God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure it does.

No exodus, no Moses. No Egyptian origin, no Moses.

Writing from the exile that only reflects theology of that time period, means no Moses.

Monotheism did not start until King Josiah's reforms after 622BC, which took hundreds of years for all the people to accept, means no Moses.

The Israelite cultures were polytheistic until roughly 200-400 BC before monotheism was fully seated. They were wiped out so many times and many different Semitic cultures made up these groups, when they wrote their history, they had no idea of their real origins.

They only knew what happened since the last time they were oppressed, which was the story of their existence.

So...none of this proves Moses did not exist.....just opinions...

 

[outhouse]

So...none of this proves Moses did not exist.....just opinions...

History does not prove anything

Opinions? Only if you ignore all the credible things I have posted and just flat out refuse credible knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

but there is always room for doubt

Yes

Plenty of apologist refuse facts and knowledge

 

[Ben Dhyan]

History does not prove anything

Opinions? Only if you ignore all the credible things I have posted and just flat out refuse credible knowledge.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes

Plenty of apologist refuse facts and knowledge

Yes, especially atheistic apologists...

 

[Thief]

No, I said that you are applying "circular reasoning".

Do you know what "circular reasoning" or "circular thinking" mean?

If you don't know, then look it up. It has nothing to with you being "rational", thief. It's quite the opposite.

there is nothing wrong with finding yourself at the beginning.
our lives might well be linear.....but
in the beginning (see Genesis)

 

[outhouse]

I have already substantiated my position with credible sources.

You never provide anything

 

[outhouse]

Substantiated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

The exodus is a myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel

 

[outhouse]

Can we now move past the intellect of "I know you are but what Am I" ??????

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago. --History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism - Prof. W F. Albright

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1973/02/quotations-from-prof.-w-f.-albrights-writings

 

[BilliardsBall]

The numbers of believers don't make the flood - "true" or "scientifically true" - BilliardsBall.

Haven't you learn anything yet about science, since you have started posting in the science and religion topics or the creation vs evolution forums. Science REQUIRES EVIDENCES for any events to be true.

You have been claiming that the Flood have wiped out all evidences...which is bloody convenient for creationists, but then you went on to claim that there were global earthquakes and volcanic activities, but still think the global flood wash away the evidences.

If it was all "globally", then evidences would be there, and everywhere in the world, that the flood, quakes and volcanoes would have occurred at a very specific in date and time. Scientists should be able to pinpoint at the exact date.

But you are saying that there are no evidences, which mean science cannot verify that global flood had occurred.

If scientists, whom you call the "true believers" of the bible, then how can any of them claim the Noah's Flood without a single physical evidence.

Any scientist who would try to say the Genesis flood did occur globally, without any physical evidence for other scientists, would be basing their claims on their personal beliefs and faiths, and not on science.

Belief is not what make anything true. So any number of believers that you have claimed to be scientists, doesn't make what they believe to be "science".

What you are claiming is actually PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science, because you cannot provide evidences for what you believe in.

How can scientists pinpoint exact dates of volcanism when they overlay dates based on uniformitarian assumptions? I'm saying that geological dates are inaccurate so you have a circular argument IMHO.

 

[metis]

I'm saying that geological dates are inaccurate so you have a circular argument IMHO.

How could you possibly know that? Are you a research scientist that specializes in nuclear physics?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have you done the calculation on the numbers of years in the OT?

If Moses left Egypt in 2000 BCE, then that mean the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of Solomon's temple would have occurred in about 1110 BCE, not in 586 BCE.

It would also mean that Jesus would have been born in 530 BCE, not in 6 BCE, well before the time of Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, or that of Tiberius and Pontius Pilate during his ministry in Galilee and Judaea.

Much of the bible is terribly inaccurate, but we do know archaeologically and historically when the destruction of Jerusalem had fallen to Nebuchadnezzar II during 6th century BCE.

And your date between the flood and Moses' exodus is far wider than the calculated numbers of years between Genesis and Exodus.

You really should do the maths, before bring up any date, BilliardsBall. Do you care to revise your date to Moses' exodus? Or that of flood?

The OT does not provide a date for the Exodus, but remember to include in your assumptions the 490 years the Temple stood before it was destroyed. But thank you for raising another vital issue although it is off topic, how the verifiable dates for the diaspora underscore the truths of Bible prophecies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Uranium-lead dating puts the Earth's age at 4.54 billion years old and it does not require any measurements of isotopes in the atmosphere: uranium-lead dating depends on measuring isotopic abundances of uranium and lead.

Which further requires that assumptions be made regarding contributing factors.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How could you possibly know that? Are you a research scientist that specializes in nuclear physics?

How could I possibly know that mass spectrometry takes six years to learn because you have to make countless tweaks so that your dates align with other peer-reviewed dating schema? It's readily available to do so online and does not require specialized learning.

 

[metis]

Which further requires that assumptions be made regarding contributing factors.

Illogical conclusion, plus it is virtually impossible for you to verify your position in any way.

 

[metis]

How could I possibly know that mass spectrometry takes six years to learn because you have to make countless tweaks so that your dates align with other peer-reviewed dating schema? It's readily available to do so online and does not require specialized learning.

You didn't answer my question, and all you are doing is projecting that nuclear physicists that actually study these things for a living are really very ignorant people.

 

[outhouse]

Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago. --History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism - Prof. W F. Albright

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1973/02/quotations-from-prof.-w-f.-albrights-writings

EPIC FAIL on your part. He rode a wagon to school



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever claims that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'"[15]

Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson contends that the methods of "biblical archaeology" have also become outmoded: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[16]

 

[Parsimony]

Which further requires that assumptions be made regarding contributing factors.

Assumptions which are well-supported by existing evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

EPIC FAIL on your part. He rode a wagon to school



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever claims that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'"[15]

Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson contends that the methods of "biblical archaeology" have also become outmoded: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[16]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric....

Denver wrote...."A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region".... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....

http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever.html