Facts vs evidence

[Brian2]

So it killed a few people, not anywhere near all of the people in the world. In fact most of the people in the world would never have seen it or heard about it until after Christian missionaries explained their beliefs to the rest of the world. How did that work?

I don't know how many people it killed.
And people did not hear about Noah till missionaries came along, but people heard about their own flood stories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how many people it killed.
And people did not hear about Noah till missionaries came along, but people heard about their own flood stories.

Yes, because floods happen almost everywhere that people are and they occur naturally. No need for an evil God. No need for magic. You have to get rid of the year long flood, you have to get rid of Mt. Ararat. You have to get rid of only eight people left on the Earth. The story is basically, man builds boat. Survives flood. Gets drunk and while still in a stupor curses some of his grandchildren. Not too impressive.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, because floods happen almost everywhere that people are and they occur naturally. No need for an evil God. No need for magic. You have to get rid of the year long flood, you have to get rid of Mt. Ararat. You have to get rid of only eight people left on the Earth. The story is basically, man builds boat. Survives flood. Gets drunk and while still in a stupor curses some of his grandchildren. Not too impressive.

I don't get rid of the year long flood.
The Mountains of Ararat does not mean Mt Ararat.
There were 8 people left in the land.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't get rid of the year long flood.
The Mountains of Ararat does not mean Mt Ararat.
There were 8 people left in the land.

But you did. You just did not realize it. And you are misinterpreting the Bible again. You have to because an accurate translation is far too easy to refute.

 

[Brian2]

I disagree unless you mean only parts of the biblical account. Some parts are sufficiently supported by the archeology, but most isn't, and we should expect to find evidence supporting a Jewish captivity in Egypt and of Hebrews wandering the Sinai for decades. You dismiss the opinions of the "many archeologists" to whom you refer as dissenting. Do you think that they are all unaware of the archeology you say support the biblical narrative? If not, what's your explanation for their dissent?

I hear mention of scholarly bias against the Bible, as in this link.

The Exodus Controversy

Jesus staked His authority, and credibility on the Exodus account’s reliability. The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event in the OT.

biblearchaeology.org

I don't look at orphan links, meaning when you offer a link in place of an argument. You can summarize its findings in 1-3 sentences if you understand the argument. If not, then there isn't a sound argument there. I have good reason for this. The people posting such links typically don't understand what they say and can't answer any criticism or support the source. If you think you're correct, make your case. If you can't, you shouldn't be asserting your beliefs as supported.

Same answer. You made your case for the Hebrews being at Mt. Ebal in a few sentences, supported it with links, and it was accepted. Now make the analogous case for an Egyptian captivity and exodus. Give me just one strong piece of archeological evidence in support of either.

There is some evidence in the link above and evidence against the case of a 1250 BC Exodus and for a 1450 BC exodus and conquest.
Here is a site that speaks about the Ipuwer Papyrus from Egypt and about things in it which are similar to the plagues of Egypt.
These 2 videos contain evidence for Joseph and Israel being in Egypt in the area the Bible tells us about (Goshen)
I'm too lazy to try to summarise it all for you. I have done that sort of thing before and wasted hours for people who really aren't interested.
If you are interested in evidence, here is some, and in the site I posted above. But of course this is just part of the evidence.
David Rohl lectures. - Google Search

David Rohl on Israel and Joseph in Egypt - Google Search

 

[Brian2]

But you did. You just did not realize it. And you are misinterpreting the Bible again. You have to because an accurate translation is far too easy to refute.

Science informs us about the meaning of the Bible and in this case the correct and accurate translation and understanding.
Let me guess, you're a Biblical minimalist right?

 

[Audie]

I hear mention of scholarly bias against the Bible, as in this link.

The Exodus Controversy

Jesus staked His authority, and credibility on the Exodus account’s reliability. The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event in the OT.

biblearchaeology.org

There is some evidence in the link above and evidence against the case of a 1250 BC Exodus and for a 1450 BC exodus and conquest.
Here is a site that speaks about the Ipuwer Papyrus from Egypt and about things in it which are similar to the plagues of Egypt.
These 2 videos contain evidence for Joseph and Israel being in Egypt in the area the Bible tells us about (Goshen)
I'm too lazy to try to summarise it all for you. I have done that sort of thing before and wasted hours for people who really aren't interested.
If you are interested in evidence, here is some, and in the site I posted above. But of course this is just part of the evidence.
David Rohl lectures. - Google Search

David Rohl on Israel and Joseph in Egypt - Google Search

Maybe if you'd say what you think really happened
re flood and exodus, if you don't believe the accounts as written?

 

[Audie]

Science informs us about the meaning of the Bible and in this case the correct and accurate translation and understanding.
Let me guess, you're a Biblical minimalist right?

Let's us guess, you are a flood minimalist?

So far the area, depth and duration has shrunk
to a tiny fraction of what the Bible says.

And "all life" seems to only involve local population
that didn't really need a 100 yr boat project to save
them. No need for any boat at all, "noah" could just walk out of the flood area.

What is it you actually think ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It can be translated as the whole "land" and as the high "hills"

The myth is about a sinful species the creation and sinful behavior of which it regretted and aimed to remedy, which involved sterilizing the earth of all terrestrial life except for a tiny remnant to repopulate the earth. That's how it has always been understood and taught. But that belief is untenable now, and so we see the revisionism (motivated thinking). You're using a chief tool from the apologist's toolbox - redefining what words meant. When you say, "it can be translated as ...," that is understood to mean that you say that it should be translated that way. It obviously can be understood another way, the way it always had been understood.

"all" does not always mean literally "all" in the Bible

You're making an argument for not even looking at scripture. If words might mean what they say or not, unless one is seeking art or poetry, why read them? They have no definitive meaning.

I hear mention of scholarly bias against the Bible, as in this link.

I'm waiting for your evidenced argument supporting the historicity of the Egyptian captivity and Exodus which you claim to have. You give me links instead. I've already explained why I don't pursue those, especially videos, which unlike documents, can't be skimmed over. Here's what I told you yesterday:

"I don't look at orphan links, meaning when you offer a link in place of an argument. You can summarize its findings in 1-3 sentences if you understand the argument. If not, then there isn't a sound argument there. I have good reason for this. The people posting such links typically don't understand what they say and can't answer any criticism or support the source. If you think you're correct, make your case. If you can't, you shouldn't be asserting your beliefs as supported."

Here's essentially the same message to another poster a few months ago:

"Sorry, but I didn't see an argument there or support for your claim. Do you have an argument? Do you know and understand it? If so, you should be able to state it clearly in your own words in a sentence or two. Leaving links that you claim make your argument for you doesn't make your argument for you. Besides, even if it does, I would have no way of knowing whether you understood it and could defend a rebuttal. I call these orphan links - links offered in place of an explanation. It's has always been a dead end to rebut the author of the link to the one posting it."

And another:

"I skimmed it, but why should I have to read your source? As I suggested, make your own argument, which can come from your source and be supported with a link to it. As it is, I don't know if I addressed what was of interest to YOU in it. My experience in the past with orphan links is that after I give an answer like the one I gave you based in an excerpt that I guessed was your argument and that you understood the way I did, I hear, "That's not the part I meant," or I discover that the poster didn't understand the article or its argument himself. All of that goes away when you summarize your argument yourself."

I'm too lazy to try to summarise it all for you.

No problem, but that means we've reached the end of this discussion. It's my opinion based in my understanding of the available evidence that neither he nor you has good evidence for your claims academia disputes. The burden of "proof" is on you if you wish to be believed and think you have a convincing argument, but you've declined to make any of it. I am willing to look at your evidence and argument, but not to go ferret it out of a biblical apologetics source, which exists not to educate but to persuade.

 

[Audie]

I don't get rid of the year long flood.
The Mountains of Ararat does not mean Mt Ararat.
There were 8 people left in the land.

Oh? So how long do you choose to
interpret?
Your version doesn't match the book you
base your beliefs on, so how do we know
your version?

 

[Brian2]

The myth is about a sinful species the creation and sinful behavior of which it regretted and aimed to remedy, which involved sterilizing the earth of all terrestrial life except for a tiny remnant to repopulate the earth. That's how it has always been understood and taught.

Not where I came from.

But that belief is untenable now, and so we see the revisionism (motivated thinking). You're using a chief tool from the apologist's toolbox - redefining what words meant. When you say, "it can be translated as ...," that is understood to mean that you say that it should be translated that way. It obviously can be understood another way, the way it always had been understood.

Interpretation can be informed by science and skeptics can dismiss it as motivated thinking.

You're making an argument for not even looking at scripture. If words might mean what they say or not, unless one is seeking art or poetry, why read them? They have no definitive meaning.

There are plenty of examples where "all" does not have a literal meaning. The thing is to think about it to come to a sensible conclusion on how to understand it. In light of the evidence of science that is what I do and you use it to say the Bible is wrong.

“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Mat 2:3)​

I'm waiting for your evidenced argument supporting the historicity of the Egyptian captivity and Exodus which you claim to have. You give me links instead. I've already explained why I don't pursue those, especially videos, which unlike documents, can't be skimmed over. Here's what I told you yesterday:

The University of Tel Aviv and the University of Jerusalem are on opposite sides of the Biblical minimalist, maximalist debate. Tel Aviv is the minimalist side.
All you need do is look at the available evidence and the claims of the Biblical minimalists to show that their work is biased. An example of this is the claim by the Minimalists that camels were not domesticated in the Ancient Near East till about the 10th cent BC.
This is a minimalist claim because domesticated camels are mentioned in Genesis in the 3rd Millenium BC.
Here is a site about this and some evidence for the early domestication of camels.
But as they say, you can lead a camel to water but cannot make it drink. If you don't want to look at evidence then so be it.

The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org