven for past sins as humanity did.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Because you didn't come to this on your own independently of the church teachings which say the same thing. I'm gonna guess it's from the bible, which is rather backwards as it's a catalog of god's crimes against humanity.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)the deaths of the Egyptian firstborn seems to forget about Pharaoh's order to kill all male Hebrew infants at birth. Why no indignation about that act of genocide or railing that Pharaoh was a sadistic bastard?
And for the record, I believe that the story of the exodus is an origins epic composed in Judah--probably in Jerusalem-- during the nation-building reign of King Josiah. The historical basis of the story is probably the expulsion of the Hyksos, not the escape of slaves.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Don't worship the Pharoh as a good and loving God.
Really? I mean you are seriously asking this?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)It says you should worship the god. The morality of the god is far more important when considering the religion(s) than that of a foreign monarch who wasn't part of the religion.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)
What the story asks you to do is see the deaths of Egyptian children as justice--a direct punishment in kind for the deaths of Hebrew children. It asks its readership to worship a god who will punish injustice against his people
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)You wondered why people focus on the god's actions rather than the pharaoh's. I answered because the god is the centre of the religion, not this unnamed pharoah (even for a biblical literalist, he'd be dead by the time the story was written; for anyone else, he's either been dead for centuries or was a made-up character anyway).
"It asks its readership to worship a god who will punish injustice against his people" - well, yes, and it's that morality which is in question, and of interest. He punishes innocent children 80 years after a genocide by a different pharaoh. This kind of 'kill one of mine, I'll kill 2 of yours" mentality is what people are going to concentrate on. It's the attitude of a Mafia boss, Nazi functionary or psychopath, of course, but that's the God of the pre-historic Old Testament for you. I'm surprised that "God used to be a violent, hateful being, but he reformed - so could you" isn't used more often as a significant message in Christianity (or Judaism - once you get into the historic bits of exile in Babylon, God seems to have stopped being genocidal).
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the one who cannot let the genocide of Yahweh go unchallenged. Sure the whole thing is a fairy tale, and nobody at the table is actually a believer, we are all "nones" of one sort or another, but even with secular jews the story goes unchallenged and unremarked, 70 years after another genocidal psychopath was slaughtering jews by the millions.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)you choose not.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You have good evidence that it might not be but you have not proven it.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)do you accept as complete myth?
Noah? Jonah? Adam and Eve?
You want science, and event such as described in the Red Sea would have left considerable evidence. Sediments, strata etc.. There is none, zero zilch.
The Egyptians were obsessive about recording events in stone, there is extensive writings from that period, none mention a whisper about this.
You want this to be true because it supports your faith, that is your choice, but you are choosing faith over reason. Also your choice.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)there would be considerable geological evidence of some kind of event and that there is none, zero, zilch.
I am seeing a lot of this being tossed around, but a real dearth of links.
I am willing to be convinced and educated, but, frankly, some of this is coming across as a belief system that is based on faith that what you have been told is true.
When I do a search, I see all kinds of conflicting information and no consensus.
To take that and then accuse someone of embracing faith over fact is a low blow, unless you really have the data to back it up.
Do you?
I must not accept it to be true or my nonbelief in god will be completely shattered.
I have to discount all that great research from The Discovery Institute and "Exodus Decoded".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265119/-How-Archaeology-Disproves-Biblical-History
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm not interested in anything from the Discovery Institute and had never heard of Exodus Decoded, but James Cameron has a clear agenda.
Thanks for the book review. Here is an article for you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isaacs/passover-in-egypt-did-the_b_846337.html
edhopper
(33,575 posts)That is your expert?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's not even what is on the table here.
He's as qualified as anyone else, definitely more qualified than I and I suspect more qualified than you.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)he buys the whole Exodus story, including the Ten Commandments and explains it's power by saying it was radioactive.
Very qualified, non biased expert indeed.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Everyone is biased when they espouse on a subject for which there is little or no way to get factual information.
The author's of your linked book from 14 years ago also are biased and have an agenda.
Bottom line is this, no one knows.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)no one knows nothing, heard it before.
It's an argument I rejected from the start and still reject.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Lots of people know lots of thing, you hyperbole not withstanding.
You can reject anything you want but without data it is no more than a belief based on faith. It is, in fact, no different than a religious belief.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In this new book Roger D. Isaacs has matched many Hebrew words with their counterparts in neighboring ancient languages and retranslated them. The result is a totally new understanding of the puzzling laws and seemingly fantastical stories about the ark that readers often dismiss. Isaacs reveals why the ark was lethal and the protections necessary to avoid its radioactivity.
Holy Fucking Shit. This is, finally, after the endless blather about credible evidence for exodus and how you've googled and there are plenty of experts on both sides, this fucking nutjob is your supporting evidence?
Bookmarking for future reference.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Exodus-Does-archaeology-have-a-say-348464
cbayer
(146,218 posts)there appear to be an equal number of similarly qualified scholars who say the opposite.
It appears to be one of those things that will likely never be resolved.
My conclusion is that anyone who takes a hard stand either way is most likely wrong.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Yes there a biblical scholars who insist it isn't disproven, (notice they have no evidence, just claim there isn't evidence yet, or not enough yet to disprove it).
And either one side is wrong or the other, it either happened or it didn't. the current evidence overwhelmingly supports those who say it didn't.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Sort of like the debate about the existence of god.
You see overwhelming evidence. I don't.
This isn't like there are a few outliers that are fringe element people as is the case for climate change or anti-vaccination.
What a ridiculous argument this has become. It does not matter. What matters is people's attempt to beat others up with what they say is TRUTH when it is merely conjecture.
I have learned my lesson. I didn't previously participate in these tedious and relentlessly boring debates and I will not do so in the future.
Continue to take the position that you hold the truth, as those that they think they hold it will also do.
You all can have at each other.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)This isn't a question of unknowable supernatural entities. It is a question of "are the historical claims of the Exodus story credible" and they are not. The Jews were never a captive people living in Egypt. Even credible biblical historians agree on that and instead attempt to revise the story to fit what could be credible, if they continue to insist on any credibility at all, most do not and the consensus is "myth without historical foundation". You continue to insist that there are two equally credible sides to this debate, and your one effort to document your side was astoundingly laughable. Do provide any evidence that actual archeologists, or credible biblical historians, have evidence for the historicity of Exodus. Nut jobs who self published a ridiculous book don't count.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Trying to show that there is a preponderance of evidence to support your position is not in any way accomplished when you use a highly biased source.
It is the equivalent of someone who believes in the Exodus putting up a link to a conservative jewish site.
If you want the conclusion of a relatively neutral source, I think you and I might be able to agree on this:
"Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."
Redmount, Carol A. (1998). "Bitter Lives: Israel In And Out of Egypt". In Coogan, Michael D. The Oxford History of the Biblical World
edhopper
(33,575 posts)About RationalWiki
Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
Random featured article[What is this?]
Peer review
The peer review process.
Peer review is the process of subjecting scientific work to review by other experts in the field. The first, and most notable, step is when a piece of scientific work is looked at by reviewers - peers - for approval prior to publication. After publication, peer review is an ongoing process where a work is open to scrutiny by the scientific community at large, including attempts to replicate the original results independently. The process is designed to ensure that the work meets the standards of the field in question and of science in general.
What peer review is and, quite importantly, what it is not, is key to understanding how science works in practice. The reasons why science uses peer review and its potential problems - bias, mistakes and the limitations of the system - are also important to bear in mind while analyzing how science works in practice.
And did you read the entire section on Exodus from the quote source you placed? He agrees we can't place it in the time or place the Bible does.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)they are very anti-religion, no matter what they say. Their definition of "peer review" is quite different than that that is used in rigorous scientific journals.
If you look at the opening quote under the category religion, you get this:
—Dr. Pascal Boyer, commenting on religions
Bottom line is that they are highly biased.
My linked article does exactly what most articles I read do. It says that there are clearly historical inaccuracies but support the idea that there was some kind of event. Rather amusingly, the two articles put up by the LordQuinton do the same thing.
No one can rationally argue that the Exodus took place exactly like it was written in the Old Testament. OTOH, no one can rationally argue that no event took place that became the foundation for this story.
I feel like those that are so invested in the whole thing being false feel that they will have struck a possibly lethal blow to religion in general if they are right, but they are no more than Don Quixotes tilting at windmills.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If demanding evidence other than hocus pocus counts as an agenda, count me in.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Religious people are not without reason and they don't' have to provide evidence unless they are insisting that you believe.
The agenda of RationalWiki is not reason, it's anti-religion and just a little bit of rational thinking would tell you that is what it is.
Otherwise your position is intellectually dishonest, don't you think?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There are two ways to gain knowledge. One is through reason and the other is through revelation. There's nothing inherently wrong with either method. Any coded messages you found in the word "reason" appear to be yours alone as I've never heard that claim anywhere and I don't think very many would give it much credibility.
While you can certainly claim RationalWiki's so-called agenda is whatever you want, I'm not sure you're going to have much luck convincing anyone of it. Their entries cover a great many topics, most of which have exactly squat to do with religion. A little bit of rational thinking leads me to believe you are just employing ad hominem fallacies against a source that says something you don't like. There's absolutely nothing wrong with applying reason to any topic, including religion. Implying otherwise is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you reject revelation, are you then claiming that everything you know was learned through reason? And if you accept revelation, how do you explain it?
Where does this very narrow and confining definition come from?
"Reason" is used to say that those with religious beliefs are "unreasonable". That, of course, is ludicrous. It is possible, even likely, for someone to be both religious and reasonable.
I have no problem with RationalWiki in general. In fact, I think they do a great job in a number of areas. But they have a clear anti-religious agenda and what I object to is that site being proffered as a neutral source of information. They aren't.
A little bit of rational thinking leads me to believe that you are resorting to ad hominems and mounting a straw man because I objected to using a biased source to make a neutral point.
Implying otherwise is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty and requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Have you been indoctrinated?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Most any dictionary.
[nol-ij]
noun
1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge
Study of knowledge means seeking out facts, truths, or principles from someone else, aka revelation. Investigation of facts, truths, or principles is applied reason.
Who says that? Certainly not RationalWiki. Perhaps you have a cite for that you'd care to share, but so far you don't seem to be willing to provide support for your assertions which strongly leads one to believe they are completely without basis. Sounds more like a strawman fallacy, which if applied knowingly is intellectual dishonesty, btw.
I'm not so sure rational thinking had anything to do with this. Where is the ad hominem I employed? Ad hominem would mean I personally attacked your character or that of your sources. I said nothing negative about your character, and I certainly couldn't have attacked your sources because you haven't provided any that I have seen. "mounting a straw man because I objected to using a biased source to make a neutral point" makes absolutely zero sense. I'm not convinced you have any idea what strawman means. Mounting a strawman would first require misrepresentation of your assertion. I simply disagreed with your assertion that RationalWiki has an "anti-religion" agenda, which you even appear to acknowledge by saying they do a great job in a "number of areas". An example of strawman is claiming someone asserted something they did not and arguing from that basis. You know, kinda like you did in your 3rd paragraph.
But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and RationalWiki has an "anti-religion" agenda. What is wrong with that exactly? I'm pretty sure most churches have an anti-atheism agenda. I don't really see much wrong with that, either. The person who linked to RationalWiki said nothing of them being a neutral source of information, so you are objecting to something that was never claimed. Kinda sounds like more strawman, no? Not to mention the fact that attacking the source of someone else when you have failed to provide any of your own seems rather weak, especially since you have promised there are many of them.
Kinda sounds like ad hominem, which if applied knowingly is intellectual dishonesty, btw.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)All of that stuff about logical fallacies and those tired shopworn things like cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty were just thrown in there to be rhetorical.
I think accusing others of using logical fallacies is often a logical fallacy in and of itself. No need to go to all the trouble of making links to them. I know them all too well. They are best left to those that want to have a debate in which one wins or loses and left out of actual conversation.
Plus your generally condescending tone is off-putting and not at all engaging. Perhaps you do not mean to come across that way, but you do.
At any rate, you fail to define revelation in your post. You say that it is the study of knowledge and seeking out truths from someone else, but I don't really think that is true in many cases. Is it a sudden burst of knowledge that is not based on reason?
If I learn how to cook nopales tonight for the first time, will that be reason or revelation?
There are so many ways of knowing things. I fail to see how these two categories can cover them all, but perhaps if you are clearer in your definition, I may get a better understanding.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You seem to think it's OK for you to accuse me (first) of logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance, and intellectual dishonesty, and when I call you on it, you were just being "rhetorical" (as if such could be for any other reason). But if I dare to make the exact same observations about what you write along with an explanation of why, (which you refuse to reciprocate, btw), I'm being "condescending". I find this more than just a bit hypocritical, and if you also find that off-putting, then so be it, but I'm pretty sure I'm treating your posts with more respect than you're treating mine, so you may want to check your own tone.
You're talking in circles. You just paraphrased my definition you claimed I failed to provide.
Skill and knowledge are not the same thing. If you obtain knowledge it can be either from someone else or your own experimentation. In other words, revelation or reason. How you do that is for you to decide. As my crystal ball is in the shop right now, I can't tell you.
Somehow I doubt that. After defining a term as asked, you claimed I didn't. At some point one has to decide your lack of understanding is willful.
okasha
(11,573 posts)"get too hung up on the specifics of whatever that means."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and I have very limited bandwidth and data available. I hate to eat it all up with this.
Perhaps we could discuss elsewhere, or not.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But if you're going to continue to make demands that I specify definitions for everything I say and then fail to reciprocate when so asked, I'm not sure I'm good with those ground rules.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Followed with lots of juicy conjecture about how the story might have gotten co-opeted and embellished into the story of a people.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Did you even read this? It in no way supports that an exodus never occurred.
Thanks for the link! I will use it if any one asks for the view of a very qualified biblical scholar who thinks that the event can not be ruled out.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)I guess there is that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If I chose to believe certain things that are not provable that hurts no one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Just like some believers find atheists threatening.
Sad state of affairs, if you ask me.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)I am just asking and telling you what I think about your answers.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)probing questions can seem intrusive.
And it's hard to hear the tone, if it's is conversational or confrontational.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I know when I post in here I will be challenged.
edhopper
(33,575 posts) 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)but I have no problem if you did.
Questioning belief, mine and others, was a big part of my path into atheism.
So i still engage in that process.
okasha
(11,573 posts)for the volcanic explosion on Thera/ Santorini and resulting tsunami.
Like the destruction of Knossos on Crete. Like a missing island.
There is also evidence that the Minoans, at least, knew a catastrophic event was in the making. It's almost certain that the eruption was preceded by earthquakes.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)In the Sinai?
Evidence of a tsunami hitting Egypt?
And There happened at the same moment Moses stood at the Red Sea?
Sure.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)
Laffy Kat
(16,377 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)take as fact that Moses even existed.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)a point of ongoing debate here.
Apparently, any story can be true if there is not evidence that it is completely false.
Regardless whether there is any evidence to support it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And you know it.
It has to do with consensus and a preponderance of evidence. You can't provide it and now you become churlish about it.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence shows it isn't true, that is your right.
Others see it differently.
So what part of the story do you think is possibly true and which part fabrication?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)an "overwhelming preponderance of the evidence". It's kind of like being an atheist, isn't it? You are asking me to take something on faith. You presented one book review and no one else in this thread has presented even that.
I have no earthly idea what part of the story might be true and what part is fabricated. My basic take on these ancient stories is that something happened and the story grew. That happens today.
I can't count the number of times I have seen someone post something on this site as fact only to discover that it was a spoof or the number of times someone has stated definitely that something is not true, when it was.
If that can happen in a 24 hour new cycle, I figure there is a lot that can happen over several thousand years.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)of Babylonian, not Egyptian origin.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)It was a song.
How did Moses cross the Red Sea?
How did Moses cross the Red Sea?
How did Moses cross the Red Sea?
How did he get across?
God blew with his wind, puff puff puff puff
He blew just enough nough nough nough nough
And through the sea, he made a path
That's how he got across.
Crazy stuff.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)None of this really happened.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Reality is very subjective to many.
spin
(17,493 posts)Myths are the smoke of history.
The flood myth is common to many cultures and may be based on events that occurred as the ice melted from the last ice age or because of a comet strike off the coast of Madagascar.
Sodom and Gomorrah were probably destroyed by an asteroid.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Based on reality or not.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Than saying any of the people and places in this story have any veracity.
The origins are more likely Babylonian.
spin
(17,493 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)stories grow from that seed.
It's like playing telephone, but I think in most cases there was an event that started the whole thing.
We probably still do it, we just don't recognize it yet.
spin
(17,493 posts)Sometimes the story teller enhances and changes the story to fit the audience but it still remains a good story.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)believe the story is literally true?
In this story, what is good about a diety causing untold suffering and death to countless innocent people?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)let alone shown that they suffered some form of catastrophe. There is no way you can claim it's more likely than not that they were destroyed by an asteroid without having some physical evidence that they existed.
Flood myths may be based on floods. This tells us absolutely nothing. What more likely, that people kept meaningful recollections of end-of-Ice Age floods going for 7,000 years going before someone invented any form of writing, while their very languages changed, or that they based their flood stories on events that actually happened to someone within 100 generations?
spin
(17,493 posts)Good stories are enhanced and changed over time but they usually remain good stories.
We live in an age where entertainment can be obtained easily. In the ancient times a traveling storyteller was very welcome in a community. Flood stories and tales of cities being destroyed by gods were most likely the blockbusters of those days.
Quite possibly one guy realized a major flood was coming. He was lucky enough to have enough wealth to able to built a large boat. When the storm started, the tsunamis hit or the dam burst he put some of his animals and his family on the boat. They floated around for a while but survived and set up shop in a different region. Their journey is the basis of the story of Utnapishtim and his flood in the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic and also the story of Noah in the Bible. The two stories have a lot of things in common.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)is it? You can't claim that someone realised a comet was going to hit somewhere around Madagascar and cause a flood somewhere. No-one had that good an understanding of astrophysics and geography back then. And you can't claim that someone thought the end of the ice age was going to cause a flood, but somehow the whole existence of the ice covering a large enough part of the world to cause a flood gets left out of the story. That's just not credible.
Genesis was written down about 600BC. The culture it comes from can be traced back to about 1000BC. Mesopotamian cultures started writing things down about 3000BC (I believe the story of Utnapishtim is from about 2000BC), and date back to perhaps 4000BC. But the ice age ended around 10000BC, and domestication of animals, apart from dogs, didn't happen until after it. It is not 'probable' that there was a 8000 year old story involving putting animals on a boat when that meant dogs, that survived through the whole upheaval of society in those 8000 years, while an entire new way of life and culture arose, and languages changed, and that's the flood they wrote about, rather than them writing about some flood that happened in the intervening 8000 years.
spin
(17,493 posts)neither can you.
I feel it is quite possible that a story of a major flood could be told for thousands of years. To help prove my point there was a movie in the theaters about Noah this year. We are still telling the stories of this flood 2600 years after the story was written down in Genesis if your dating of its writing is correct.
A good story is worth telling over and over again even if you change the details but stick to the basic plot.
Before the written word, stories were memorized and passed along. Even today some people have amazing memories. For example there are devout people who memorize all 6200 verses in the Koran.
Oral storytelling
***snip***
It is likely that oral storytelling has been around as long as human language. Storytelling fulfills the need for human beings to cast their experiences in narrative form. Our ancestors probably gathered around the evening fires and expressed their fears, their beliefs and their heroism through oral narratives. This long tradition of storytelling is evident in ancient cultures such as the Australian Aborigines. Community storytelling offered the security of explanation; how life and its many forms began and why things happen, as well as entertainment and enchantment. Communities were strengthened and maintained through stories that connected the present, the past and the future.
***snip***
Early storytelling probably originates in simple chants. People sang chants as they worked at grinding corn or sharpening tools. Our early ancestors created myths to explain natural occurrences. They assigned superhuman qualities to ordinary people, thus originating the hero tale.
Early storytelling combined stories, poetry, music, and dance. Those who excelled at storytelling became entertainers, educators, cultural advisors, and historians for the community. Through storytellers, the history of a culture was handed down from generation to generation.
The importance of stories and storytellers throughout human history can be seen in the respect afforded to storytellers like the African griot and the Irish seanchaí.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_storytelling
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)and no more likely than any other that anyone makes up. Your story involves people forgetting the major cause of a flood (melting ice), claiming to save animals before they had been domesticated, and someone thinking that the slow melting of a glacier near him will cause a flood that he needs to build a boat to escape - rather than, say, moving out of the valley floor. Or of having such great knowledge of geography that he knows about the polar ice caps thousands of miles away, and can calculate the likely effect of their melting on the breaching of the entrance to the Black Sea (which is what I presume you are hanging your hopes on - though investigation of that shows it wouldn't have been 'catastrophic', but a gradual rise of the Black Sea level - again, something you could lead animals away from, and not needing a boat).
spin
(17,493 posts)on events that actually happened. I happen to be one of them.
Historians' views on myths
Although myths are often considered to be stories of events that have not happened, many historians think myths are about actual events that have become connected with strong symbolic meaning, or that have been changed, or shifted in time or place, or even reversed. One way of thinking about this process is to imagine 'myths' as lying at the far end of an imaginary line. At one end of the line is 'dispassionate account', and 'legendary occurrence' or 'mythical status' is near the other end. As an event progresses toward the 'mythical' end of this line or continuum, the way people think, feel and say about the event changes. It may gain greater historical significance while the 'facts' become less important. By the time one arrives at the mythical end of the line, the story has "taken on a life of its own" and the facts of the original event have become almost unimportant.
This happens partly because the events described are taken away from their original situation and put in a new situation, often because it is similar to things happening at the moment. Some Greek myths originated in Classical times to provide reasons for local cult practices, to account for the local name of one of the Olympian gods, to describe half-remembered people, things that happened, to say why a deities' has certain features or entheogens, and sometimes to make sense of ancient icons. On the other hand, descriptions of recent events are made to seem to be like the more commonly known story. This idea has been used by Right-wing conservatives in America with text from the Bible (e.g. Revelation), and was used in the Russian Communist era in propaganda (political lies) about situations with misleading links to struggles between the classes. Even today the fitness of the Emperor of Japan is based partly on his distant descent from the Goddess of the Sun.
http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth
Obvously there is little I can post to convince you that I am right and there is little you can post to change my opinion.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)they found it. See Troy. Really, you can go see it. Problem with exodus is that there is lots of great archeological evidence for the history of Egypt, and nothing, nada, zilch, zero evidence for anything in the exodus fairy tale.
spin
(17,493 posts)However I will agree that it is strange that more evidence of the exodus and the consequent warfare in Joshua's conquest of Canaan has not turned up.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is weak sauce.
spin
(17,493 posts)to entertain an audience.
Until the city of Troy was found.
Who can say what scientists and archaeologists will uncover in the next 100 years?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)core to Greek civilization and not just an entertaining poem. However there was nothing in the basic story of the siege and sacking of a city in asia minor by some Greeks that was improbable, required ridiculous miracles, or was otherwise absurd. Sure there were gods, but the gods just mucked around and did stuff, none of it on the parting of the sea level, and if one just throws that nonsense out the only issue was where exactly was Troy. It was pretty much where it should be.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)At the dawn of modern archeology.
But with all the study of Egypt over the decades, Nada.
spin
(17,493 posts)Ubar, Fabled Lost City, Found by L.A. Team : Archeology: NASA aided in finding the ancient Arab town, once the center of frankincense trade.
February 05, 1992|THOMAS H. MAUGH II | TIMES SCIENCE WRITER
The fabled lost city of Ubar, celebrated in both the Koran and "A Thousand and One Arabian Nights" as the center of the lucrative frankincense trade for 3,000 years before the birth of Christ, has been found by a Los Angeles-based team of amateur and professional archeologists.
Using a combination of high-tech satellite imagery and old-fashioned literary detective work, they discovered the fortress city buried under the shifting sands of a section of Oman so barren that it is known as the Rub'al Khali or Empty Quarter.
Built nearly 5,000 years ago, Ubar was a processing and shipping center for frankincense, an aromatic resin grown in the nearby Qara Mountains. Used in cremations and religious ceremonies, as well as in perfumes and medicines, frankincense was as valuable as gold.
Ubar's rulers became wealthy and powerful and its residents--according to Islamic legend--so wicked and debauched that eventually God destroyed the city, allowing it to be swallowed up by the restless desert. T. E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, called it "the Atlantis of the sands" and, like the undersea Atlantis, many scholars doubted that Ubar ever existed.
***snip***
Moreover, the researchers say they have documented how the city fell, and that it did not appear to be by divine retribution for wickedness. In building his "imitation of paradise," the legendary King Shaddad ibn 'Ad unknowingly constructed it over a large limestone cavern. Ultimately, the weight of the city caused the cavern to collapse in a massive sinkhole, destroying much of the city and causing the rest to be abandoned.
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-05/news/mn-1192_1_lost-city
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and the general consensus seems to be that they found an old settlement area, and an interesting one, not that it is "the lost city of the sands", and in fact the city of Ubar seems to be a 14th century invention.
Interview with Dr. Juris Zarins
September 1996
NOVA: Are you still confident that you found Ubar?
JZ: There's a lot of confusion about that word. If you look at the classical texts and the Arab historical sources, Ubar refers to a region and a group of people, not to a specific town. People always overlook that. It's very clear on Ptolomy's second century map of the area. It says in big letters "Iobaritae" And in his text that accompanied the maps, he's very clear about that. It was only the late Medieval version of The One Thousand and One Nights, in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, that romanticized Ubar and turned it into a city, rather than a region or a people.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ubar/zarins/
However I didn't say that no myths are based on real events, some are and some aren't. Myths that make historical claims, as Exodus does, can be evaluated on the basis of those claims. Exodus comes up a Myth Busters "Busted".
edhopper
(33,575 posts)it was a city, region or people (as the quote says) that was engaged in the spice trade. it is mentioned in many ancient documents. It's exact location was just lost. As to the stories about it, some are based on real events, some are my
It's like Jericho, it was a real city that saw conflict. Doesn't mean there was a man named Joshua who came to Judea with Moses and took down the walls with horns.
And Ubar isn't an example that can lend credence to the Exodus myth.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)in the Arabian nights. But indeed, what does this have to do with Exodus? As far as I can see it helps us to categorize myths that make historical claims, such as Exodus or the Iliad, into "total nonsense" and "not total nonsense".
spin
(17,493 posts)a miracle to some may be just science to someone else. While the thread is about Moses and Exodus my statement is about magic and miracles.
The legend of Ubar and its destruction is interesting.
Lost city of Ubar found in Oman, scientists say Satellite photos point to 'Atlantis of sands'
February 05, 1992|By Thomas Maugh II | Thomas Maugh II,Los Angeles Times
LOS ANGELES -- The fabled lost city of Ubar, celebrated in both the Koran and "The Arabian Nights" as the queen of the lucrative frankincense trade for 3,000 years before the birth of Christ, has been discovered by a Los Angeles-based team of amateur and professional archaeologists.
Built nearly 5,000 years ago, Ubar was a processing and shipping center for frankincense, an aromatic resin grown in the nearby Qara Mountains. Used in cremations and religious ceremonies as well as in perfumes and medicines, frankincense was as valuable as gold.
Ubar's rulers became wealthy and powerful and its residents -- according to Islamic legend -- so wicked and debauched that eventually God destroyed the city, allowing it to be swallowed up by the restless desert. T. E. Lawrence called it "the Atlantis of the sands," and like the undersea Atlantis, many scholars doubted that Ubar even existed.
***snip***
Moreover, the researchers say that they have documented how the city fell, and that it did not appear to be by divine retribution for wickedness. In building his "imitation of Paradise," the legendary King Shaddad ibn 'Ad unknowingly constructed it over a large limestone cavern. Ultimately, the weight of the city caused the cavern to collapse in a massive sinkhole, destroying much of the city and causing the rest to be abandoned. The researchers also discovered the remains of a nearby neolithic village that may date to at least 6000 B.C.(...emphasis added)
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-02-05/news/1992036047_1_city-of-ubar-legend-queen-of-sheba
It's my belief that most miracles can be explained by science. That does not necessary mean that there is no God but accepts the possibility that if there is a God, he is a scientist.
For example there could be an scientific explanation of how "Moses parted the Red Sea" if it really happened and is not just the imagination of some priests writing a book to create a religion based on a fairy tale. If you are interested you can read about it here...
No, really: There is a scientific explanation for the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/08/no-really-there-is-a-scientific-explanation-for-the-parting-of-the-red-sea-in-exodus/
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Sure, people can concoct all sorts of sciency bullshit to explain an alleged miracle, but that isn't the major malfunction with the Exodus fairy tale. Toss all the miracles out, you still have an event that couldn't have happened: the Exodus itself, the exit en masse of the enslaved jewish people from Egypt, because the jewish people were never enslaved in Egypt. It is that simple. The towering wall of water is irrelevant.
spin
(17,493 posts)a fairy tale.
Satellite technology has revealed numerous Egyptian structures buried in the sand including pyramids. Who knows what they contain.
Egypt's lost pyramids: Spied from space by satellite, 17 tombs buried by sands of time
By FIONA MACRAE FOR THE DAILY MAIL
UPDATED: 18:49 EST, 25 May 2011
More than 1,000 tombs and 3,000 ancient settlements found
Findings are a major boost to relatively new science of space archaeology
Indiana Jones found success with little more than a bullwhip and a fedora. These days however, if you want to make your mark as an archaeologist, a bit of space technology works wonders.
Satellites have helped locate 17 pyramids and 3,000 ancient settlements hidden underground in Egypt.
More than 1,000 burial sites were also discovered thanks to infra-red technology capable of probing beneath the desert sands from 450 miles above the Earth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1390667/Seventeen-lost-pyramids-thousands-buried-Egyptian-settlements-pinpointed-infrared-satellite-images.html
It is quite possible that evidence may turn up that reveals the basis for the stories in Exodus. It is fair for you to state that you doubt it but somewhat foolish to say that it is totally and absolute impossible. Of course you have every right to your own opinion as I do to mine.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There is zero evidence that the jewish people were enslaved in Egypt. All of that evidence would have to be in your 17 lost pyramids and 3000 tombs, and *not* all the other artifacts that have already been discovered. So sure, it is *possible* that there will be some new discovery that overturns the current consensus. Until then the facts are that there is no evidence at all that the jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, and quite a bit of evidence that they were in fact living in Canaan, the Levant, portions of which are now modern Israel, and which by the way Egypt frequently dominated.
spin
(17,493 posts)dinosaurs were cold blooded slow moving reptiles and the continents were fixed in place.
I'm sure kids that are in school right now will see similar misconceptions corrected in their lifetimes.
That's why I am always hesitant to believe that we know everything there is to know about a subject or a time and place in history.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But my fourth-grade teacher was wrong about Christopher Columbus discovering America. Should I dedicate much thought to the possibility that the next apple I drop may stay suspended in midair?
spin
(17,493 posts)happened in Egypt nobody knows how many years ago is far different than saying that the next apple you see fall will not end up on the ground but just "stay suspended in midair."
It's fairly obvious that George Washington did not throw a silver dollar across the Potomac. For one thing there were no silver dollars in his day and the Potomac is a mile wide. He might have thrown or skipped a piece of slate across the Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, Virginia which is 250 feet wide. That would be impressive but not impossible.
In less than 300 years we have come up with a number of myths about George Washington that might have been based on something that actually happened but are obviously not true as told today. It's not hard for me to believe that the same thing might be true of a leader who lived perhaps 3500 years ago.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)is the contravening evidence that this story originated from cultures other than Egyptian and the evidence for Egyptian society at the time.
It is not only that "something is dug up" it's that it would counter what we do know, so the it requires a greater degree of evidence.
Now were the story originated, whether with the Canaanites, the Syrians or the Babylonians, (or a mixture) we can be pretty sure it wasn't about Hebrews in slavery in Egypt.
And to try and figure out what really happened when they crossed the Red Sea is foolish.
spin
(17,493 posts)it probably was not the Red Sea but the "Sea of Reeds."
Yam Suph
Yam Suph (Hebrew: יַם-סוּף is a phrase which occurs about 23 times in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) and has traditionally been understood to refer to the salt water inlet located between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea. More recently, alternative western scholarly understandings of the term have been proposed for those passages where it refers to the Israelite Crossing of the Sea as told in Exodus 13-15. These proposals would mean that Yam Suph is better translated in these passages as Sea of Reeds or Sea of Seaweed; see Egyptian reed fields, also described as the ka of the Nile Delta. In Jewish sources I Kings 9:26 "yam suph" is translated as Sea of Reeds at Eilat on the Gulf of Eilat.
In the Biblical narrative of The Exodus the phrase Yam Suph refers to the body of water that the Israelites crossed following their exodus from Egypt. The appropriate translation of the phrase remains a matter of dispute, as does the exact location referred to. One possible translation of Yam Suph is "Sea of Reeds", (suph by itself means 'reed', e.g. in Exodus 2:3). This was pointed out as early as the 11th century, by Rashi.[1]
This may refer to a large lake close to the Red Sea, which has since dried up due to the Suez Canal. It was in Egypt, specifically in the Suez valley next to the Sinai Peninsula, and north of the Gulf of Suez. It could also be the Gulf of Eilat, to which is referred in the Books of Kings (I Kings). The Lake of Tanis, a former coastal lagoon fed by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, has also been proposed as the place Moses parted the waters.[2] Heinrich Brugsch suggested that the Reed Sea is Sabḫat al Bardawīl, a large lagoon on the north coast of the Sinai Peninsula.[3]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph
I tend to feel the people referred to as Hebrews were a mix.
Moses apparently belonged to a group of Semitic settlers whose ancestors had arrived in Egypt from the land of Canaan. People from Canaan had settled the delta since the middle of the Twelfth Dynasty (the Middle Kingdom). Remains from the settlement at Tell el-Dab'a in the Delta, confirm that the settlers were Semitic nomads and pastoralists, like the Hebrews. This settlement grew and developed into the Hyksos capital of Avaris, and was later swallowed up by Piramesse.
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/exodus.html
***
edhopper
(33,575 posts)and did they also flee from the slavery that Egypt did not have?
Read up on the Syrian myth of Mises if you want a closer idea of "who Moses was"
spin
(17,493 posts)Who can say for sure if either existed or if Mises was based on Moses or Moses was based on Mises?
How do you know for sure that Egypt didn't have slavery? Do you have a time machine?
Most historians agree that there was slavery in ancient Egypt however there doesn't seem to be much distinction between a servant and a slave in many cases.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)it just happens to pre-date the story of Moses. And it appears as part of the Hebrew story after they were in that area (not Egypt).
Read about Utnapishtim and then at the story of Noah, and remember Utnapishtim pre-dates the story of Noah.
It also has to do with when these tales became part of the Hebrew culture, it's called archeology, not idle speculation.
Egypt never had the type of slavery depicted in Exodus.
Your time machine line is just silly.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)apart from pages saying "Moses is based on the Syrian Mises". Mind you, the ****ing 'Mises Insititute' doesn't make things easy. Libertarian bastards.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)
Every source Google coughed up was a mythicist website, except one. That one was a page from a message board full of questions by a bunch of other people who couldn't find anything about Mises. It seems to be a common problem.
I poked about a bit more, though, and discovered that "Mises the lawgiver" is apparently unknown outside Lloyd M. Graham's Deceptions and Myths of the Bible.. "Graham" may or may not exist, either; he seems to be devoid of academic credentials of any kind.
In any case, he has some amazing truths to tell. All planets were once suns. Just imagine how ignorant we all are about that! Our sun will burn out to become a planet, too. Wow! And this means that the earth is older than the sun! Valgame dios!
You want to buy a used car from this guy?
Me neither.
rug
(82,333 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
Not that I'm surprised.
There is an apt irony to questioning the very existence of a mythicist.
okasha
(11,573 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)Tellings of the Syrian myth of Mises the Lawgiver. Including his being cast the water and then found as an infant.
But like you, I can't find a good source right now.
So I won't go forward with this.
If I find a good link, I'll post it.
spin
(17,493 posts)That doesn't mean that all these stories are based on a fairy tale. The most likely possibility is they are based on an actual flood that occurred long ago in the past.
List of flood myths
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
***
“Myth is much more important and true than history. History is just journalism and you know how reliable that is.”
― Joseph Campbell
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the Relativity of Wrong. You aren't the only one to play this game here, and to pretend that people are claiming that our knowledge is 100% complete and 100% certain. Or to try to peddle the lame, discredited meme that because scientists and historians have improved and updated their knowledge over time, it proves that no point of view has any more validity than any other, despite the relative weights of evidence.
spin
(17,493 posts)If you think we now know much about ancient history wait for 50 to 100 years and see how much more we learn.
Fifty years ago we believed Columbus discovered the New World. Fifty years from now we may find irrefutable proof that it was the Phoenicians.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And stop erecting silly strawmen. Can you even attempt to point to anyone who claims that our knowledge is 100% complete and certain? Other than you, of course, claiming that "irrefutable proof" is possible.
Fifty years ago, we "believed" nothing of the kind. Fifty years ago, we knew that Native Americans had "discovered" the New World, since they were already here when Columbus arrived. The watered down pap that gets fed to school children as "history" does not, and never has closely resembled actual historical scholarship except by accident.
For all you know, fifty years from now, we may find "irrefutable proof" that Martians "discovered" the New World, but to claim that it's just as likely as any other possibility is more foolishness.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Maybe fifty years ago you thought Columbus discovered the New World (which may or may not have been based on some drivel you picked up from grammar school), but the fact of the matter is we've had a strong inkling since at least the early 19th century that Columbus was not, in fact, the first European to set foot in the Americas.
And that story is actually a pretty representative example of how archaeology, as a science, works, and why the Exodus myth is almost certainly bunkum. Here's how it goes:
The exploits of Norse explorers were recorded in various sagas first compiled in the early 11th century. Some of the places mentioned in these sagas were a source of consternation for European cartographers, who couldn't match them up to any known locations in Iceland and Greenland. In the 1830s, it was first seriously suggested that these places were not on Iceland or Greenland, but on the continent of North America. So, academics took the task of reconciling Norse descriptions these mystery sites with known geographic information. Based on these descriptions, they determined the sites were likely located in Newfoundland. Then, in the 1960s, researchers exploring the Newfoundland coast found irrefutable evidence of a Norse presence in North America nearly 500 years before Columbus made landfall... more or less where the experts predicted they would find it.
Now, let's compare this to Exodus.
By any object standard, Exodus--had it actually happened--would have been much easier to confirm. While the Norse maintained a relatively small presence in a vast and geographically isolated region, far and away from any advanced civilization, the Hebrews numbered in the hundreds of thousands, journeyed across a well-traveled part of the globe, and were in close contact with the most advanced society of the time. In their written account of this journey, they claimed to stopped at or near several locations that are either 1) known to modern historians, or 2) still in existence today.
Six hundred thousand people do not go from Point A to Point B without leaving a single sign of their passing. Yet, despite knowing exactly where to look for evidence of a mass migration, we've found nothing whatsoever. No campsites. No cess pits. No pottery. No refuse. No animal bones. Nothing. These people were simple herders and craftsmen, not ninjas.
Apart from that, these people passed through the territories of a supremely literate people. You would think 600,000 people passing through your back yard or, even more so, escaping your captivity would be worth noting somewhere. But, again, despite knowing exactly where to look, we have found not a single hieroglyph, cuneiform tablet, or cave painting so much as mentioning this momentous event.
In fact, every bit of archeological and literary evidence we've gathered from Egypt directly contradicts the written account of the Exodus. So you're not simply suggesting that there's something out there we haven't found yet; you're suggesting that we should reserve our judgement in case everything we know about 2nd millennium Egypt just happens to be wrong.
And that's not going to change the fact that it wasn't Columbus. See how that works?
spin
(17,493 posts)changed over time.
Perhaps there were not 600,000 people on the journey but only 60,000 or perhaps 6,000.
That's just the possibllity of exaggeration setting in over time. Add to that the Bible's problems with numbers.
Enrichment Section E: The Problem of Large Numbers in the Old Testament
Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, (1980), 192–195
***snip***
E-6) The Size of the Israelite Nation
“The most interesting, most difficult and (from the historian’s point of view) the most important question is the size of the Israelite population at the different stages of its history. The present texts indicate that the 70 souls of Joseph’s day had risen to two or three million at the time of the Exodus (Numbers 1) and to at least five million in the time of David (2 Samuel 24-9 1 Chronicles 21:5). With regard to the latter, R. de Vaux rightly says: ‘(2 Samuel) lists 800,000 men liable for military service in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah. … The lower total, in 2 Samuel, is still far too high: 1,300,000 men of military age would imply at least five million inhabitants, which, for Palestine, would mean nearly twice as many people to the square mile as in the most thickly populated countries of modern Europe.’
The solution of the problem of the Exodus numbers is a long story. Suffice it to say that there is good reason to believe that the original censuses in Numbers 1 and 26 set out the numbers of each tribe, somewhat in this form:
Simeon: 57 armed men; 23 ‘hundreds’ (military units).
This came to be written: 57 ’lp; 2 ’lp 3 ‘hundreds’.
“Not realizing that ’lp in one case meant ‘armed man’ and in the other ‘thousand’, this was tidied up to read 59,300. When these figures are carefully decoded, a remarkably clear picture of the whole military organization emerges. The total fighting force is some 18,000 which would probably mean a figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration....emphasis added
https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-e-the-problem-of-large-numbers-in-the-old-testament?lang=eng
***
edhopper
(33,575 posts)that wasn't there.
Can you accept that instead they might having been talking about their slavery in Babylon hundreds of years later and just set it in Egypt, borrowing heavily from Babylonian myths?
spin
(17,493 posts)but the details may be changed or exaggerated over the years.
George Washington lived only a couple of hundred years ago in an age where there were printing presses and yet there are many myths about him.
For example:
Myth: George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River
Truth: This is just another legend that has changed several times over the years but it may have some truth. When George was a boy, there were no silver dollars as we know them today. Even if there had been, George probably would not have owned one and he certainly would not have thrown one away! The same man who wrote the cherry tree story wrote about George throwing a rock across the Rappahannock River (not the Potomac, which is too wide). According to the legend, George and his friends threw rocks across the river while waiting for the ferry. In George's time, the Rappahannock River was about 300 feet wide, but George was a strong boy and probably could have done it. Other strong people have thrown a rock across the river at Ferry Farm in modern times.
http://kenmore.org/education/kidstuff/legends.html
Another great American myth is the Pilgrims Thanksgiving feast. Yet there is some basis for the myth.
Deconstructing The Myths of the
"First Thanksgiving"
by Judy Dow (Abenaki) and Beverly Slapin
What is it about the story of "The First Thanksgiving" that makes it essential to be taught in virtually every grade from preschool through high school? What is it about the story that is so seductive? Why has it become an annual elementary school tradition to hold Thanksgiving pageants, with young children dressing up in paper-bag costumes and feather-duster headdresses and marching around the school yard? Why is it seen as necessary for fake "pilgrims" and fake "Indians" (portrayed by real children, many of whom are Indian) to sit down every year to a fake feast, acting out fake scenarios and reciting fake dialogue about friendship? And why do teachers all over the country continue (for the most part, unknowingly) to perpetuate this myth year after year after year?
Is it because as Americans we have a deep need to believe that the soil we live on and the country on which it is based was founded on integrity and cooperation? This belief would help contradict any feelings of guilt that could haunt us when we look at our role in more recent history in dealing with other indigenous peoples in other countries. If we dare to give up the "myth" we may have to take responsibility for our actions both concerning indigenous peoples of this land as well as those brought to this land in violation of everything that makes us human. The realization of these truths untold might crumble the foundation of what many believe is a true democracy. As good people, can we be strong enough to learn the truths of our collective past? Can we learn from our mistakes? This would be our hope.
***snip***
Thanksgiving Fact #7: According to oral accounts from the Wampanoag people, when the Native people nearby first heard the gunshots of the hunting colonists, they thought that the colonists were preparing for war and that
Massasoit needed to be informed. When Massasoit showed up with 90 men
and no women or children, it can be assumed that he was being cautious.
When he saw there was a party going on, his men then went out and
brought back five deer and lots of turkeys. (8)
In addition, both the Wampanoag and the English settlers were long familiar with harvest celebrations. Long before the Europeans set foot on these shores, Native peoples gave thanks every day for all the gifts of life, and held thanksgiving celebrations and giveaways at certain times of the year. The Europeans also had days of thanksgiving, marked by religious services. So the coming together of two peoples to share food and company was not entirely a foreign thing for either. But the visit that by all accounts lasted three days was most likely one of a series of political meetings to discuss and secure a military alliance. Neither side totally trusted the other: The Europeans considered the
Wampanoag soulless heathens and instruments of the devil, and the Wampanoag had seen the Europeans steal their seed corn and rob their graves. In any event, neither the Wampanoag nor the Europeans referred to this feast/meeting as "Thanksgiving." (9)
http://www.manataka.org/page1390.html
It's almost impossible to do little more than speculate about the existence of Hebrews in Egypt during the days described in Exodus. Some historians feel the story may have been based on the Semitic Hyksos.
Origins of the Hyksos
The Hyksos rulers of the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt were of non-Egyptian origin. Most archaeologists describe the Hyksos as a mix of Asiatic peoples, suggested by recorded names such as Khyan and Sakir-Har that resemble Asiatic names, and pottery finds that resemble pottery found in archaeological excavations in the area of modern Israel. The name Hyksos was used by the Egyptian historian Manetho (ca. 300 BC), who, according to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (1st century AD), translated the word as "king-shepherds" or "captive shepherds". Josephus himself identified the Hyksos with the Hebrews of the Bible. Hyksos was in fact probably an Egyptian term meaning "rulers of foreign lands" (heqa-khaset), and it almost certainly designated the foreign dynasts rather than a whole nation. The Hyksos kingdom was centered in the eastern Nile Delta and Middle Egypt and was limited in size, never extending south into Upper Egypt, which was under control by Theban-based rulers except for Thebes's port city of Elim at modern Quasir. Hyksos relations with the south seem to have been mainly of a commercial nature, although Theban princes appear to have recognized the Hyksos rulers and may possibly have provided them with tribute for a period. The Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty rulers established their capital and seat of government at Memphis and their summer residence at Avaris.
***snip***
Manetho and Josephus
In his Against Apion, the 1st-century AD historian Josephus Flavius debates the synchronism between the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and two Exodus-like events that the Egyptian historian Manetho apparently mentions. It is difficult to distinguish between what Manetho himself recounted, and how Josephus or Apion interpret him.
Josephus identifies the Israelite Exodus with the first exodus mentioned by Manetho, when some 480,000 Hyksos, wrongly interpreted as "shepherd kings" by Josephus (also referred to as just as shepherds, as kings and as captive shepherds in his discussion of Manetho), left Egypt for Jerusalem.[8] The mention of Hyksos identifies this first exodus with the Hyksos period (16th century BC).
Apion identifies a second exodus mentioned by Manetho when a renegade Egyptian priest called Osarseph led 80,000 "lepers" to rebel against Egypt. Apparently Manetho conflates events of the Amarna period (in the 14th century) and the events at the end of the 19th Dynasty (12th century).[citation needed] Then Apion additionally conflates these with the Biblical Exodus, and contrary to Manetho, even alleges that this heretic priest changed his name to Moses.[9] Many scholars[10][11] do not interpret lepers and leprous priests as literally referring to a disease, but rather to a strange and unwelcome new belief system.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Hyksos#Modern_scholarship
It is and will remain my view that the Exodus myth is based on actual events but over the years was modified to fit the religion of the priests who wrote it down from oral traditions as is often the case with many myths. The story itself may not resemble actual history in the least and is just poetic nonsense or it may have far more truth than we currently believe. Perhaps future discoveries will allow us to learn far more about this legend.
It would be nice if we could ever master time travel.
***
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Where as there is no evidence that anyone similar to the Bible story of Moses ever lived, And a lot evidence that those things never happened,
It's like saying there is a real basi for Superman or Conan the Barbarian.
Do you think some one like Prometheus existed who brought mankind fire, who then was the basdis of the Greek myth?
It's not that myths never have a actual starting point, it's that none of this myth about the Hebrew people in Egypt has at basisd.
I am sorry you cannot accept that, so you will have to cling to your "what ifs".
spin
(17,493 posts)of years ago. Who knows what will be discovered in the next 50 to 100 years that will either totally disprove the Exodus story or show it was based on actual events.
Here's one example of a myth from long ago that seems to have a factual basis.
Krishna’s City of Dwarka
According to legend, Krishna (Hindu equivalent of Jesus) ruled over the city of Dwarka—until it was swallowed by the sea. For Hindus, finding the Lost City of Dwarka would be like finding the Holy Grail or the Arc of the Covenant. Archaeologists have discovered a sunken city off the shores of India. Stone reliefs found in this city have not only indicated that it is in fact Dwarka, the oldest city in history, but that it was ruled by a flesh and blood Lord Krishna.
http://listverse.com/2013/01/31/10-mythical-things-that-actually-existed/
I will continue to cling to my "what ifs" and you will continue to believe that you know all that happened thousands of years ago based on the evidence or lack of evidence that we have today.
So be it. It's no big deal.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)That any of the Moses story occurred in Egypt is...........
...........
I won't even talk about the strained, torturous path that site takes to show those things were "real"
spin
(17,493 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)I wonder, why are you so committed to the idea that the Moses story comes from the Hebrews in Egypt?
Especially when the evidence for such an event is completely absent.
You accept that the Noah myth was co-opted from an earlier Babylonian story.
Why the Moses story, including the particulars like the Red Sea?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)of the people involved in the Exodus was greatly inflated.
This source comes up with even lower figure than I had imagined:
COLIN J. HUMPHREYS
How Many People Were in the Exodus from Egypt?1
The very large numbers of people at the Exodus from Egypt recorded in the book of Numbers is a very well known Old Testament problem. In this paper a new mathematical and textural analysis is given which shows that if there were ‘273 first born Israelites who exceed the number of Levites’ (Num. iii 43), then the total number of Israelite men aged over 20 in the census following the Exodus was about 5000, not 603,550 as apparently recorded in Numbers. The apparent error in Numbers arises because the ancient Hebrew word ‘lp can mean ‘thousand’, ‘troop’, or ‘leader’, according to the context. On our interpretation, all the figures in Numbers are internally consistent including the numbers at both censuses, the encampment numbers, etc. In addition we deduce that the number of males in the average Israelite family at the time of the Exodus was 8 to 9, consistent with the concern of the Egyptians that the Israelites had ‘multiplied greatly’ whilst in Egypt (Exod. i 7). The total number of men, women and children at the Exodus was about 20,000 rather than the figure of over 2 million apparently suggested by the book of Numbers.
https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+12-1+Humphreys.pdf
Of course I realize that no matter what source I use, you will ridicule it. I suspect this has something to do with your opinion of the Old Testament and the Bible as well religion in general but I might be wrong.
I'm not arguing for or against any religion. My point is that often myths and legends are often based on events that actually happened although the myth may have little resemblance to the facts after hundreds or thousands of years.
***
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Congratulations. You are approaching "radioactive ark man" levels of authority.
spin
(17,493 posts)And you did.
Obviously commentary on the number of people involved in the Exodus will not be found in science or history books. After all, Exodus is a myth. Of course that doesn't mean that it is not based on an actual event.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)My oipinion is that this tale violates my rule that myths are based on actual events.
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
However many theologians have pointed out the problem of inflated numbers in the Old Testament probably due to a mistranslation. The LDS site I linked to was just passing on that information.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The legend might be greater than the reality but I still believe in the spirit of the story.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that is the groundwork for this story.
Those here that insist that they know the truth about it sound like fundamentalists and literalist.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Doesn't make it true, though.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Rationality requires evidence for belief. Belief without evidence requires faith. Why should anyone who doesn't rely on faith as evidence be compelled to believe in something that defies reason?
The controversy of the Exodus, if you can call it that, is pretty much entirely manufactured by believers. If the Exodus is false, pretty much the whole base of the Judo-Christian belief collapses. So who do you think really has a stake in this?
The actual evidence of the Exodus is pretty much nil which is why mainstream archeology rejects it. The Egyptians, who were meticulous record keepers, have no mention of millions of people leaving Egypt and neither do they mention the various plagues which are claimed by the Exodus story. Many other serious historical facts are in contention with the Exodus story, like entire cities mentioned that didn't even exist at the same time. As if this wasn't enough, the earliest Israelite settlements derived almost all their culture from the local Canaanites. They worshiped the Canaanite god, their durable goods were made the same, and they had the same alphabet.
If you want to further delve into who exactly had a stake in the Exodus story, one should also consider those who came up with it were at the time in contention with Egypt for territory.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They can chose what makes sense to them.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)For some people, belief in talking snakes and talking donkeys makes sense. Some believe that a spaceship is hidden behind the Hale–Bopp comet and if you don a magical space helmet (aka a plastic bag) suffocating yourself you will be magically teleported to it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I think we're in complete agreement here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)is that there is zero evidence for the exodus from Egypt. You keep claiming that "many" who think there is evidence for exodus, but so far all you have come up with is your one pathetic nut job Roger D. Issacs. Since there are so many reputable biblical scholars out there who can back you up, surely you can provide one un-ridiculous link?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In Venice the wind does it
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think the most likely explanation is that some external event caused tide of the Red Sea to be unusually low and the Israelites essentially paddled across. The rest is several thousand years worth of exaggeration and myth-making. Of course, that's what I think and others will have different views.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)that any of the events, including Hebrew slavery in Egypt, actually happened. Which is doubtful.
It's like asking how did Paul Bunyan really dig the Grand Canyon
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)In this hypothetical, we're assuming that Moses existed and the Hebrew exodus from Egypt went down roughly as the OT records.
I agree, it's very likely bunkum but it's an interesting thought experiment to kick around.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)It's sort of like Super Hero movies that try to explain the super powers.
As long as we don't say "But, it could have happened that way!"
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I have a couple of books that try to explain superpowers in scientific terms and use superhero concepts to explain science to a dullard like me. Closest ones to reality are Iron Man and Dr Doom.
As it happens, I'm a theist. Just not Christian or Jewish.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)the whole "there must be some truth behind it" is given for Judeo-Christian myths.
But you don't hear that about Nordic, or Mayan, or Sumerian or Native American myths.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The Kokopelli stories, for example, may be rooted in a memory of the African slave of a Spanish explorer.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)explored America in 800 AD?
Kokopelli has been revered since at least the time of the Hohokam, Yuman, and Ancestral Pueblo peoples. The first known images of him appear on Hohokam pottery dated to sometime between 750 and 850 AD.
But someone from Meso-America, could be?
Actually there are many myths were people see some starting point. Thera might very well be the origin of the Atlantis myth.
(Badly made point in previous post)
The difference I see with the Moses myth is peoples insistence on keeping it about Hebrew people enslaved in Egypt, rather than borrowed from a Babylonian or Syrian or Canaanite story.
And the gymnastics about what really happened at the Red Sea is just foolish.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Not Kokopelli himself.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)where previous stories are adapted by later people, like people enslaved in Babylonia adapting Babylonian and Syrian myths and making them about their own people in another place.
Yes, that works.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The African slave Estevan, who became the model for Kokopelli in many stories, is a documented historical person who took part in the Spanish incursion into the desert southwest in search of the fabulous city of Cibola.
Cibola, by the way, bears a strong resemblance to "Iram of the Pillars," the romanticized version of Ubar. As an Arabic speaker, Estevan may well have been familiar with it.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Moses comes from Hykos mythology?
okasha
(11,573 posts)I think that the historical core of the Exodus story may lie in the expulsion of the Hyksos from Evypt in the reign of Ahmose. "Moses" may have been a charismatic leader among the refugees, or he may have been an Atenist Egyptian living in Canaan whose teachings influenced the development of proto-Judaism.
The eruption of Santorini (about four times as violent as Krakatao) was at least roughly contemporaneous with the Hyksos retreat, and may be the cause of the "plagues" later incorporated to the Exodus narrative. It would account for the recession of the Yom Suf, the pillars of cloud and fire, and the die-offs, flies, etc., though not the selective deaths of the Egyptian first born.
For those who fixate on written records, it's of some note that there is no surviving written account of the eruption from any Mediterranean culture. The facts are all in the physical evidence, which is found worldwide.
I see some problems with this theory, mainly about the plagues, since these come from a story formed in a completely different location and there is no evidence from Egyptian sources. But it is just informed conjecture anyway.
That it was a confluences of other myths, co-opted and cobbled together as the Hebrews formed as a people is the main point.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Each succeeding generation adopts the parts of mythology that resonate with them for their own uses.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Because most of us grow up surrounded by Judeo-Christian theology/mythology, we tend to think of that as being, in some way, "better" than the others. While it's true that most mythology has some tiny element of fact, we tend not to apply that to theologies/mythologies other than the ones we grew up with.
Now, when I say "some element of fact", don't think I'm talking about two naked lovers romping in the Garden of Eden. That's clearly metaphorical. Im thinking more that there was once a large flood, there was once a preacher called Yeshua, that kind of thing. And there would likely be some similar small element of truth to other theologies/mythologies, I just don't know them well enough.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)others, I doubt it.
I think a lot of it was just made up to explain stuff they didn't know.
Mankind had fire for tens of thousands of years before the Greeks came up with the Prometheus myth. It is highly doubtful the story of the first fire gatherer in Africa made it's way down to the Greeks.
As far as the Flood, clearly Noah is lifted from the Babylonian myth, as much of the early OT is. But since flooding was a major calamity for most cultures living in flood plains it's not surprising flood myths would be told, and they don't need to be from any single source.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)It's pretty obvious that a lot of Christianity (the OT especially) is a modified retelling of earlier mythologies. And while the storyteller in me likes the idea of the first fire gatherer passing teh story down like some family heirloom, it's pretty unlikely.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Look at Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. Based on real people or a type of person? Maybe, but the resemblance has gone so far into myth and tale tale that wondering about the accuracy of the stories is meaningless.
As with Moses, was there a leader somewhere that part of the story incorporated? Maybe, but that means nothing when trying to say any of the events in the Exodus story actually happened.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that Prometheus was the first fire-bringer in the mythology of the Indo-European peoples who moved into Greece from the steppes.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)but my point was it's a story without some "true event" behind it.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Or are we talking about some other type of
red [font face='impact', size=8, color=scarlet] C[/font]
WovenGems
(776 posts)He farted and waters fled. Or, a distant island disappeared and the resulting tsunami did the water trick.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Aguamenti" charm only creates water.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It appears that not only was Moses real, not only did he lead the Israelites (not to be confused with the Jews who were happily living in Canaan at the time, herding goats and such) out of bondage in Egypt, but he was possessed of A Mighty Wind with which, in one great flatulent roar, he parted the seas so that his people could go free.
There, now I've saved you 10 bucks so you don't have to go see Exodus, God and Kings.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Or was that another story.
It was a myth.