Do observers realize that the story of Moses is BS

[edhopper]

That it never happened and Moses did not exist. That is from co-opted Babylonian myths, the same as Noah.
That the Jews were not slaves in Egypt (Egypt did not have the form of slavery portrayed in the Bible anyway).
And that the dates don't correlate to any sizable Jewish population in Egypt.
Do they know tonight that they are sitting around the Seder table reciting a fantasy.

Or do people think this fairy tale is true?

[notadmblnd]

1. of course they know that. they also know that passover is the time of year

that god comes down and checks all Jewish people's refrigerators and kitchens for cleanliness. None of them have told me what will happen to them if god finds dirt.

[edhopper]

7. I think he is mainly

looking for bread crumbs.

[liberalSEAL]

162. It isn't quite that simple.

I don't think it's fair to put all people of faith into this category of sheep. Yes it is a fiction and yes it is wrong but, they believe. I'm not defending them or anything, I'm agnostic but hey, maybe its how they get by. During the holocaust, how do you think people made it if it wasn't for their beliefs and religious beliefs?

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Faith is a beautiful thing...

But it makes for a lousy fairy tale, unless you can put butterfly wings on Moses.

[Ezlivin]

3. Hell, there's video proof of Moses

[no limit]

5. Haha, remind me of where that's from again? I'm having a brain fart for some reason

[provis99]

6. mel brooks: History of the World, Part I.

Moses: The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen...
(drops one of the tablets), Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey! "

[onager]

55. How about Soupy Sales as Moses...

Carrying the tablets in one hand, and a 6-pack of soda in the other. (Product placement!)

Also starring Eve Plumb as Mrs. Noah, Lou Ferrigno as Cain and Andy Dick as Abel.

"Did Jesus have eight, or ten, disciples?"

:rofl:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107492/

[pokerfan]

78. Or Carlin's Two Commandments

"Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM

[no limit]

4. Well it depends on the christian

and whatever justifications they make up in their mind.

To some the OT isn't really valid. To others it's the literal word of God. There are thousands of different variations of crazy in christianity and religion in general, some a bit less crazy than others.

[Critters2]

29. Interesting that you focus on Christianity. It's Jews who are commemorating

the story of Moses right now.

[no limit]

68. Do christians not believe in Moses?

[WolverineDG]

52. Christians don't celebrate Passover

:eyes:

dg

[OKIsItJustMe]

80. Most will Thursday evening (some do it weekly)

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=170244554

Matthew 26:17-19

¹⁷On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ ¹⁸He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.” ’ ¹⁹So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter

…

Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as well as by its position in the calendar. In most European languages the feast called Easter in English is termed by the words for passover in those languages and in the older English versions of the Bible the term Easter was the term used to translate passover.

…

[WolverineDG]

81. Um, Communion is not "Passover"

It is not taught that way & certainly is not practiced as a Seder. Unless, of course, you've got evidence that the Passover ceremony includes Communion. Linking the two because their names are similar doesn't turn Communion into Passover either.

Most Christians know that the Last Supper was a Seder (since Jesus & his Disciples were Jewish), but Communion & Passover are two very distinct & different religious rituals.

dg

[OKIsItJustMe]

82. A number of churches explicitly have (shortened) Seders on “Maundy Thursday”

Check out the “http://www.google.com/search?q=messianic+haggadah">Messianic Haggadah.”

The “New Testament” accounts are full of symbolism linking Easter and Passover (e.g. Jesus is the Lamb.)
http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=170251780

1 Peter 1:18-19

¹⁸You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, ¹⁹but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=170251972">lamb without defect or blemish.

[WolverineDG]

85. I know you are trying to make them the same thing

but they are not. They share a common origin because Jesus was Jewish, but that does not turn Passover into Easter or Easter into Passover. As these are two distinct & important holidays of two different faiths, commemorating two different events, it's an insult to both faiths to suggest Easter & Passover are exactly the same thing.

dg

[OKIsItJustMe]

96. I'm not saying they’re exactly the same

However, many Christians have forgotten the origins of the Eucharist, and that (I feel) is an insult.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05224d.htm

… The connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian feast of Easter is real and ideal. Real, since Christ died on the first Jewish Easter Day; ideal, like the relation between type and reality, because Christ's death and Resurrection had its figures and types in the Old Law, particularly in the paschal lamb, which was eaten towards evening of the 14th of Nisan. In fact, the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration; the liturgy (Exsultet) sings of the passing of Israel through the Red Sea, the paschal lamb, the column of fire, etc. …

[WolverineDG]

104. Which "many" do you refer to?

the fundie nutjobs?

Because every Christian I know is very aware of Jesus' background & the fact that the Last Supper was a Seder.

dg

[OKIsItJustMe]

109. Using the phrase “fundie nutjobs” implies you realize there are Christians who are not aware…

I find there are a number of Christians who are relatively unfamiliar with their religious heritage.

However, I feel that just as claiming that the Eucharist and the Seder are the same is too simplistic, so is claiming that they are different. (I know that sounds odd.)

At the very least, both are a sharing of food, which identifies the partakers as members of their religion, and ties them to their religious roots.

However, clearly there is more to it. Jesus did not tell his disciples, “from now on, I want you to stop celebrating Passover, and, instead, have a little snack occasionally and think of me.”

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=170320970

Luke 22.10-20

¹⁰“Listen,” he said to them, “when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house he enters ¹¹and say to the owner of the house, ‘The teacher asks you, “Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ ¹²He will show you a large room upstairs, already furnished. Make preparations for us there.” ¹³So they went and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal. ¹⁴When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. ¹⁵He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; ¹⁶for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” ¹⁷Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; ¹⁸for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” ¹⁹Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” ²⁰And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

[WolverineDG]

115. But you assert that all Christians are unaware

and it is not "simplistic" to state that Eucharist/Communion/Easter can be distinguished from Passover/Seder, while recognizing, as very many do, that one originated from the other.

dg

[OKIsItJustMe]

123. I did?

Where did I “assert that all Christians are unaware?”

[KaoriMitsubishi]

141. "Communion & Passover are two very distinct & different religious rituals."

Exactly. One is cannibalistic, the other is not.

[laconicsax]

142. +1

[Dorian Gray]

91. I think the OP

was referring to the Jewish celebration of Passover. And there is no Jewish consensus on the literal veracity of the OT.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Well, we need to differentiate between

“http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fairy+tale">Fairy Tales,” “http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth">Myths” and “http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legend">Legends”

You may find some of the work of David Rohl interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29

[Warren Stupidity]

9. But it is a beautiful story of emancipation plus

a wee bit of Holy Genocide.

[dimbear]

28. A beautiful story of awesome revenge on the many for the actions of one.

Of course the natural thing to do in a civil rights struggle is to kill massive counts of women, children, infants, etc. Second nature. It's a simple ramp from that start to killing all male animals in sight. You get in a groove. Nobody resents stuff like that. The only thing that gets under my skin, being squeamish as I am, is that old Pharaoh tried over and over again to give in, but God wouldn't let him.

That might be a little extreme.

A remarkable calamity for Egypt. Just devastating. The records left of it must have been heartbreaking, which is why there's no trace of any such thing.

[struggle4progress]

34. It is very common for lives to be lost in struggles against oppressive systems: the beneficiaries

typically do not relinquish their power and privilege without violence; moreover, it is natural for the oppressed to regard everyone, who quietly enjoys the fruits of the oppression, as being guilty of the violence that makes the oppression possible

We cannot know the historical core of this story, of course -- but we would not actually expect to find good permanent records of any such event in ancient Egypt, because the ruling elite were not much interested in leaving great monuments recording how somebody or other whupped their butts: rather, they spent time and treasure recording their triumphs

[dimbear]

49. Another epic struggle against oppression is recorded in "The Wizard of Oz."

Inspiring story, but the historical core which it represents is lost. Again we see wicked rulers who have no ability to record the events which destroyed them, since they are either crushed by a house or dissolved in a bucket of water.

The same motif of revenge against innocent animals prevails. The horrendous threat "And your little dog too!" has given many a child nightmares, but IMHO the story is more uplifting and moral because in the end Toto survives.

Now that I think about it, the reason Dorothy 'goes to Oz' and the reason the Jews 'took refuge in Egypt' are eerily similar. Bad weather and poverty.

And of course the mathematical probabity that either 'happened' is equal----to several decimal places. In round numbers. And there's only one round number.

[struggle4progress]

56. Well, let's get back together 2500 years from now and see whether the story of Dorothy,

carried into Oz by tornado and flying safely home again with ruby slippers, has the same staying power as the tale of Joseph, sold by his brothers into Egypt as a slave, with his bones carried forth from there by a later generation escaping slavery

Bury me not, I pray thee, in the land of Egypt

[darkstar3]

59. I wish I was immortal, because I would SO take that bet.

[dimbear]

83. I'm in for 50 shekels.

Who holds the stakes?

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Actually we know quite a lot about egyptian history.

They kept pretty good records. No Israelites living in Egypt for either 200 or 400 years. No Moses, advisor to Pharaohs. No Joseph, advisor to Pharaohs. Of course the bible can't manage to name these alleged Pharaohs either.

But also not the point. Accepting the accounting in the bible at face value, the Jewish God slaughtered all the 'firstborn' male children of the Egyptians. I find that abhorrent.

[struggle4progress]

77. I didn't suggest that our knowledge of Egyptian history is entirely lacking: I said

that the Pharoahs didn't trumpet their defeats and failures

Moreover, the ruling class in Egypt is known to have purged and revised its histories to serve ideological ends:

... Before he became pharaoh, Horemheb was the commander in chief of the army under the reigns of Tutankamun and Ay. After his accession to the throne he reformed the state and it was under his reign that official action against the preceding Amarna rulers began. Horemheb demolished monuments of Akhenaten, reusing their remains in his own building projects, and usurped monuments of Tutankhamun and Ay. Horemheb presumably remained childless and he appointed his vizier Paramesse as his successor, who would assume the throne as Ramesses I ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horemheb

This particular example -- the purging of Akhenaten from the official histories -- is of some interest because

Akhenaten ... is especially noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship centered on the Aten, which is sometimes described as monotheistic or henotheistic ... After his death, traditional religious practice was gradually restored, and when some dozen years later rulers without clear rights of succession from the Eighteenth Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors, referring to Akhenaten himself as "the enemy" in archival records. He was all but lost from history until the discovery, in the 19th century, of Amarna, the site of Akhetaten, the city he built for the Aten ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

The name Ramesses actually occurs in Exodus. Ramesses I was not king for more than a year or two:

... Ramesses I enjoyed a very brief reign, as evidenced by the general paucity of contemporary monuments mentioning him: the king had little time to build any major buildings in his reign and was hurriedly buried in a small and hastily finished tomb ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_I

However, his grandson Ramesses II, during his long reign,

... built extensively throughout Egypt and Nubia, and his cartouches are prominently displayed even in buildings that he did not actually construct ... most notably the Ramesseum in the western Thebes and the rock temples of Abu Simbel ... He also founded a new capital city in the Delta during his reign called Pi-Ramesses ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#Death_and_legacy

One of the children of Ramesses II is of interest here:

... Merneptah (or Merenptah) was the fourth ruler of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt ... He was the thirteenth son of Ramesses II ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

... The Merneptah Stele ... is an inscription by the Ancient Egyptian king Merneptah ... discovered by Flinders Petrie in 1896 at Thebes ... The line referring to Merneptah's Canaanite campaign reads: Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

So we know of a monotheistic era in Egyptian history somewhere around 1340 BCE, followed by a backlash and purging of the official histories somewhere around 1300 BCE, followed by Ramesses II's great construction projects in the 13th century BCE, and then followed by an explicit reference to the destruction of Israel in Merneptah's Canaanite campaign somewhere around 1200 BCE

If one regards "Joseph" and "Israelite" as markers for "monotheist," then perhaps this is consistent with aspects of the Exodus narrative

.. Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.” So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh ...

The short reference to Israel, on the Merneptah Stele, quite plausibly reflects some political animosity: it essentially says, I squished them like a bug

[WolverineDG]

86. A convenient fact that some seem to ignore is the fact that

the Egyptians had ways of making undesirable people & events "disappear" by either not writing about them or erecting monuments to them in the first place, or (if the events were somehow recorded), destroying documents & monuments that may have been made.

dg

[Warren Stupidity]

93. Ah of course that must be the explanation.

The 200 or 400 year sojourn of the alleged israelites in egypt was just wiped of the records by those damn scribes after the disastrous elimination of the egyptian army. Equally oddly this all allegedly occurred during the New Kingdom era of Egyptian history, the era of Egypt's greatest territorial expansion and power. One might suspect that the elimination of the egyptian army would have registered somewhere in the records. If not in Egypt, then in the vassal states of the region now suddenly liberated. If that military disaster did not happen, then why this great effort to expunge the records?

But where is the archeological evidence of this centuries long residence? A foreign culture living in Egypt for hundreds of years would have left its mark in more that just papyrus and monuments.

Oddly enough we have plenty of data to establish the Hyksos invasion/migration into Egypt, their brief conquest of the kingdom, and their eventual expulsion. Why weren't those records destroyed? How do we have evidence of their existence?

[WolverineDG]

103. There's a lot that went on in ancient Egypt that we still don't know

that's why there are still archaeologists, anthropologists, & historians studying there, combing ruins, & finding new sites. That ind of blows a hole in your belief that we know everything about ancient Egypt & the ancient Middle East.

dg

[Warren Stupidity]

106. "everything"?

No. Not everything. I said there would be artifacts left over from a 200-400 year period in which an entire nation allegedly lived in egypt as slaves. I said there would be records both egyptian and non-egyptian of the catastrophic defeat of the dominant power in the region. There aren't. The most reasonable explanation for that is that it did not happen, it is a myth.

But mostly I said that the god of israel allegedly killing all the firstborn sons of egypt was an abomination, mythical or not.

[WolverineDG]

114. You speak as though you know for a fact there are records in extant

that we know about. And that is wrong. There might be records, we just haven't found them yet. Or maybe there were records, & they were destroyed. Same with other "evidence." To say that since there aren't any records or evidence *to your satisfaction,* Exodus never occurred is in error, since you are substituting your *opinion* (which is slanted heavily against religion in the first place) for fact & demanding that everyone accept your viewpoint.

dg

[hartandsoul]

168. The Dead Sea Scrolls mentions Moses father

1.The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in eleven caves along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between the years 1947 and 1956. The area is 13 miles east of Jerusalem and is 1300 feet below sea level. The mostly fragmented texts, are numbered according to the cave that they came out of. They have been called the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.

2. Only Caves 1 and 11 have produced relatively intact manuscripts. Discovered in 1952, Cave 4 produced the largest find. About 15,000 fragments from more than 500 manuscripts were found.
3. In all, scholars have identified the remains of about 825 to 870 separate scrolls.

4. The Scrolls can be divided into two categories—biblical and non-biblical. Fragments of every book of the Hebrew canon (Old Testament) have been discovered except for the book of Esther.

5. There are now identified among the scrolls, 19 copies of the Book of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of the Psalms .

6. Prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel not found in the Bible are written in the Scrolls.

7. The Isaiah Scroll, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found.

8. In the Scrolls are found never before seen psalms attributed to King David and Joshua.

9.There are nonbiblical writings along the order of commentaries on the OT, paraphrases that expand on the Law, rule books of the community, war conduct, thanksgiving psalms, hymnic compositions, benedictions, liturgical texts, and sapiential (wisdom) writings.

10. The Scrolls are for the most part, written in Hebrew, but there are many written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the Jews of Palestine for the last two centuries B.C. and of the first two centuries A.D. The discovery of the Scrolls has greatly enhanced our knowledge of these two languages. In addition, there are a few texts written in Greek.

11. The Scrolls appear to be the library of a Jewish sect. The library was hidden away in caves around the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) as the Roman army advanced against the rebel Jews.

12. Near the caves are the ancient ruins of Qumran. They were excavated in the early 1950's and appear to be connected with the scrolls.

13. The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem.

14. The enemies of the Qumran community were called the "Sons of Darkness"; they called themselves the "Sons of Light," "the poor," and members of "the Way." They thought of themselves as "the holy ones," who lived in "the house of holiness," because "the Holy Spirit" dwelt with them.

15. The last words of Joseph, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, and Amram (the father of Moses) are written down in the Scrolls.

16. One of the most curious scrolls is the Copper Scroll. Discovered in Cave 3, this scroll records a list of 64 underground hiding places throughout the land of Israel. The deposits are to contain certain amounts of gold, silver, aromatics, and manuscripts. These are believed to be treasures from the Temple at Jerusalem, that were hidden away for safekeeping.

17. The Temple Scroll, found in Cave 11, is the longest scroll. Its present total length is 26.7 feet (8.148 meters). The overall length of the scroll must have been over 28 feet (8.75m).

18. The scrolls contain previously unknown stories about biblical figures such as Enoch, Abraham, and Noah. The story of Abraham includes an explanation why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac.

19. The scrolls are most commonly made of animal skins, but also papyrus and one of copper. They are written with a carbon-based ink, from right to left, using no punctuation except for an occasional paragraph indentation. In fact, in some cases, there are not even spaces between the words.

20. The Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Interestingly, now with manuscripts predating the medieval period, we find these texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text as well as widely variant forms.

21. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually appeared for sale on June 1, 1954 in the Wall Street Journal. The advertisement read — "The Four Dead Sea Scrolls: Biblical manuscripts dating back to at least 200 BC are for sale. This would be an ideal gift to an educational or religious institution by an individual or group.

[laconicsax]

169. Holy slam dunk, Batman!

You're joking, right? The Dead Sea Scrolls were written centuries after the alleged events in Exodus by people who believed the Old Testament to be literally true. Holding them up as evidence that the Old Testament is true is like using Luther's 95 theses as evidence that the New Testament is true.

[hartandsoul]

176. You're just like the person who started this thread

All you have is your opinion.

[laconicsax]

182. Yes. An opinion that is supported by fact.

Namely the fact that no evidence exists to support any part of the Exodus narrative--no record of a sizable Israelite population in Egypt, no record of ten plagues afflicting the Egyptians, no record of the Egyptian army being wiped out, etc.

That is unless you want to count a book written centuries after the fact by numerous anonymous authors for a variety of purposes as evidence, but something tells me you're smarter than that.

[hartandsoul]

183. Quote some sources for your statements

I don't see anything but what YOU believe to be true. At least I have sources like the fact the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the whole Bible, and facts about many OT people like Moses, Abraham, Noah and Joseph.

[laconicsax]

184. You might want to think about what you are considering as evidence.

A copy of Old Testament doesn't prove the Exodus narrative any more than a 2nd edition printing of Catcher in the Rye proves Holden Caulfield.

You see...wait! You believe that Noah, a 500 year old man who built an enormous boat and gathered up 2-7 of every living thing to wait out a flood that covered the entire Earth in over 29,000 ft of water for months?

Ok, you're pulling my leg. Good one!

[hartandsoul]

186. I just wonder why you are trying so hard

to disbelieve it. Or why you don't want God to be real. You have nothing but your disbelief to argue with.

[laconicsax]

189. You're citing the Bible to prove the Bible.

Really.

I don't have to try to disbelieve the Exodus narrative. It's about as believable as a children's fairy tale and completely unsupported in the archeological record.

Do you have to try to disbelieve "Jack and the Beanstalk?"

[hartandsoul]

190. The grounds for your argument is

because YOU don't believe therefore it's false. Using your reasoning, I do believe it so therefore it is true.

[laconicsax]

193. If you say so.

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

10. I'm content to let people belive what they wish to believe... As LONG

as it doesn't adversely affect me or others. Thus, I have big problems with Xians and their creationism at the expense of Science. I have issues with those who can't and WON'T accommodate societal tolerance because they want to believe the literal crap in the OT. Ditto those who would treat women as less than equals to men.

But, if they want to believe in the various stories of the bible and celebrate in a way that is not at the expense of others, be my guest. :shrug:

[Gman]

11. Why do you care

what people believe? I thought that was a right wing religious nut's job?

Try to respond without using the words "I don't but...".

[no limit]

12. You don't care what people believe? Does that apply to republicans?

[LAGC]

13. I care very much.

Because a significant number of people who believe in such fairy tales work very hard to impose their theocratic agenda on the rest of us.

Should we all just stand silent and let them go unchallenged?

[humblebum]

14. Whenever I see a thread like this I really have to shake my head.

You ask the question, "Do observers realize that the story of Moses is BS." As if you have all the answers and it is you that we should come to for the answers. The fact is that you are only making a subjective assumption. If Egypt did not have or use slaves on a large scale, then they would have indeed been an oddity on the world stage, because slavery was very much the norm worlswide.

You say the Jews were not slaves in Egypt. In that case you are right because the term 'Jews' did not even exist at that time.

You say that much was "co-opted Babylonian myths, the same as Noah." It makes perfect sense that many biblical stories are similar to Babylonian tales, and others. The fact is that the cultures came from a common linage and therefore many of these stories were passed down orally and in writings over the years in both cultures.

The FACT IS that you do not KNOW anything. Pure blather.

[LAGC]

15. By your own admission...

Judaism and Christianity are nothing more than copied/co-opted religions. Not original at all.

[TexasProgresive]

18. That certain ideas did not originate with Judaism and Christianity is not new.

Certain Fathers of the primitive Church had seen the value of the correspondence between the symbols advanced by Christianity and the symbols that are the common property of all mankind. Addressing those who denied the resurrection of the dead, Theophilus of Antioch appealed to the signs (tekmēria) that God had set before them in the great cosmic rhythms – seasons, days, nights. He wrote: “Is there not a resurrection for seeds and fruits?” For Clement of Rome, “day and night show us the resurrection; night sets, day rises' day departs, night comes.
The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion—Mircea Eliade

I mean, that's a given and has not been hiddened. While it is true that evangelical fundamentalist aren't aware of it because they take the Biblical texts as if they were handed down complete in the KJV to Moses on Mt. Sinai, but other Christians think differently.

[houstonintc]

19. What is originality?

Isn't everything an idea vaguely generated from prior ideas?

"Simpons did it"-ism... the story is a story. I happen to think it is a nice one. Moses from a Babylonian myth? Maybe maybe not as it's speculation where the story came from.

Shit can't someone enjoy a dam story these days?

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Judaism and Chrisitanity are not merely copied

Clearly, certain legends are based on earlier legends (e.g. The Garden, The Flood) however, there are significant new aspects, e.g. (“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule">The Golden Rule.”)

While a number of ancient religions teach that you should not do to others that which you would not have done to you, Christianity reverses this:

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=170165042

Matthew 7:12

“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

(It's not sufficient not to do evil to others, you must do good to others.)

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=170165244

Matthew 5:43-48

⁴³“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. ⁴⁶For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[sudopod]

30. Nope.avi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

[OKIsItJustMe]

67. Would you care to elaborate?

?

[sudopod]

69. Christianity did not invent the Golden Rule.

Not by a long shot, as is conveniently documented in the previously reference wiki article. ;)

This is just like that Klingon with the eye patch who insisted that Shakespeare was also a Klingon, because after all, all the best and noblest things were invented by Klingons!

[OKIsItJustMe]

70. I also referenced the Wikipedia article on “The Golden Rule”

The article differentiates between the “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Rule">Silver Rule” and the “Golden Rule.”

…

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)
2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Rule">Silver Rule)

…

The “Silver Rule” is relatively common in “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Antiquity">antiquity.” The “Golden Rule” is not.

See also:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/sacred_texts.php

[sudopod]

72. Well, just reaching for the low hanging fruit in the wiki article:

Both Laozi and the Bhagavad-Gita were both part of history by 400 BCE, predating Christ, as well as arising independently of Judeo-Christian thought. The idea is certainly part of Christianity, no argument there, but Christ can't claim exclusive inventorship or ownership of it.



"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi<21>

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi<22>

For those who set their hearts on me
And worship me with unfailing devotion and faith,
The way of love leads sure and swift to me.

Those who seek the transcendental Reality,
Unmanifested, without name or form,
Beyond the reach of feeling and of thought,
With their senses subdued and mind serene
And striving for the good of all beings,
They too will verily come unto me.

—<41[br />
If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.
—Mozi
Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships.

[OKIsItJustMe]

73. Right, what I said was that the “Silver Rule” is relatively common in antiquity

The “Golden Rule” is less common.

However, this entire discussion is somewhat beside the point. As I said (for example) the legend of The Flood clearly seems to have earlier versions. The “Golden Rule” does as well.

However, does that mean that Judaism and Christianity are not new religions?

Do Judaism or Christianity incorporate all of the teachings of Taoism? Do their followers believe in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Pantheon">pantheon for example?

Judaism or Christianity are monotheistic, but then so was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism">Zoroastrianism. Was Judaism simply Zoroastrianism? I'd say that it comes closer than Taoism, and yet, certainly, they are not the same.

Can a new religion be formed which incorporates aspects of older religions?

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam">Islam Christianity?

Is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith">Bahá'í Faith Christianity?

[sudopod]

74. It seems like there's a sort of evolution from one age to the next.

There are different and varying numbers of names and stories, but the essentials of broad human morality stay the same (edit: with some rare but important innovations!). It's clear, for example, that the schools of Buddhism derive from a branch off the family tree of Hinduism. The many extant Christian denominations and Islamic schools have a common ancestor in an extinct branch of Judaism, and are the survivors of a vast branching and equally vast mass extinction of new varieties that happened in late antiquity.

We had a neat discussion about it a while back!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x274967

[OKIsItJustMe]

75. But each remains a distinct religion unto itself

We can categorize them, e.g. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions">Abrahamic Religions.” But you cannot generalize them so much as to claim these are all the same, even though they clearly have common roots.

[sudopod]

76. Sure enough. The same can be said for species of bacteria,

though they often pass genes among one another, even if they aren't "kin" so to speak.

[humblebum]

23. Where you got that from anything I've said, I have no idea.

If many or all of the tribes, clans, and nations in the Middle East at that time had common ancestors and those ancestors told stories that were passed down to all decendents through the years and generations - it only makes sense that the same stories are common between peoples. As far as a coopted religion as you call it; if all these nations - babylonians, hebrews, etc. had been told to look for a messiah, then it makes perfect sense that the story is common to these societies. And so on. The question is: did anyone come along who fulfilled the description of said Messiah?

[laconicsax]

16. And you're simply making a subjective assumption of your own.

Maybe you could cite some non-Biblical sources to support the story? Namely that the Hebrews were in Egypt, that they were slaves, that they were led from Egypt by Moses, that the ten plagues happened, etc.

Can you offer anything other than your subjective assumption that the story is true?

[no limit]

51. That's easy. The bible. It said it (according to some interpretations), so it must be true.

Nothing subjective about that.

[laconicsax]

57. Shit, I forgot about that.

:blush:

[edhopper]

17. hmmm

You ask the question, "Do observers realize that the story of Moses is BS." As if you have all the answers and it is you that we should come to for the answers. The fact is that you are only making a subjective assumption. If Egypt did not have or use slaves on a large scale, then they would have indeed been an oddity on the world stage, because slavery was very much the norm worlswide.

I said they did not have slavery as depicted in the Bible. That was closer to the slavery in Babylonia

You say the Jews were not slaves in Egypt. In that case you are right because the term 'Jews' did not even exist at that time.

All the more reason why those events did not happen

You say that much was "co-opted Babylonian myths, the same as Noah." It makes perfect sense that many biblical stories are similar to Babylonian tales, and others. The fact is that the cultures came from a common linage and therefore many of these stories were passed down orally and in writings over the years in both cultures.

The FACT IS that you do not KNOW anything. Pure blather.

I do know when there is no historical evidence to support a story. Do you have any facts to support anything of the Passover story being true, or are you just blathering as well.

[humblebum]

26. The difference between my opinion and yours is

that I do not purport any of these stories to be absolutely true. There is a limited amount of subjective evidence in the fact that there definitely are these stories that were definitely passed down through the generations. Whether there is any historical truth to them is hidden, but nonetheless the stories do exist.

You claim DEFINITELTY to KNOW the truth and in fact that is BS. All you can honestly say is that you do not believe them to be true, or simply that you do not know. Beyond that you can prove or disprove nothing, period. It's all speculation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Of course it is BS, that does not mean

it is a good story of freedom and all that. It goes beyond just religious belief.

Yes it was put together by King Josiah and his scribes in the seventh century BCE from both Egyptian and Babylonian sources... and the word abadin... does not mean slave. That is just a lazy translation. Consider that the nugget of truth in there. It means corvee labor. Which did exit in Egypt during the High Kingdom.

Oh and God will find a very dirty kitchen and even bread waiting to be baked. We don't do the matzoh. I am highly allergic to it. I don't eat the bread either... corn for me baby. (And I get a pass from gawd himself, as I should not do what makes me sick... thanks Gawd)

Yet one part of the story struck me as funny. Why do we eat matzoh... no time to let bread rise. I wonder, since most people no longer bake bread at home... just how much real sense that makes to kids, not to mention adults. I mean why not stop by the seven eleven and pick up a loaf?


By the way, I will tell you the same thing I did tell my brother, who does not believe it is BS and was trying to prove to me how much it was real using that wonderful high production value, history channel program... it just has one problem, it wasn't forty years in the desert, but oh 1000 years of history, oh was he pissed when I pointed this out... live and let live... that works best.

[jody]

21. Can you prove the Moses story is BS? nt

[edhopper]

22. Yes

Or rather I can show that there is not one shred of evidence that the story of Passover happened. And that there is a direct lik from the story of Moses to the Babylonian myth.
What next? Ask me if i can prove the story of Noah is BS?

[jody]

27. "Or rather I can show" is not proof. It's BS. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Serious historians agree

that it is BS. It wasn't written by Moses, but by scribes anywhere from five to senven centuries after when the events would have happened. It was written to create a sense of nationhood among a people of mostly goat harders.

It was about Egypt and the lower kingdom of Judeah.And the king that ordered this was a pretty minor king well after the first we have evidence to have existed, that is David... no, not as a great king, just a minor war leader.

There are some fascinating books on the subject. To me they are actually more fascinating than the story of exodus itself, since they speak to the development of a nation for real. Incidentally, Exodus is allegory for that. Oh and Jews are probably the oldest nation on earth... still existing and going all the way to the bronze age.

So for me this time of the year is interesting since my fundy brother believes the bible was given by god and all that... and yes we have fundies too.

[struggle4progress]

36. Perhaps you could provide a link regarding this connection between the exodos narrative and

Babylonian myth

I'm aware that the flood story has such antecedents, and I find the details there quite informative -- but i've never heard such a claim raised for the exodos

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. One detail has a Mesopotamian antecedent - found in a reed basket as a baby

Sargon, king of Agade (about 2334-2279 BC)
Sargon's origins and rise to power are poorly known and are obscured by many later stories of his heroic deeds. A later legend tells how he was abandoned as a baby in a basket of reeds on the River Euphrates and found by a man drawing water. The name Sargon means 'the legitimate king' and so itself suggests humbler origins. It is likely that he established himself as an independent ruler at the city of Agade having earlier been associated with the city of Kish.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/s/sargon,_king_of_agade_about_2.aspx

[struggle4progress]

47. That's interesting. Thanks.

[kwassa]

88. You have no proof of anything, do you?

to quote Carl Sagan: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

There is little evidence of anything from that period, as the profession of historian had not been created yet. No newspapers, either. Most of what was written down was about rulers, and much of it was propaganda. The overwhelming majority of the populations were illiterate.

What I love about this forum is the way some atheists like to piss on high holidays of different religions. Predictable as a clock. What do you have stored up for Easter?

[trotsky]

90. Poor kwassa, upset once again because someone DARED question a religious myth.

Here's some helpful advice: if the thread bothers you, you can hide it. If you don't like what certain people have to say, ignore them. Pretty simple. Or you can keep whining about mean nasty atheists saying things you don't agree with IN AN OPEN FORUM.

[kwassa]

127. No. The OP claims proof that he doesn't have.

He can question the Bible to his heart's content.

[trotsky]

131. Then why did you whine about it?

Ignore and Hide Thread are two wonderful features - unless you LIKE being so angry and annoyed all the time.

[kwassa]

137. So, you duck the answer, too!

I expect no less from you.

[trotsky]

146. Answer what?

I am just wondering why you are so upset with a thread that poses a question about religious beliefs, and why you choose to kick the thread instead of ignoring it and/or the author of the OP. Instead you start belittling and insulting again. That's too bad.

[edhopper]

147. The OP claims

that pretty much all archeological and historical evidence points to Moses and the Passover story as a myth. While no actual evidence exist to support them.

[edhopper]

94. Jesus might not have existed

and he certainly did not resurrect from death.
Moreover what we have written was from decades after the events and we only have the translation from centuries later.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Ooh, ooh, I can, pick me

It features supernatural plagues, a talking bush, an amazing parting sea, hundreds of thousands of people wandering for forty years but leaving no archaeological remains, and living on magic food.

So, I can prove it's BS to the same level of proof that I can prove the world is more than 10,000 years old.

[jody]

33. Those are red herrings. OP said "Moses did not exist" and "Jews were not slaves". Please prove those

two assertions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Moses is a laughably unrealistic character, obviously a myth

due to his supernatural powers. He defies reality. There is no evidence for his existence, apart from a book that claims to have been written by him, and yet recounts his death. After he does all the magic stuff. And that scholars think was written about 500 years after the time it claims to describe.

Similarly, that obviously made-up book of miracles and genocide is the only claim that Israelites were a people of slaves in Egypt. It's no better evidence than the scientologists' claims that our ancestors were flown to magic volcanoes in spacefaring DC8s.

[jody]

37. I'll take that as "not able to prove". nt

[darkstar3]

38. How do you prove a negative?

[jody]

39. Beats me! nt

[darkstar3]

40. Then why are you requiring that it be done?

[jody]

41. Read the OP. nt

[darkstar3]

44. I did.

There's no evidence for any of the claims made about Moses in the OT or any evidence of his existence. There is, however, evidence that such myths predated the OT by many generations. With no evidence for the truth of the story, and clear evidence that at least some of it has been copied, greeting that story with a healthy dose of skepticism is only the right thing to do. The OP is essentially saying "I call bullshit."

At some time in our lives, we all "call bullshit". Do you believe that we should be forced to meticulously prove a negative (an impossible stunt) every time we do so?

[kwassa]

128. The OP said he has proof. He has no proof.

You have no proof, either, and have offered none of his assertion.

[darkstar3]

132. Read it again.

[kwassa]

138. I did. Now what? He still has provided no proof

he said:

That it never happened and Moses did not exist. That is from co-opted Babylonian myths, the same as Noah.
That the Jews were not slaves in Egypt (Egypt did not have the form of slavery portrayed in the Bible anyway).
And that the dates don't correlate to any sizable Jewish population in Egypt.
Do they know tonight that they are sitting around the Seder table reciting a fantasy.

Or do people think this fairy tale is true?

No proof that Moses didn't exist.

No proof that Jews were not slaves in Egypt.

Still waiting for proof.

[laconicsax]

139. Good ol' Kwassa...demanding that someone prove a negative.

Keep up the good work!

[darkstar3]

140. Read #44 again.

The skeptic has every right to call bullshit when the following conditions are met:

1. There is evidence that the claim in question is a copycat of earlier myth or legend.
2. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim in question.
3. It is clear beyond doubt that aspects of the claim in question are physically impossible (Moses' various miracles).

You can't just say "prove me wrong." If you could, I could accuse you of heinous crimes and then state that in order to deny those accusations with any veracity you must "prove me wrong."

So when did you stop beating your wife?

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. jody is a fundamentalist, I guess

and need to believe whatever is written in a book called 'holy'. :shrug: Same goes for the 900 year old men a bit earlier in the book.

[trotsky]

95. You can't prove they DIDN'T live to be 900!

Nyah nyah nyah! :P

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. I know

My scientificalist worldview is destroyed :cry:

If only I had a holy book to tell me which holy book to believe ...

[humblebum]

98. You can certainly suggest that Moses was a myth, but

as soon as you say it is "an obvious myth" - then you overstep reality. If you can objectively prove, empirically, 100%,in detail, to me how the pyramids were constructed, then you can probably say that Moses was an "obvious" myth. But until that time, any atheist who makes such a claim is 'blowing smoke'. Years ago I realized just how utterly narrow atheists' epistemological POV was. There is none more narrow, and yet they base their claims upon it and chide others for questioning their methods. You can say that you don't believe he existed, or that he probably didn't, but use that word "obviously" and you lose ALL credibility.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. No-one claims the pyramids were built by Hebrew slaves, so that's a red herring

even by believer standards. The Bible claims the Jewish slaves were set to building with mud bricks. It never mentions pyramids (built out of stone), and the pyramids were built hundreds of years before the dates claimed for Moses.

Also, there's no need to prove how the pyramids were constructed. Again, the Bible makes no claims for miraculous construction of pyramids. So any description of how they were constructed (which, by the way, has been worked out pretty well - the season when Egyptians didn't have a lot of work to do in the fields left them with a workforce for major building like pyramids) wouldn't say "this must have been done by Jewish labour" or "this must have been done by Egyptian labour".

On the subject of 'proof': do you think you can prove that last Thursday had 24 hours? Do you think you can prove that next Friday will too? If so, then you accept that 'proof' of everyday occurrences means accepting laws of nature hold over time. Any claim that miracles happen needs some extraordinary evidence. There isn't any evidence that Moses existed, beyond books written about 700 years after he was meant to have lived. There's slightly better proof that Merlin existed - the original mentions of him are closer in time to the period claimed.

[humblebum]

117. Where did I say Hebrew slaves built the pyramids? All I am saying

is that if you are going to make the definite statement that Moses did not exist, then you would definitely know everything there is to know about the pyramids, since you seem to have absolute knowledge of the period.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. Different period (nt)

[humblebum]

121. I am referring to ancient Egypt , in general. 3000 plus years ago. nt

[laconicsax]

124. Aren't both "ancient" and "Egypt" subjective?

After all, sometimes a settled argument is referred to as "ancient history," so it seems that "ancient" can refer to 3000 years ago and 3 weeks ago. Thus, "ancient" is subjective.

Also, the modern borders of Egypt aren't the same as the historical borders, so it seems that "Egypt" is also subjective.

You wouldn't be trying to force an objective definition on a subjective term, now would you?

[humblebum]

125. That's rather subjective don't you think? nt

[laconicsax]

126. .

:rofl:

[edhopper]

112. Unicorns obviously don't exist.

Bigfoot obviously doesn't exist.
The Loch Ness Monster obviously doesn't exist.
Faries obviously don't exist.
Adam and Eve obviously did not exist.
Noah obviously did not exist...

Get the idea?

[humblebum]

118. Oh i get the idea alright. Ed says it didn't happen, therefore it didn't.

Case closed.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

206. Wait, so unicorns actually exist? And fairies too? Cool! Where can I find them? -nt

[laconicsax]

207. I can't say for certain, but I think they were purged by STALIN!

[trotsky]

62. Can you prove the Mohammed story is BS?

If not, why aren't you a Muslim?

[jody]

64. How do you know I'm not? nt

[trotsky]

65. Previous posting history. n/t

[jody]

79. Perhaps I became one recently. Does one's religious or irreligious beliefs make any difference to

those who search for ways all humans can live together in some sort of harmony?

[trotsky]

84. It does when those religious beliefs start making reality claims they can't back up.

Such as life beginning at conception. Do you have proof that it doesn't?

[jody]

87. An egg and sperm are alive when they fuse to produce a new organism.

Those two live gametes are just the latest step in a chain of life stretching back to the beginning of life as we know it.

If something survives the death and destruction of a living organism, e.g. soul or spirit, and when it is created is a preternatural question to which no one has been able to prove or disprove.

[trotsky]

89. You have not successfully argued the claim.

Neither have those who claim Moses was real and did the things attributed to him, including documenting his own death.

Not a heck of a lot of religious claims about reality that hold up, for that matter. I'm having a tough time thinking of even one.

[humblebum]

97. Equally unable to be backed up are atheistic claims that a god

was not needed to create existence, or that there was no beginning, or that they KNOW what happened before the Big Bang. Organized atheism today is making some preposterous claims, which are based on nothing more than subjective ideas and pure unsubstantiated speculation.

[trotsky]

99. Atheists don't need to prove that a god was not needed.

You have to prove that one was.

I know you have great difficulty grasping this, and I do not expect you to ever do so.

[humblebum]

100. If you make a definite statement such as that- meaning that you KNOW

something, then yes you do need to prove it. If you say that you believe a god was not needed or that probably a god was not needed then you need prove nothing. But as soon as you claim to KNOW the truth, when it is obvious you don't, then you've blown it.

[trotsky]

102. So your trademark strawman atheist is guilty as charged.

No surprise there. That's why you created him!

[humblebum]

116. That old strawman default position of yours comes in handy sometimes

when you can't argue a position, doesn't it?

[trotsky]

129. ...

[jody]

122. Success is debatable. Scientist routinely say gametes die meaning they once were alive. If they are

WRONG then you are RIGHT so argue your case before the entire scientific community.

Please PM me when you have convinced a simple majority, 50% + 1, of the scientific community that you are right, that gametes are not alive when conception occurs.

[trotsky]

130. You have still not successfully argued the claim.

Keep trying.

[jody]

133. ROFLMAO Have a blissful day! Goodbye n/t

[trotsky]

134. I understand why you gave up.

You have a wonderful evening yourself!

[Odin2005]

24. The Egyptian New Kingdom controlled Canaan for a time, so that's the origin of the story, IMO.

Over time the oral storyteller's equivalent of the game Telephone resulted in the story we know today. What was originally, say, a story about a revolt against Egyptian rule turned into a story about an escape from slavery in Egypt.

[edhopper]

25. That's interesting

I still think the parallels to the actual bondage in Babylon make that a more likely origin. But There are probably aspects of many events in the tale.
I think we are in the area of scholarly opinion here. We agree the Passover story is a myth, we
just aren't sure of all the factors that contribute to it.

[Odin2005]

54. I find the late Bronze Age Near East quite fascinating

The period between 2000BC and 1000BC in the Near East is not really given the respect it deserves, mainly because there was a lot of geopolitical messiness, barbarian invasions, and migrations going on, so the historical record is not as easy to peace together as we would like. Arabia was in it's terminal decline in rainfall to it's modern state, which displaced a lot of Semitic-speaking nomads into the Levant and Mesopotamia. This was the time when the Hittites were a major power and sacked Babylon. The first well known military engagement, the Battle of Megiddo, a draw between between the Egyptians and the Hittites, took place in the middle of this period. Proto-Sanskrit-speaking invaders from Central Asia carved out a chuck of territory in modern Syria that became known as the Kingdom of the Mitanni. Northern Egypt was conquered by Semite barbarians called the Hyksos for a time, which was followed by the New Kingdom.

Just to the west the Minoan civilization reached it's height, apparently coming under the control of a single mercantile empire centered at Knossos, declined, was devastated by a mega-eruption on Santorini, and then was conquered by early Greeks, giving us the legend of Atlantis. We do know what the Minoans called their island because of Egyptian records, which idnicate that they called their island "Kaptor". We kid a clue one these early "Mycenaean" Greaks from Hittite diplomatic records, which called them "Akkewaya", that is, Achaeans, which is one of the terms used for Greeks in the Homeric epics.

Iron smelting was a Hittite state secret during this period and was their secret weapon that made them so successful, but when they went into decline as a result of continuous royal succession struggles the secret got out to the Assyrians and the tribes of SE Europe and all hell broke loose, barbarian invasions triggered a devastating wave of migrations in the Eastern Mediterranean as people in the Aegean Sea region fled barbarian invasions and became what the Egyptians called the "Sea Peoples". Greeks and Minoans settled in Palestine and become the Philistines, some Minoans settled in Italy and became the Etruscans. European barbarians poured into Anatolia and gave rise to the Phrygians (of King Midas fame), who were the ancestors of the Armenians. The Mycenaean Greeks were overwhelmed by a wave of less civilized Greeks to the north that spoke "Doric" dialects.

[struggle4progress]

32. Being Christian, I cannot speak for my Jewish sisters and brothers, but this story seems

to me one of the most moving religious stories that I know

Of course, if it has a historical core, however it might now be encrusted with layers of mythical hyperbole, it is simply terrifying

But even if one reads it as pure fiction, with no historical core whatsoever, it is far from being bunk: it is a very informative story

[Meshuga]

42. I haven't been to a passover seder where people focused on whether the story is true or not

And it would be pretty fucking stupid if they did, in my opinion. Passover is an important holiday to us Jews because it tells the story of the "birth" of the Jewish people (and freedom).

The point of the holiday is to celebrate Jewishness. It's about our story. Not about our history.

Judaism is a religion focused on the survival of the tradition. It's about heritage, birthright, and passing it on. It's not focused on certain belief. Although Jews are free to believe as they wish.

While there are Jews who might think the fairy tale is true, and others (including Rabbis) who are sure it's not, the message is missed if the focus is on the discussion whether a fantastic story really happened.

In short, the answer from this observer here to the title of the thread (and the thread) is: "who gives a shit?"

-Meshuga (an observant heeb)

ps. Perhaps that is the wine talking. But rather than focusing on whether a supernatural being from a story really parted a sea (or not) or if the big bad wolf really was able to huff and puff and blow the talking pig's house down, I like to focus on sharing the tradition with my kids. At least they seem to enjoy it.

[darkstar3]

46. Of course not.

No one gathers at an observance of their tradition to discuss whether or not their tradition's origin stories are true. It would be equally idiotic for Christians to discuss the truth of Jesus' existence at an Easter dinner as it would for Jews to discuss this topic at a Seder.

Having said that, such observances remind those of us outside the circle of these questions.

[Meshuga]

48. But my whole point is that...

...in the case of Passover, the question of whether it is a true story or not doesn't really matter. The story being fact or fiction will not change the holiday and its significance.

However, in the case of Easter (and whether Jesus existed) it really matters if the story is true or not. At least to the traditional believer.

There is a tendency to look at Jews as believers and Judaism as a religion through Christian lenses. And that is understandable since we live in a society where Christians are the majority. But there are differences and the situations where people find equivalency are likely due to the use of those lenses.

[darkstar3]

50. It's true that most people in the USA don't realize

the extent to which Judaism is a tradition and not a belief. I had to meet several different types of Jews* before I figured that out myself.

But then, you've answered the question of the OP without really meaning to do so. There are an inordinate number of Jews who see the origin story of Moses and their people as a traditional myth, and even those Jews who believe the story whole-heartedly wouldn't be changed in their practices if they found out otherwise.

*For the record, in case someone is curious what I mean by "several types of Jews," it's much like several types of Catholics. Orthodox, observant, sometimes observant, and "lapsed". :)

[Meshuga]

61. I guess I did...

...answer the question in the OP, didn't I? :-)

Might I add that within the Jewish community a Jew who believes in the story of the Exodus (including burning bush and all) to be a historical account and who does not follow the tradition is considered a lapsed Jew. The one who does not believe it to be true (and see it as part of Jewish folk story) but follow the tradition is considered an observant Jew.

[Dorian Gray]

92. I like this

I hope you had a good Seder.

[WolverineDG]

53. Co-opted? How's about similar groups from the same area

having similar oral histories? I love how the term "co-opted" is used to suggest the oral history of one group was somehow "stolen" by another for nefarious purposes.

And btw, the Greeks also had a flood story, so I guess you could say the Babylonians must have stolen, er "co-opted" it from the ancient Greeks. Or maybe there was a widespread disaster that affected many areas & groups of people & they all had stories to tell about it, which they passed down.

dg

[edhopper]

66. I did not mean it that way.

I used it to mean the stories did not originate with them.

[WolverineDG]

71. Ever hear of the "Cradle of Civilization"

Do they even still teach that? :eyes:

If the Babylonians & Hebrews came from the same area (& they did; I believe they even conquered each other on occasion as well), then their oral histories are going to be similar. No one "stole" (oh, I'm sorry, "co-opted") anything from anyone, nor can any one group claim to be the sole "originator" of the stolen, er co-opted, histories.

dg

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. If you want to know the real history

Read Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Two volumes.

[onager]

60. Only one mention of "Israel" in all of ancient Egyptian history...

And even that is iffy. Experts are still arguing over whether the single mention is of (1) Israel as a place (2) Israel as a people (3) Israel at all, since the translation could also refer to several other places/peoples.

The translation I saw in the Egyptian Museum/Cairo is a straightforward account of a military campaign: Pharoah Merneptah took an army west to put down an insurgency in Libya. While he was still on campaign, revolts also blew up in the region of Canaan. So the army marched east and quickly put down those rebellions.

The museum translation reads: "The seed of Israel is crushed. It is no more." Which is pretty funny, I always like to point out, since the seed of Israel is still in the same place and annoying the Egyptians to this very day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

On edit - Then there's the parting of the Red Sea...which in Egyptian legend was the parting of the Nile River. It's a myth about one of Egypt's most revered pharoahs, Sneferu. Revered probably because he liked hanging around with the common people, according to the stories about him. He's also famous for building the Red and Bent pyramids at Dashur.

According to the legend, Sneferu was floating down the Nile one day with his harem. One harem-lady was idly dipping her hand in the water, when a ring slipped off her finger.

Seeing the girl was broken-hearted, Sneferu promised to replace the ring when they reached the shore. But the girl replied that the ring could never be replaced, since it was a gift from her dead father.

Then Sneferu ordered the boat stopped, and asked his court magician to find the ring. The magician parted the waters of the Nile, and walked along the river bottom until he found the ring.

[struggle4progress]

135. Thanks for pointing out the interesting Sneferu legend. I wonder if you can show

in any detail a link to the Moses legend

I consider it quite plausible that such old texts may incorporate elements from older traditions, and I find it quite informative and useful when one can exhibit definitively such a linkage. Such a linkage seems well-established, for example, in the case of Noah narrative, where a number of story elements from a much older text reappear in the biblical account. But in Sneferu and Moses legends, your sole similarity seems the parting of the water; that is a pretty thin correspondence. Such a thin correspondence, of course, does not eliminate the possibility that the story element has been recycled, but to obtain a good proof (rather than a mere conjecture) one ought to do somewhat more

Sneferu dates to about 2600 BC, about a millennium and a half before Ramesses the Great, and perhaps two millennia or more before the codification of the Jewish canon. One naturally should ask whether there is evidence this Sneferu legend was known when the early versions of the Moses story circulated or when the story was finally written down. And there are other possibilities for the origin of the story of Moses parting the sea:


... According to a new computer-modeling study, wind patterns at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon along the Mediterranean Sea are such that they could have pushed the waters back and created a temporary land crossing.

The researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder made their discovery as part of a larger study of wind's impact on water depths and reported their findings in a recent issue of the online peer-review journal PLoS One. They used archaeological records, satellite measurements, and current maps to reconstruct the likely locations and depths of Nile delta waterways, which have shifted considerably ...

Using 14 computer models, they found that 63mph winds, lasting for 12 hours, would have pushed back waters estimated to be 6 feet deep. This would have exposed mud flats for 4 hours, creating a dry passage about 2 to 2.5 miles long and 3 miles wide. The water would have been pushed back into a surrounding lake and river channel, creating water barriers on both sides of the exposed mud flats and thus creating a land bridge ...

September 22, 2010 2:53 PM PDT
Wind may explain Red Sea parting
by Leslie Katz
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20017313-1.html#ixzz1K7Qr8Zd4

[Nihil]

151. With regard to the "wind" hypothesis about the "Red Sea parting" ...

... there is also the "tsunami" hypothesis which derives from
the memory/retelling of the effects of the Thera-generated
tsunami on the crossings around the delta at that time.

That also ties in with the pillar of fire by night and the pillar
of cloud/smoke by day (the luminous ash cloud above the erupting
volcano providing a navigational guide).

It can also be - slightly more tenuously - connected to most of the
plagues (e.g., darker skies from the ash-cloud with an excess of SO2
making the rain acidic as well as ash-filled, poisoning & colouring
the river, taking their toll on the crops, fish, livestock & people
alike and leading to "rebound" waves of pest species).

Yes, the evolved narrative has taken them out of order as well as
messing with the time-scale but that is basically the nature of such
folk-tales after a couple of generations of oral re-telling.

And if you *really* want to have fun, consider the problems that
were found both preceding and immediately following Akhenaton
(mentioned upthread) then tie the lot together with the influx
(and subsequent exit) of "a tribe" with significantly unEgyptian
culture.

Finally, consider that there may well have been more than a single
"Exodus" event involving monotheistic groups departing from Egypt.

Happy (whatever feast you wish to call it that is getting me a few
days holiday around the weekend starting in about an hour)!
:-)

[onager]

174. No, but you can use your magical Google powers...

To search for "Myth of the Green Jewel," which is another name for the Sneferu story. Like most good myths, there are different versions. I heard some from Actual Egyptians when I lived there.

BTW, two things are guaranteed to piss off an Actual Egyptian, especially if they are grad students in Egyptian history or archeology - saying that aliens built the Giza Pyramids, or saying that Hebrew slaves worked on the same construction project. Americans do that all the time. One of my Egyptian friends called the latter "the gospel according to Cecil B. DeMille."

Using 14 computer models, they found that 63mph winds, lasting for 12 hours...

Oh please. This is nothing but the tired old believer's game of trying to have the cake and eat it too. "It was a miracle and we don't need science to prove it. But by the way, here's a scientific experiment that proves it."

Or it would prove it, as soon as we find someplace where the wind blows at 63 mph for 12 hours. Which I think would not only remove some water, but also any wandering nomads, their livestock and just about anything else not firmly nailed down.

I've lived in two places in the Middle East with bizarre and freakish weather conditions: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which is between the Red Sea and the desert. And Alexandria, Egypt, between the Mediterranean, a huge freshwater lake and the desert. But I've never heard of any winds like those.

[struggle4progress]

179. While it might have been interesting for you to hear the Sneferu story in Egypt,

the telling then is too far removed from the period to serve as evidence that the Sneferu story was known when the Moses narrative was consolidated. IIRC Josephus similarly reported that he went to Egypt and heard from scholars there of records of a much more ancient slave revolt -- but his report too far removed from the period of interest to cast much light

Other than to say "there are other possibilities for the origin of the story of Moses parting the sea," I made no particular claim about the model-story I linked, about an attempt to reconstruct ancient water channels and to model the effect of sustained winds there. Khamsin has been known to blow up to 140 km/hr and has been known to last several days; I have no idea what meteorological records might suggest as possible, though I expect the professionals who constructed the model tried not to stray far from the realm of the possible.

[dimbear]

136. The slightness of references to Israel is due to the slightness of Israel at the time.

The references to Judah, however, are several. Judah in those centuries (10,9,8th BCE) was vastly more important, and Israel was an unimportant thinly populated region. If you can believe Finkelstein, and I think you can, the 'history' part of the OT was more or less written to give Israel a synthetic history and reconcile Israel and Judah after Judah was destroyed.

[didact]

101. Gee, you seems so sure of yourself...you must be right.

eom

[struggle4progress]

108. There's really no question that the ancient Egyptians held slaves and treated them in ways

we would regard as indicating degraded social status: women were sold to pharoahs as concubines; war captives were branded or tattooed to indicate ownership

We also have accounts from late Egyptian antiquity, only a century or so before the Roman era, detailing the brutal treatment of slaves in Egyptian mines: although these accounts are from a millennium after Ramesses II, Egyptian society was extraordinarily conservative, and there's no reason to think slaves in the mines were well-treated earlier

The Egyptians of the New Kingdom period, like many other civilizations, regularly conducted war to obtain captives -- and the obvious reason for wanting captives is for their labor: otherwise, a captive represents just another mouth to feed

[edhopper]

113. I never said they did not have slaves

I said they did not have the very harsh slavery that is depicted in Exodus.

[struggle4progress]

119. Here's Diodorus Siculus:

On the gold mines on the farthest borders of Egypt and the working of the gold

... For the kings of Egypt gather together and condemn to the mining of the gold such as have been found guilty of some crime and captives of war, as well as those who have been accused unjustly and thrown into prison because of their anger, and not only such persons but occasionally all their relatives as well, by this means not only inflicting punishment upon those found guilty but also securing at the same time great revenues from their labours. And those who have been condemned in this way — and they are a great multitude and are all bound in chains — work at their task unceasingly both by day and throughout the entire night, enjoying no respite and being carefully cut off from any means of escape; since guards of foreign soldiers who speak a language different from theirs stand watch over them, so that not a man, either by conversation or by some contact of a friendly nature, is able to corrupt one of his keepers ... and at this task they labour without ceasing beneath the sternness and blows of an overseer ... And since no opportunity is afforded any of them to care for his body and they have no garment to cover their shame, no man can look upon unfortunate wretches without feeling pity for them because of the exceeding hardships they suffer. For no leniency or respite of any kind is given to any man who is sick, or maimed, or aged, or in the case of a woman for her weakness, but all without exception are compelled by blows to persevere in their labours, until through ill-treatment they die in the midst of their tortures. Consequently the poor unfortunates believe, because their punishment is so excessively severe, that the future will always be more terrible than the present and therefore look forward to death as more to be desired than life ... http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/3A*.html#12

The kind of abuse Diodorus describes has been common in world history: one sees slaves suffering so two millennia later on the Caribbean sugar plantations, and one sees war captives suffering so in quarries millennia earlier in Assyria. There's no good reason to think that the ancient Egyptian militarists, having taken war captives for slave labor, were any nicer

[onager]

219. You forgot to mention the "suspicous sources."

Which is mentioned in just about every 'net article I found on Diodorus Siculus. BTW, your link in the post did not work.

Diodorus Siculus was writing mostly between 60 and 30 BCE...when the "kings of Egypt" were Greeks just like him. Well, Macedonians - the Ptolemies.

According to some links, his primary source for the gold-mining description was Agatharcides. He lived in the 2nd century BCE, so he could not possibly have had any first-hand knowledge of ancient Egyptian mining operations.

Another strange thing - most articles simply call the mine workers "miners," not slaves.

If "brutally working your ass off at unpaid labor" - or corvee, to use the technical term - is a definition of slavery, then Egypt arguably had slavery right up until nearly the 20th century.

The Suez Canal was built almost entirely with unpaid corvee labor, until the Khedive threw a tantrum and stopped the practice, mostly to spite the French. Though the ruler did make a lot of flowery speeches about "restoring the dignity of Egyptian labor." (That action had an unintended side benefit - it forced the French to develop steam-powered heavy construction equipment.)

The British, also suspicious sources at times, officially take credit for ending the practice of corvee in 1882 - when they invaded Egypt.

[Behind the Aegis]

143. Any proof?

[laconicsax]

144. I think the complete lack of non-Biblical evidence speaks volumes to that end.

The only record of what would certainly be a number of major events in Egyptian history is a book written by multiple authors centuries after the fact on a different continent.

[Behind the Aegis]

145. That's not evidence.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -- Carl Sagan

[edhopper]

148. Actually it is.

You, like many others, misuse that quote.

"“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, is a saying frequently quoted by cryptid proponents, more especially Bigfoot proponents, in an attempt to dismiss the fact that no type specimens have ever been found. Ironically, most of those who employ this saying do not realize that they are quoting a skeptic that did not believe in Bigfoot, or alien animals, or prehistoric survivors, or any of the other popular figures of cryptozoology.

The quote can be found on page 213 of Carl Sagan’s, “The Demon-Haunted World—Science as a Candle in the Dark”, and is strictly used to criticize “argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance”), which is to say that “something must be true because it cannot be proven false, and vice versa”.

I do not entirely agree with Carl Sagan’s quote. In my opinion, absence of evidence can only be evidence of absence. Missing evidence is, after all, a very clear indication that the evidence is probably not there. However, I realize that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But if Dr. Sagan had stated it that way, then we would not have a nifty little, easily memorized antimetabole that, despite my disagreement, conveys an apparent truth in the proper context. "

http://enigmaticstatic.com/doubt/absence.shtml

[cleanhippie]

150. GREAT rebuttal and explanation of that Sagan quote. Well Done.

:applause:

[Behind the Aegis]

154. I didn't misuse it, you didn't understand it.

The quote can be found on page 213 of Carl Sagan’s, “The Demon-Haunted World—Science as a Candle in the Dark”, and is strictly used to criticize “argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance”), which is to say that “something must be true because it cannot be proven false, and vice versa”."

Therefore, you can't claim as a fact Moses didn't exist because there isn't proof that he existed. Unlike your example, I am not claiming he existed nor am I claiming that Exodus happened. I am simply challenging your assertion that neither existed, so the burden is on you to prove they didn't exist.

[laconicsax]

152. Let's have the actual quote:

Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Or, "there's no irrefutable document proving that the Exodus narrative didn't happen, so it must be true."

[Behind the Aegis]

153. Try again....

Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

emphasis added

Or, "there's no irrefutable document proving that the Exodus narrative did happen, so it must be false." It is that statement which is the premise of the OP and what you and others are trying to "defend." I never claimed the narrative to be true. You, and the OP, however, are claiming it is false, yet have not provided proof. Do not fall for the other logical fallacy, "you can't prove a negative," because you most certainly can.

[edhopper]

155. Not

"there's no irrefutable document proving that the Exodus narrative did happen, so it must be false."
There is no evidence at all that it happened. While there is evidence that it did not happen. Therefore the likelihood is it did not happen, and we should proceed under the assumption that it did not happen until real evidence is discovered.

[Behind the Aegis]

160. You can proceed any way you like, it doesn't make it factual.

Provide the evidence it didn't happen as you are claiming.

[laconicsax]

157. You're mischaracterizing the argument in the OP, and missing the point.

There isn't ANY evidence that the Exodus narrative is true and the burden of proof is on those claiming that it is true.

What you missed about your misuse of Sagan's quote is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a fallacy. Absence of evidence can only be evidence of absence. Finding no evidence of WMDs in Iraq is evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq and finding no evidence that any of the Exodus narrative is true is evidence that it never happened.

If evidence supporting a claim is later found, it will certainly outweigh the earlier absence of evidence. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim (ie X is true), and claims are proven through falsification--if it can't be falsified, it must be true.

[Behind the Aegis]

161. You are incorrect.

The burden of proof in on the OP and no one else. He made the claim, therefore, he is 'burdened' with proving his claims to be factual.

You and the OP are the one's who have misused Sagan's quote. It means something is not factual until proved otherwise. Claiming "That it never happened and Moses did not exist." is a statement posing as fact, and as such, needs to be proved true in order to be fact. I haven't claimed anything, one way or the other; the OP has. The burden is all his.

To re-quote you: There isn't ANY evidence that the Exodus narrative is false and the burden of proof is on those claiming that it is false.

Read this statement again: Absence of evidence can only be evidence of absence.

The only "proof" the OP has is there is no evidence, that is all. It doesn't mean, it didn't happen or he didn't exist, it simply means evidence is lacking. So, it is TRUE and FACTUAL there is no EVIDENCE that Moses existed. It does NOT mean Moses DID NOT exist.

[laconicsax]

163. Sorry, but you're mistaken.

Contradicting a claim isn't a claim in itself, but an evaluation of the claim it counters.

If I claim that raindrops are the tears of aborted fetuses, it isn't on you to prove me wrong but on me to prove that I'm right. Likewise, if you say "raindrops aren't the tears of aborted fetuses," it wouldn't be on you to prove it, as proving a negative is impossible--you can't produce positive evidence for something that doesn't exist.

The central claim here is that "the Exodus narrative is true" (or "Moses existed").There is absolutely no evidence to support either claim, and the contradiction can be made, "the Exodus narrative is true" is a false statement and "Moses existed" is a false statement. Again, that contradiction is not a claim in itself, but an evaluation of "the Exodus narrative is true" or "Moses existed."

Your error is in using religious logic, which is based on the fallacy "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Need I remind you that you offered that exact fallacy as your argument in post 145. Now after being shown that the quote you used was a description of a fallacy, you insist that everyone else is wrong, rather than conceding that it didn't mean what you thought. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was Sagan's description of a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.

[Behind the Aegis]

170. Again, you are incorrect.

"The central claim here is that "the Exodus narrative is true" (or "Moses existed").There is absolutely no evidence to support either claim, and the contradiction can be made, "the Exodus narrative is true" is a false statement and "Moses existed" is a false statement. Again, that contradiction is not a claim in itself, but an evaluation of "the Exodus narrative is true" or "Moses existed.""

Incorrect. Here is the OP:

edhopper (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-18-11 03:50 PM
Original message
Do observers realize that the story of Moses is BS
That it never happened and Moses did not exist. That is from co-opted Babylonian myths, the same as Noah.
That the Jews were not slaves in Egypt (Egypt did not have the form of slavery portrayed in the Bible anyway).
And that the dates don't correlate to any sizable Jewish population in Egypt.
Do they know tonight that they are sitting around the Seder table reciting a fantasy.

Or do people think this fairy tale is true?

The "central claim" of this OP is that the Exodus never occurred and Moses didn't exist. Therefore, the logical fallacy you and the OP are engaging is "Burden of Proof." The OP (and you) must prove the Exodus DID NOT occur and Moses DID NOT exist. It is not my "burden" because I have not claimed either positive or negative claims. You seem to think I have claimed Moses existed or the Exodus occurred, I haven't made either assertion. You are creating a narrative all on your own.

"Your error is in using religious logic, which is based on the fallacy "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Need I remind you that you offered that exact fallacy as your argument in post 145. Now after being shown that the quote you used was a description of a fallacy, you insist that everyone else is wrong, rather than conceding that it didn't mean what you thought. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was Sagan's description of a logical fallacy, not a logical argument."

Once again, you are incorrect. I know Sagan's comment was the expression of a logical fallacy, not a logical argument. The reason I mentioned it is because YOU and the OP are using it as a logical argument, demonstrating you don't understand the statement or how you are using it, or some combination. You and the OP are claiming because there is NO PROOF that the Exodus occurred (the way it appears in the Bible, I assume) and that there is NO PROOF that Moses existed, therefore, it is FACT that neither occurred/existed. THAT IS THE FALLACY. It is used by alleged skeptics often, and, on occasion, by religious types...but in reverse.

Religious: You cannot prove Moses and the Exodus existed/took place, and since you can't prove it, there is no evidence it isn't true, so it is true. FALSE statement.

You & OP: You cannot prove Moses and the Exodus existed/took place, and since it can't be proved, there is no evidence it is true, so it is false. FALSE statement.

Both are examples of the logical fallacy: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", they just arrive at different conclusions. Things can be true or false, but not both. They can, however, be "neither," neither true nor false and Sagan's fallacy indicates this. Now, one can infer from the lack of evidence that something is not true or didn't happen, but it still doesn't make it fact, or true; it just means there was no evidence. I also see you believe the fallacy, "you can't prove a negative," which might explain why you aren't understanding the situation and creating your own narrative, because you can prove a negative, mathematically and logically.

"Baltimore is NOT the capitol of the United States." I bet you can PROVE that NEGATIVE statement to be true.
"The Earth is NOT the center of the solar system." Bet you can prove that one too.
"Cavemen and dinosaurs did NOT exist at the same time." There is another negative statement I am certain you could prove true, factual; though it might take more work than the first two examples.

Do not mistake opinion for fact.

Edit to add:

I re-read my first response to you: "That's not evidence." I wasn't paying close attention, because I should have said it wasn't "proof," because it clearly is evidence. My apologies.

[darkstar3]

171. 2 problems

1. You're ignoring root causes. The OP is a refutation. To see the actual claim, you need to go back one step.
2. Your examples are binary situations in which you prove a positive aspect ("the sun is the center of the solar system") which then excludes any other possibility. This does not work with a non-exclusion situation. Ex. "Do you beat your wife often?" "No, of course I don't beat my wife!" "Prove it." "Um..."

[Behind the Aegis]

172. That isn't the core issue.

It doesn't matter what the "root causes" are. The OP did not state Moses existed and the Biblical Exodus happened as written, then was confronted with someone claiming the opposite who was then confronted with "any proof?" You cannot, logically, claim something is factual, then claim you cannot prove it because you "can't prove a negative." If we take your supposition that the OP is a refutation, then proof is still needed, simply stating the opposite is NOT proof.

Your second "problem" is irrelevant because the OP is binary. Moses either existed or didn't, there is no other possibility. Your other example is one of a loaded question and, in actuality, the burden would be on the one asking the question, not the one being asked because the asker is supposing.

[darkstar3]

194. Yeah, check out #140 and #180. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

199. Blather and avoidance.

Like the religious who like to claim facts without proof, so goes you and the others.

[darkstar3]

204. So you have absolutely no answer to either of those points?

[Behind the Aegis]

211. There was no answer needed.

[laconicsax]

173. No, I am correct.

To begin, as darkstar3 pointed out, the "central claim" of the OP, isn't a claim, but a refutation of the claim that Exodus is true, Moses existed, etc.

In each of your three examples, rather than prove a negative, you are disproving a positive and wording it as a negative.

"Baltimore is not the capitol of the US" is a refutation of "Baltimore is the Capitol of the US," which is falsified by proving that Washington DC is the capitol. (Denying the consequent.)
"The Earth is not the center of the solar system" is a refutation of "the Earth is the center of the solar system," which is falsified by proving that the sun is the center.
"Cavemen and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time" is a refutation of "cavemen and dinosaurs existed at the same time," which is falsified by showing that dinosaurs died out millions of years prior to the emergence of humans.

In exactly the same way, "Moses did not exist"/"the Exodus narrative isn't true" is a refutation of "Moses existed"/"the Exodus narrative is true" which are completely unsupported. A wholly unsupported claim is proven to the same degree as a false claim--"Moses existed"/"the Exodus narrative is true" have been proven to the same extent as "Baltimore is the Capitol of the US."

How then might "the Exodus narrative is true" be proven? Well, one way would be to determine a consequence and affirm it.

If the Exodus narrative is true, there would be archeological evidence to support its claims.
There's no archaeological evidence to support its claims.
Therefore, the Exodus narrative is likely false.

You could even get more specific:
If the Israelites were in Egypt for generations, archaeological evidence confirming this would exist.
No such evidence exists.
Therefore, the Israelites weren't likely in Egypt for generations.

With each part of the Exodus narrative shown as unlikely, the likelihood of the entire thing being true diminishes. Moses' existence is a consequence of the story being true:

If the Exodus narrative is true, then Moses existed.
The narrative is probably untrue.
Therefore, Moses probably never existed.

The uncertainty associated with the conclusion is proportional to the uncertainty of the consequent and both are near impossible.

[Behind the Aegis]

175. Sorry, but you are still incorrect.

"To begin, as darkstar3 pointed out, the "central claim" of the OP, isn't a claim, but a refutation of the claim that Exodus is true, Moses existed, etc."

Stating the opposite is NOT proof. Sorry, you can claim it is all you want, but it doesn't make it so. When one "refutes" something, then one proves or disproves a claim and as I said, saying the exact opposite is not refuting something as it is not proof.

"In each of your three examples, rather than prove a negative, you are disproving a positive and wording it as a negative."

Hate to break this to you, but it isn't the same thing. You are, again, wrong. If I said, "Baltimore IS the capitol of the United States." and you prove DC is the capitol, then you have "disproved a positive." The Earth example is an example of your proving a negative, because the negative statement is TRUE. IT IS FACT. You can prove a negative, despite your claims otherwise. However, it depends on limits. Limitless is unprovable either way.

You are now back-pedaling.

"If the Exodus narrative is true, there would be archeological evidence to support its claims.
There's no archaeological evidence to support its claims.
Therefore, the Exodus narrative is likely false.

You could even get more specific:
If the Israelites were in Egypt for generations, archaeological evidence confirming this would exist.
No such evidence exists.
Therefore, the Israelites weren't likely in Egypt for generations."

"Likely" is not true or false, but probability; speculation. You can claim that the existence of Moses and the Exodus story is questionable and highly unlikely (there's that word again), but it IS NOT FACT. Saying they didn't exist is not proof, it is belief; faith. So, you and the OP can claim you don't BELIEVE (opinion) Moses and the Exodus existed/happened, but you CANNOT claim it is FACT.

Again, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." You seem to be reading that statement without the word "not." March 13, 1781, Uranus is "discovered." It DID exist prior to its discovery and it DID exist though there was no evidence of it prior to that date.

Claiming Moses didn't exist and the Exodus didn't happen as FACTUAL is as wrong as someone claiming Moses did exist and the Exodus did happen. Something can be false or true, just not both; however, it can be neither. This is a case of it being "neither."

[laconicsax]

180. Ugh. Get back to me when you prove that leprechauns don't exist.

Because there's the exact same amount of evidence to prove he existence of leprechauns as there is to prove the Exodus narrative.

I wonder if you would have jumped on this thread if edhopper had said, "leprechauns don't exist." Something tells me you wouldn't have even blinked had he said that.

I also find it amusing that you keep relying on Sagan's summary of the argument from ignorance as proof that Moses must exist. Trust me, the irony of using an argument from ignorance to charge an argument from ignorance is not lost on me.

Before using science to prove your point, you might want to familiarize yourself with the null hypothesis since it's the default position in science. Had someone proposed a planet beyond the orbit of Saturn in, say the 1750s, no one would have accepted it because there was no evidence for it. No one would have said, "absence of evidence..." to support the claim, because in science, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. The Michelson-Morely experiment was a great example of this--everyone was sure that light propagates through the luminiferous aether, and when experimental results failed to produce any evidence of it, it began to be realized that the aether didn't exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the rallying cry for countless cranks like cryptozoologists, homeopaths, and anyone else who needs logical fallacies to make their point so while I wouldn't say that you're in good company, you're certainly in well numbered company.

So, let me know when you prove that leprechauns don't exist and remember, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!

[Behind the Aegis]

197. Just like the religious...

...so sure you are correct, even with the lack of evidence.

"I also find it amusing that you keep relying on Sagan's summary of the argument from ignorance as proof that Moses must exist."

LOL! Now that is a typical move of the "religious folks" you like to rail against. I never said Sagan's summary proves Moses existed. Not once have I said whether he did or didn't. You simply MADE UP a point in order to deny it...another logical fallacy known as "Strawman." Good job! It simply demonstrates you really don't understand the principles involved, of either logic nor science.

Your next paragraph is another logical fail because you seem to think I have attempted to prove the story of Exodus or Moses' being real. NOPE. Also, you fail to understand what I have said and what Sagan said. Shame really. Like the religious who think they are always right, so do you and those like you. You, like them, are unwilling to simply accept that some things are unknown. Prior to 1750, those like you would be claiming there are no planets past Saturn as a FACT; a truth...and, YOU'D BE WRONG. So, again, more slowly this time...just because there is no evidence, does not mean it doesn't exist (nor does it mean it does it exist). Sorry, but that is a fact.

Given that your arguments, especially the last few, have relied heavily on logical fallacies, I think you have more in common with the "cranks" then you might like to acknowledge.

You might want to take a course in logic and probability.

[laconicsax]

208. Uh huh. Ok. Sure.

You've spent considerable time on this thread insisting that because the Exodus narrative and Moses' existence can't be conclusively disproven, then they must exist.

You first demanded proof that Moses never existed, then when offered the fact of absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that he ever lived, replied with, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Then, after being shown (twice) that your Sagan quote actually outlines a fallacy, you started insisting that those taking the complete absence of evidence to even suggest that any part of the Exodus narrative was true as evidence that it isn't true are committing the very fallacy you invoked to rebut the evidence.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It is not PROOF of absence, but is evidence. If evidence were to emerge supporting the narrative/Moses' existence, it would greatly outweigh the absence of evidence, just as discovering a leprechaun sitting on a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow would greatly outweigh the absence of evidence supporting the existence of such a thing.

I can say with equal certainty that leprechauns, unicorns, Cthulhu, Thor, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and Moses don't exist, yet I doubt that you would take issue with the first seven.

[Behind the Aegis]

209. Try again.

"You've spent considerable time on this thread insisting that because the Exodus narrative and Moses' existence can't be conclusively disproven, then they must exist."

Again, claiming it to be so, doesn't make it true. I have NOT said either exist. You keep using those fallacies to "prove your point." It is obvious you would rather rely on faith than facts, as well as revisionism.

[edhopper]

213. What facts

are there that support the existence of Moses?
If there are none, then we must go under the assumption that he did not exist.
Occam's razor and all that you know.

[edhopper]

177. I am happy you are doing this laconicsax

But I fear Aegis is not going to except the simple logical basis of the debate.
I wonder what their argument would have been if I had said "I wonder if they realize that there is no evidence at all that Moses existed and therefore the Passover story probably never happened."
I think their protests would have been the same and they would not accept that Moses, in all likihood (though qualifiers don't seem to matter) did not exists.

[Behind the Aegis]

178. I can tell you myself what I would have said.

Nothing. Why? Because that is opinion. Had I said anything it would have likely been about possible "leads." The difference in what you said in this post and what you said in your OP? Your OP is claiming fact you refuse to prove and think because you say the opposite of some it "magically" becomes proof. You and laconicsax are exhibiting the SAME attitude as the "religious" POV you are against; "Can't prove it?, doesn't matter, it is what I believe. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" It is clear neither of you understand that lack of evidence simply means there is NO EVIDENCE, it does NOT mean something didn't/doesn't exist. You can draw conclusions and speculation based on the lack of evidence but it still does not mean your claims are fact and more than some who claims Moses did exist and the Exodus occurred as it did in the Bible. You both seem to think you understand the principles of logic, but this "debate" has shown you do not as both of you still cling to the notion that a negative cannot be proved and therefore, you can use negative statements as fact which you can then turn around and claim you don't have to prove because your stating the opposite of an argument (for someone who isn't even here) is therefore, proof. If you can't back up your facts, don't claim them to be true.

[edhopper]

181. There is ample evidence

as stated in many posts here, that Moses did not exist.
Sometimes the absence of evidence, combined with abundant evidence to the contrary, is the evidence of absence.
But you don't want to talk about the observance of millions of people in what is essentially a fairy tale. You want to debate semantics.

So my original question; Do observes realize the story of Moses is BS?

In my experience at many Seders, they don't.

[Behind the Aegis]

198. I never claimed he did. You are the one making the claim, which is why I asked for proof.

You don't want to talk actual proof, just insult people's religious beliefs and pretend your beliefs are superior.

"Sometimes the absence of evidence, combined with abundant evidence to the contrary, is the evidence of absence."

That almost sounds reasonable and is a good start, but it still doesn't make what you said fact any more than someone saying "The Exodus really happened just like it says in the Bible."

Opinion is not fact. Sorry.

[edhopper]

201. Your arguments

eerily parallel those of creationists.

[Behind the Aegis]

210. And yours that of a fundie Bible-thumper.

[Meshuga]

212. I think it is more like you wish that "they" would not accept that Moses did not exist

The Jews in this thread who find the holiday important are not claiming that Moses existed and would not be in the least concerned if he didn't. No matter how much you try to attribute the belief and approach to help your thesis and personal beliefs about what Jews might or might not realize.

If we rely on FACTS, rather than your anecdotes, we will see that there is no such thing as Jewish dogma about the exodus story. There is a mitzvah to observe it but if you start looking for facts about the characteristics of the religion (as opposed to relying on ignorant generalizations and belief that all "Abrahamic religions" have the same approach merely because they share a set of books) you will realize that there is no Jewish equivalency to the Christian approach to the story. No matter what is the perception you gathered from your family at the several seders you've been to, Jewish tradition teaches that torah is not literal and that only fools can't see beyond its surface. There is a mitzvah to follow it and this mitzvah supports the main goal in Judaism: Am Yisrael Chai (the survival of the Jewish people).

I understand your OP is a questions but the problem is that you make assumptions with the question and it becomes clear that you are making assumptions (not only because of the general and vague nature to the question but) because you seem to be using your personal anecdotes to back up your assumption. However, that is not the proper way to go about generalizing what supposedly "silly Jewish believers," in general, realize or do not realize.

Passover is the STORY of Jewish survival and it is told every year as part of the tradition. Jews observe this "festival of Jewish freedom" because of their identity and because it is the Jewish thing to do. The bottom line is that we want to pass the tradition to the next generation so its observation is key to the tradition and Jewish heritage. An equivalent story is the minor Jewish holiday of Purim which is observed by Jews everywhere even when, in reality, the story of Esther was obviously borrowed from Pagans. But if we get stuck in the root of the story we miss the point since it does not really matter because the book of Esther has become part of Judaism. It is just another glue and glue is important to Judaism to keep it going.

How Jews approach the bible and believe in its stories are consequence from the society/place where they live. If a Jew here in the US is unaffiliated and just observe Passover and/or some other Jewish holidays, it would be very likely that he/she would adopt the Christian view of the story since it is the most influential here give the majority Christian population. And since there is no dogma, Jews believe (or don't believe) as they wish. But if these Jews go to a Torah class in a synagogue they will be pretty surprised since the participants in these classes realize that Torah is not a work to be believed in. Torah is the root of living a Jewish life. It is the body of work where we derived (and still derive) the huge amount of literature, law, customs, culture, etc. that is part of the Jewish people and Jewish life.

A good source of the Jewish approach is the "Judaism for Dummies" book (no pun intended). The books is a good summary that looks at Judaism without the Christian goggles like you seem to be doing. It would answer a lot of your questions and perhaps will help you get rid of your prejudices and misconceptions. ;-)

[edhopper]

214. Thanks for the reasoned answer.

My OP was a bit terse and sounds condescending. I thought I would get a few responses of the "Yes" or No" kind. I had no idea that this thread would have over 200 replies and counting. If I did I probably written it in a more thoughtful manner.

It does put in mind another thread I am thinking of about children and tradition.

[Meshuga]

216. Yes, this thread produced a lot of activity

This forum needs it. It's not like it used to be.

Anyway... First I would like to apologize for my defensiveness.

And I would like to add here that the Jewish community has a lot of great academic work with lots of useful material to debunk biblical stories including this one. So I am surprised that there would be a significant number of observants who would cling to the story given the literature they have available. But I think that external factors are likely to influence what you have seen.

The only group I would see pushing biblical stories as fact from within is the ultra-Orthodox who would likely cling to the story as a real set of events even when their Kabbalistic literature (that they hold so dear) is averse to biblical literalism. But that is my own assumption, of course.

In any case, in my circles, and given the work produced by Jewish religious groups, it does not surprise me that a bar mitzvah speech like this one is not taboo and that it would draw laughs and acceptance from a Jewish congregation.

[edhopper]

217. That is one

cool Bar Mitzvah.

[Deep13]

156. Tons.

I don't know that the evidence is necessarily on the internet or all in one place on the internet. One aspect of the evidence that I do know about is that ancient Hebrew sites can be identified with certainty that those of other cultures cannot be. Hebrew villages or encampments are devoid of pork remains. Their movements, therefore, can be followed to the degree that settlements are discovered. That's not the whole story by any means, but it is one aspect of the evidence I remember specifically.

There was a 2-hour special of that PBS show NOVA on this very topic made in 2007ish that laid out the whole case, at least to the degree that a popular press show can do in two hours.

[muriel_volestrangler]

164. Chapter 1 of this book seems a pretty good summary

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z0wawEnu0UkC&lpg=PA13&ots=1CS4tpEd7F&dq=earliest%20mention%20judah&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The Hebrew Bible: new insights and commentary", pub. 2008. The author of Chapter 1, Gary Rendsburg, describes himself as a 'maximalist', ie he beleives the Old Testament contains a good deal of real history, but what he claims shown by archaeology goes no further back than Solomon, the apparent builder of similar city gates in both Judah and Israel, and suggests that since the Bible says Solomon was from the 'House of David', and there's a later archaeological reference to the 'House of David', then it's reasonable to think the Bible has basis in reality there. He doesn't even bother to attempt to link the stories of Judges, Joshua and the Pentateuch to actual history (eg the conquest of the region by a band from outside), because there isn't any evidence for that at all.

He does mention things like the lack of pork remains, which distinguish the people in the central hill country from the Philistines on the Mediterranean shore, or the trans-Jordan Moabites.

[Deep13]

149. There are two options here.

1. The story of Moses is essentially true (maybe the details are not completely accurate).

2. The story of Moses is essentially false (maybe some of the incidental claims are real).

"It doesn't matter because it is about faith" is not one of the options. Exodus is making a factual assertion about what happened. All Abrahamic religions are based on those assertions at least in part. If the events are not as described then any belief system based on them is ipso facto invalid. This is something fundamentalists actually understand. They know the validity of their beliefs depends on the veracity of their foundational myths. Once those myths are revealed to be merely myths, the whole house of cards collapses. Exodus becomes an interesting story, but that is all.

[struggle4progress]

158. Actually, there are many options here:

One might want to know how the story was constructed and so might try to discern "layers" of the text; one might want to "date" these layers. One might be interested in plausible earlier sources of various story elements; one might also be interested in how the meanings of such story elements changed when incorporated into the biblical narrative. One might think about what details of the story could reference actual historical events or known historical cultural contexts. One might ask what the story meant to those people who first told it and how interpretations of the story changed with time

One can read the story simply as literature from a time when story-telling was a common way to pass cultural ideas. Considered simply as literature, the story has its charms.

... Pharaoh charged his people, Cast into the river every son born to them ... And a man of the house of Levi wed a daughter of Levi, and she bore a son and made a little boat of bulrushes, daubed with slime and pitch, and laid it among the reeds near the bank. Pharaoh's daughter of Pharaoh came to wash at the river and, when she saw the little boat among the reeds, sent her maid to fetch it and saw the weeping child and had compassion. Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, May I go and call a nurse to nurse the child? ...

You can just see the wheels spinning in everybody's heads. The mother of Moses is a little lawyer: "Well, Pharoah says I must put my baby in the river -- but he didn't say I couldn't use a boat!" And Pharaoh's daughter doesn't care about old Pharoah's rules one bit. Meanwhile, Moses' older sister is right on the ball

[Deep13]

159. I mean for religious purposes.

To celebrate Moses as Yahweh's great emancipator and the founder of Abrahamic religion and to credit his supposed pronouncements as holy commandments, one must accept the factual accuracy of the story. Otherwise, it is an interesting story, but like the Iliad or Star Wars it has no divine authority behind it.

[golddigger]

165. All I know is that that the Story of Moses makes god out as

one sick egotistical sadistic murderous bastard.

Genesis 7:13 God, then, hardened Pharaoh's heart. WHAT? The Biblical God made Phoraoh into a puppet by changing his feelings and now so that Pharaoh could not obey Moses?

God documents his EVIL, murderous agenda, "I will make Pharaoh refuse to release MY people; then, I will murder, torture, inflict plaques and diseases on all the Egyptian people, which include the "innocent", their children and their animals.

STOP! PLEASE! Think about THIS for as long as it takes.

What? The Biblical God would do all of this murderous, heinous cruelty - just to let them (or us-thousands of years later) know who is God?

What kind of "good, "loving and just" people could or worship, support, promote and finance such a God fictional or not?

How can Christians say that this is a loving God?

Do Christians truly know what EVIL is?

[golddigger]

166. Let's us add a Parable on this.

Imagine you have no house of your own. A "STRANGER" authoritatively tells you that he has chosen you and that he will give you a home of your own. You want to believe him. He takes you to a distant land and points out a house to you. He now says, "There is the home I give to you." You look and you see people in the house. He says, "Now, you go into that house and kill every man, women and child in that house or I will do to you what I thought to do to them!

Exodus story. How do you like the Biblical God now?

[laconicsax]

167. +1

[hartandsoul]

185. God ways are higher than ours

"What? The Biblical God would do all of this murderous, heinous cruelty - just to let them (or us-thousands of years later) know who is God?"




Well, yes. Just read the Old Testament. God's wrath is a terrible thing, He destroyed many villages, towns and peoples because He was furious with their behavior and as well as wiping out the whole world with a flood for the same reason. What people don't understand is, He created the world and he can destroy it whenever he wants.

[Mariana]

187. It is the ultimate "Might Makes Right" scenario.

People understand that just fine. He can do whatever he wants. What some people don't understand, is why some other people perform all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to pretend that obviously evil acts aren't evil when God does them.

[hartandsoul]

192. God has no one to answer to.....we do

God destroyed cities and people because of what the Bible called "unspeakable acts." Maybe he got sick of watching, just saying.

[MikeH]

196. Perhaps

God has no one to answer to.....we do

That is presumably true.

However if God is really real (note to atheists: IF), then our reason, our common sense, and our critical facilities (which include awareness of our feelings, emotions, desires, and needs, as well as our ability to think logically and rationally), are gifts given to us by God. In which case using these gifts is much more honoring of God than cringing and unquestioning servile fear of God as of a cosmic tyrant.

And my reasoning and my critical facilities have led me to conclude that the Bible, which was written by fallible human beings, at the very best exhibits human fallibility and human prejudice just like anything else that has ever been written, and that the Bible is no more infallible or inerrant than any other book on the planet.

Personal disclosure: I consider myself to be closer to being a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">Deist than anything else, and just on the believing side of agnostic. Deists believe in God as a supreme being who created the universe, but among other things do not accept any alleged revelation from God, such as the Bible or the Koran, as actually being such. And I am with them about that.

[Mariana]

200. And sometimes did it just to show off.

That's what he did in the Moses story, to a bunch of people who had zero control over what Pharoah did (not that Pharoah had control either, since God made him into a puppet). He didn't spare the children, he tortured and killed them along with the rest.

The fact that God doesn't have anyone to answer to doesn't turn his evil acts into good acts. Torturing children is an evil act, always.

[MikeH]

188. So you believe whatever is in the Bible is absolute truth

Well, yes. Just read the Old Testament. God's wrath is a terrible thing, He destroyed many villages, towns and peoples because He was furious with their behavior and as well as wiping out the whole world with a flood for the same reason. What people don't understand is, He created the world and he can destroy it whenever he wants.

So you believe God did all these things because this one particular book, the Bible, says so, and the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God", and not to be questioned.

I don't see your believing this, and regarding the Bible as being absolute truth not to be questioned, as being any different from a "good German" in the 1930's accepting and going along with whatever Hitler said as being absolute truth, not to be questioned. The God you depict is an arbitrary tyrant with a character not any different from that of Adolf Hitler.

[hartandsoul]

191. Yes

I do believe it is absolute truth because the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith. And my faith is very strong.

[MikeH]

195. How nice for you

:shrug:

[golddigger]

203. That's sweet. I, myself, have stayed clear of the

Bible god. He was an incredible sadist.

[MikeH]

218. That your faith is very strong does not necessarily mean what you believe is right or true

I do believe it is absolute truth because the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith. And my faith is very strong.

I am sure that many a devout Muslim also has a very strong faith, and believes that the Koran is absolute truth because it is the direct revelation from Allah and the foundation for the faith of Islam.

And I am pretty certain that you and the devout Muslim cannot both be right. And I would say that God is an absolute and arbitrary tyrant if He/She specifically rewards those who have made the correct guess as to which is the correct revelation from God (and punishes those who have made a wrong guess). And this guess as to which is the correct revelation from God (i.e. the Bible, or the Koran, or something else, or nothing) seems to be very heavily influenced by where a person is born and how a person is raised and brought up.

And a person living in Germany in the 1930's might have a very strong faith that Hitler is doing great things for Germany, for instance in putting people back to work, and in making Germany a militarily strong nation again, and might come to regard Hitler as being the absolute Führer for Germany, and believe that whatever he says should be taken as absolute truth.

And a loyal Communist living in the old Soviet bloc might have a very strong faith in the promises of Communism and in the principles of Marx and Lenin as being the solution to the injustice and misery in the world, and might believe that whatever is said by the Communist Party elite in Moscow is absolute truth, and that any kind of present injustice or misery is right and necessary if it advances the cause of spreading Communism.

[edhopper]

221. As Richard Dawkins says

Everyone is an atheist about every God but theirs.

[golddigger]

202. Belief in a cruel god, makes a cruel man.

[Warpy]

205. Mrs. Brown says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Kxba4xkL8

NSFW, it's Irish.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

215. Here's an article with some pretty strong evidence against the Egyptian captivity and the Exodus.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

Besides discussing logical absurdities and impossibilities, the fairy tale narrative style of Exodus, and the bizarre fact that none of the Pharaohs in the Bible are given a name (not even the one in whose house Moses was raised,) it notes the troublesome fact that both sides of the Red Sea were controlled by Egypt at the time the events supposedly occurred, leaving Moses and his merry band with no where to run to. You can't wander in the desert for forty years if it's patrolled by Egyptian chariots. Further, the Egyptians have an extensive extant written record. Any time anyone scratched his ass, they wrote it down. Yet there is no record of any plaques, any slave uprising, any mention of the Hebrews in Egyptian writing whatsoever. And let's not forget the fact that the Bible would have us believe that Egypt lost its entire military and its entire labor force in a single day, and continued to be a mighty empire for a thousand years afterward. That is perhaps the most astonishing miracle in all of the bible.

[laconicsax]

220. There's also Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed"

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303787767&sr=8-1

"not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has even been identified in Sinai."

Hmm.

"The conclusion--that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible--seems irrefutable."

Double hmm!

Even William Dever, who holds the position that archaeology generally supports the Bible, wrote in http://www.amazon.com/Archaeological-Discoveries-Biblical-Research-Lectures/dp/0295972610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303788146&sr=8-1">Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research that

"Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of any Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness--events so crucial in the Biblical recitation of the 'mighty acts of God'--we have no evidence whatsoever"