Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Brian2]

It didn't happen.
Sources and parallels of the Exodus - Wikipedia

Even your link says that some scholars continue to discuss the historicity and plausibility of the Exodus story. Saying "it did not happen" is a statement of faith. The truth is not found in a vote by scholars, the most votes deciding what happened and what did not happen.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Is there proof of the Egyptian Exodus the story of Moses, the desert, and the red sea, is there any chariots found in the red sea? What's the Red sea deal anyways, I always heard that Moses' group got through the Red Sea, and the Egyptians got stuck, but some say the Red Sea was so shallow anyways that it didn't make sense.

What about the Pharoah, the leader of Egypt, what has been written by Egyptians about him?

I hope you find this article informative and very well researched.

https://wilmetteinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BorovickaJan2018WebTalk.pdf

 

[Audie]

Even your link says that some scholars continue to discuss the historicity and plausibility of the Exodus story. Saying "it did not happen" is a statement of faith. The truth is not found in a vote by scholars, the most votes deciding what happened and what did not happen.

So you believe that there are serious minded
truth seeking scholars who think that the
exodus story is historic and plausible?

Stick turns to snake. Nile turns to blood.
Red Sea parts. Pharoahs army drowned.

Slaves with gold make gold calf. Ten
commandments. Manna and 40 years'
wandering is plausible?

Scholars study historicity when there's no
more data than for Supermans Fortress of
Solitude?

Saying neither story is true is to you a faith statement?

This is really how you think?

 

[Brian2]

So you believe that there are serious minded
truth seeking scholars who think that the
exodus story is historic and plausible?

Stick turns to snake. Nile turns to blood.
Red Sea parts. Pharoahs army drowned.

Slaves with gold make gold calf. Ten
commandments. Manna and 40 years'
wandering is plausible?

Scholars study historicity when there's no
more data than for Supermans Fortress of
Solitude?

Saying neither story is true is to you a faith statement?

This is really how you think?

Scholars are meant to treat the supernatural with neutrality in their work no matter what they believe in their private beliefs.
Neutrality imo is to say that the supernatural may or may no have happened.
Modern scholarship however seems to think that "neutrality" means saying that the supernatural is not true, thus putting their personal bias into their work.
Believers spend their whole lives studying the history of the Bible and are dismissed as scholars because of their beliefs.
Critical scholars however, who also bring in their beliefs are praised for being unbiased and seeking the truth.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Is there proof of the Egyptian Exodus the story of Moses, the desert, and the red sea, is there any chariots found in the red sea? What's the Red sea deal anyways, I always heard that Moses' group got through the Red Sea, and the Egyptians got stuck, but some say the Red Sea was so shallow anyways that it didn't make sense.

What about the Pharoah, the leader of Egypt, what has been written by Egyptians about him?

@Brian2
The opening post talks about proof of Exodus. The fact that scholars continue to discuss does not mean that it is happened or did not happen. It is good that we are discussing these things because that that will hopefully lead us to the truth. I can only say that the Exodus story finds a grand parallel in the Hindu story of Krishna leading the Yadav's to an unknown country from India.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Scholars are meant to treat the supernatural with neutrality in their work no matter what they believe in their private beliefs.
Neutrality imo is to say that the supernatural may or may no have happened.
Modern scholarship however seems to think that "neutrality" means saying that the supernatural is not true, thus putting their personal bias into their work.
Believers spend their whole lives studying the history of the Bible and are dismissed as scholars because of their beliefs.
Critical scholars however, who also bring in their beliefs are praised for being unbiased and seeking the truth.

What modern scholarship actually says is that the simpler explanation is preferred (occam's razor). A natural explanation is much, much simpler than a supernatural one, including the natural explanation for why a miraculous story might be in a religious text.

 

[oldbadger]

So you believe that there are serious minded
truth seeking scholars who think that the
exodus story is historic and plausible?

You must think that scholars are the new mystics.

Yes, I think that the Exodus happened.

Stick turns to snake. Nile turns to blood.
Red Sea parts. Pharoahs army drowned.

Reed Sea (A vast marshy area to the north of the red sea) floods on a very high spring tide and maybe driven by a great storm? Yeah.

Slaves with gold make gold calf. Ten
commandments. Manna and 40 years'
wandering is plausible?

Can we just stick to the crossing?

Scholars study historicity when there's no
more data than for Supermans Fortress of
Solitude?

They haven't all thought about all the data.

 

[Audie]

You must think that scholars are the new mystics.

Yes, I think that the Exodus happened.

Reed Sea (A vast marshy area to the north of the red sea) floods on a very high spring tide and maybe driven by a great storm? Yeah.

Can we just stick to the crossing?

They haven't all thought about all the data.

You must think.its gotta be true no matter what

Change every detail and any story is true

 

[Brian2]

What modern scholarship actually says is that the simpler explanation is preferred (occam's razor). A natural explanation is much, much simpler than a supernatural one, including the natural explanation for why a miraculous story might be in a religious text.

Scholarship is however meant to be neutral to the supernatural. What you describe is not neutrality. So modern scholarship is biased and yet seen by many as the only scholarship which seeks the truth. IOW, the naturalistic methodology of science is assumed to be the truth in modern scholarship and of course any scriptures with supernatural elements are judges and interpreted accordingly and atheists use this against more conservative scholars, mocking them and implying or even declaring that they are not true scholars and that they are the biased ones.
The non atheist also looks at this modern scholarship, this so called consensus and can easily mistake it for the truth of history.

 

[Muffled]

What modern scholarship actually says is that the simpler explanation is preferred (occam's razor). A natural explanation is much, much simpler than a supernatural one, including the natural explanation for why a miraculous story might be in a religious text.

I believe occams razor might be in play if there were a competing story but the truth is that life is stranger than fiction.

 

[oldbadger]

You must think.its gotta be true no matter what

Change every detail and any story is true

Not so.......it makes no difference to me either way.

Research in to sea tsunamis, seismic activity, spring tidal ranges, storm surges, rainfall flooding and more are most interesting in the marshes to the North of the Suez gulf (upper red sea). So far not all the results are positive for any exodus, but I'm researching.

And I guess that you did all this before making up your mind? Yes? No?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Scholarship is however meant to be neutral to the supernatural.

It is not that modern scholarship is anti-supernatural. It is simply, as I have repeatedly stated, that there is no reason to ascribe a supernatural explanation for something when a perfectly natural explanation is right there.

Fact: I awoke this morning to find a few sprinkles of cat litter next to the litter box.
Explanation 1: The cat used the litter box overnight, and tracked out a bit of litter.
Explanation 2. Angels visited my home and levitated the litter out of the box and onto the floor.

Technically, both explanations are possible, but they are not equally plausible.

 

[Brian2]

It is not that modern scholarship is anti-supernatural. It is simply, as I have repeatedly stated, that there is no reason to ascribe a supernatural explanation for something when a perfectly natural explanation is right there.

Fact: I awoke this morning to find a few sprinkles of cat litter next to the litter box.
Explanation 1: The cat used the litter box overnight, and tracked out a bit of litter.
Explanation 2. Angels visited my home and levitated the litter out of the box and onto the floor.

Technically, both explanations are possible, but they are not equally plausible.

We aren't in a "who dun it" mystery, we are given the story of what happened but don't like it because it talks about the supernatural and what God did.
It is as @Audie said in post

• #428

You must think.its gotta be true no matter what

Change every detail and any story is true

But it's the reverse with modern scholarship, they say that the original has to not be true no matter what, so they change every detail to make the story more acceptable.
Basically "possible" is in the eye of the beholder and the supernatural is just not "possible" in modern scholarship and is eliminated.
It is just lip service to being neutral when it is said that: Technically, both explanations are possible, but they are not equally plausible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We aren't in a "who dun it" mystery, we are given the story of what happened but don't like it because it talks about the supernatural and what God did.

It is not clear, but it sounds like you may be referring to what some religious text says. Let me remind you that while I'm fine if you have any particular religious text, such texts are not proof of anything, including what "God did."

 

[Brian2]

It is not clear, but it sounds like you may be referring to what some religious text says. Let me remind you that while I'm fine if you have any particular religious text, such texts are not proof of anything, including what "God did."

True, the texts are not proof of anything, including what God did.
Does that mean that modern historians and Bible analysts and Archaeologists etc should analyse the text with assumption that the God parts just did not happen? Of course not.
So what we have is critical Biblical scholars and conservative Biblical scholars, but the conservative scholars are seen as biased and unscholarly by academia.

 

[oldbadger]

I keep reading about all these scholars, with a variety of ideas, and what I'm interested in is whether any scholars have reviewed the wide range of factors that might have impact upon this story.

How many Israelites does scholarship think were in Egypt at that time?
Has consideration being given to the fairly common instances of seismic/volcanic activity at that time?
There have been hundreds of tsunami incidents in the red sea and although the 'drawback before waves' condition is very brief, does this need more close research. ??
How much research has been carried out in to the name 'Red' and it's possible 'Reed' alternative,?
How much tidal marshland lies between the great bitter lake and the Suez Gulf?
Would the Egyptians stoop to entering swampy areas where the Israelite slaves worked?
Does the fact that the moon was full just before this incident mean that highest tides ,(with lowest low waters) were involved?
Could this have been a mass escape which got hyped up in to the supernatural 'whole nation' claims?
Although the prevailing wind is mostly North to South, violent storms do happen from the South blowing North....could a storm surge have added to all to increase any great water surge?
Would slaves who worked the area have had such intimate knowledge as to being able to plan a mass escape and bring it off?

None of this would or could produce a supernatural event imo, but could some incident have been 'exploded' in to the miracle?

If it is impossible then it is but to wave it all off in a knee jerk reaction wouldn't be very scholarly, would it?

 

[Audie]

Not so.......it makes no difference to me either way.

Research in to sea tsunamis, seismic activity, spring tidal ranges, storm surges, rainfall flooding and more are most interesting in the marshes to the North of the Suez gulf (upper red sea). So far not all the results are positive for any exodus, but I'm researching.

And I guess that you did all this before making up your mind? Yes? No?

You still trying to find Noah's ark too?

 

[oldbadger]

You still trying to find Noah's ark too?

Casting fun at folks isn't clever, Audie.

 

[Audie]

Casting fun at folks isn't clever, Audie.

It's a lot smarter than your contrived yes -no.

Or trying to find a few flecks of reality in o.t. tall tales

 

[oldbadger]

It's a lot smarter than your contrived yes -no.

Or trying to find a few flecks of reality in o.t. tall tales

Bye bye Audie.