Santorini eruption and Exodus

[Rolf]

Suggested reading for Ray Martinez:

https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Not-What-Seems-Journey/dp/0735213925/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0735213925&pd_rd_r=5Q1W43SGKT0SB1NT9F7Z&pd_rd_w=YdPX3&pd_rd_wg=S1Fp6&psc=1&refRID=5Q1W43SGKT0SB1NT9F7Z
or
http://tinyurl.com/y8dc2xm6


Too difficult?

Instead, try The Parting of the Sea, by Barbara J. Sivertsen. "How
volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus". (1949,
2009)

Ray already scoffed at it the first time I suggested it to him.
He doesn't read books, he is afraid of education, it might throw some tough
arrows in between the spokes of his intellectual bicycle.

But by now, the eruption of the island now known as Santorini in the Aegean
sea can no longer be denied, the facts are there for all except denialists
to see.

http://www.decadevolcano.net/santorini/atlantis.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/y723gapx

[Cloud Hobbit]

There are no facts about the Exodus.
The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
Nor did Moses exist.

It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40 years and leave No Evidence.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
<youngbl...@gmail.com>:

>There are no facts about the Exodus.
>The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
>Nor did Moses exist.

Maybe not. Cite?

>It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40 years and leave No Evidence.

Just curious... Where did that number come from?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 21:25:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
> <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
>
> >There are no facts about the Exodus.
> >The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
> >Nor did Moses exist.
>
> Maybe not. Cite?

Moses' name wasn't actually "Moses". Therefore
"Moses" did not exist. There was no one of that
name - well, not until "Grandma Moses".

> >It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40 years and leave No Evidence.
>
> Just curious... Where did that number come from?

<http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-population-of-jews-hebrews.htm>
says 2.5-3.5 million people.

Adult males: 600,000.

Adult males who died en route, from plague, lightning
bolt, the earth opening up and swallowing them,
doubting that God would in fact bring them to the
Promised Land, and in very rare cases natural
causes: 600,000.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:13:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 21:25:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
>> <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >There are no facts about the Exodus.
>> >The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
>> >Nor did Moses exist.
>>
>> Maybe not. Cite?
>
>Moses' name wasn't actually "Moses". Therefore
>"Moses" did not exist. There was no one of that
>name - well, not until "Grandma Moses".

So, the inverse of the claim that the Iliad wasn't composed
by Homer, but by a different Greek of the same name? OK.

>> >It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40 years and leave No Evidence.
>>
>> Just curious... Where did that number come from?
>
><http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-population-of-jews-hebrews.htm>
>says 2.5-3.5 million people.
>
>Adult males: 600,000.
>
>Adult males who died en route, from plague, lightning
>bolt, the earth opening up and swallowing them,
>doubting that God would in fact bring them to the
>Promised Land, and in very rare cases natural
>causes: 600,000.

OK, thanks.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 21:25:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
> > <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >There are no facts about the Exodus.
> > >The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
> > >Nor did Moses exist.
> >
> > Maybe not. Cite?
>
> Moses' name wasn't actually "Moses". Therefore
> "Moses" did not exist. There was no one of that
> name - well, not until "Grandma Moses".
>

Nonsense.

The Bible says the daughter of Pharaoh saved the baby from the Nile and named him Moses----which is what his name means, pulled him from the water.

Is the name "Moses" truly Egyptian in nature? Yes, of course. Pharaoh ThutMOSE lived around the time the Exodus occurred, circa 1490 BC. In Biblical chronology the Exodus occurred circa 1450 BC.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

May I remind the Hobbit that even minimalists accept existence of Moses and the Exodus.

Ray

[Robert Carnegie]

<http://www.overheardatthebeach.com/archives/000435.html>
"Jewish people are from the desert, right?"

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 21:25:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
> > > <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > >There are no facts about the Exodus.
> > > >The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
> > > >Nor did Moses exist.
> > >
> > > Maybe not. Cite?
> >
> > Moses' name wasn't actually "Moses". Therefore
> > "Moses" did not exist. There was no one of that
> > name - well, not until "Grandma Moses".
> >
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The Bible says the daughter of Pharaoh saved the baby from the Nile and named him Moses----which is what his name means, pulled him from the water.
>
> Is the name "Moses" truly Egyptian in nature? Yes, of course. Pharaoh ThutMOSE lived around the time the Exodus occurred, circa 1490 BC. In Biblical chronology the Exodus occurred circa 1450 BC.
>
> Ray
>

Of course Thutmose is also known as "Thutmosis"----mosis/Moses. So the name of Moses is indigenous.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

All Jews are Hebrews but not all Hebrews are Jews, Robert.

The word "Jew" or "Jews" appears first in Scripture well after the death of Solomon. It refers to the peoples of the Southern kingdom of Judah hence Judah, Jews. The name "Jews" did not exist when the Hebrew nation traversed the deserts and wilderness of Sinai.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

I don't know what a minimalist is in this context, but a Harvard
educated archaeologist is reported to have written in the journal The
Biblical Archaelogist (56(1): 25-35 (Mar 1993) - see page 33)) that "the
overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure".

From examination of the text of the Bible I had drawn the conclusion
that everything prior to the times of David and Solomon was myth rather
than history. I was subsequently to discover that David and Solomon are
also considered mythical by the generality of the archaeological community.

--
alias Ernest Major

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
> <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
>

>> There are no facts about the Exodus.
>> The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
>> Nor did Moses exist.
>

> Maybe not. Cite?

>
>> It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40
>> years and leave No Evidence.
>

> Just curious... Where did that number come from?

Is there any evidence to warrant belief the exodus from Egypt happened?

[Ray Martinez]

Show me any ANE nation other than Israel that records defeats in text, inscriptions, bas-reliefs, etc.

Waiting....

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

A minimalist is an archaeologist who accepts major biblical claims to have at best minimal support from archaeology. For example: The Exodus is accepted to have occurred, but the evidence says the biblical account is way overblown. A maximalist is an archaeologist who accepts major biblical claims to enjoy maximum support from archaeology. For example: The Exodus is accepted to have occurred exactly as the Bible says it occurred because the evidence uncovered by archaeology supports the biblical record.

Christians and certain Jews comprise maximalists; Atheists comprise minimalists.

Ray

[Robert Carnegie]

In Latin script?

According to Wikipedia his Hebrew name - in
Latin script - is Moshe, and he was given it by
the Egyptian princess in honour of how they met.
Or so the bible says.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:37:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

If you're old enough to remember Oral Roberts...

"HEAL!" ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:59:28 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Damfino, but the assertions I've read in this thread say
that archeologists don't think so.

[Ernest Major]

Having subsequently done a little reading on Biblical minimalism and
Biblical maximalism in archaeology, it seems that you've got it back to
front - even maximalists don't accept the historicity of Exodus is
nearer to the truth.

You are aware that some atheists don't even accept the historicity of
Jesus, never mind Exodus?

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Stockwell]

Remember that the story in Exodus is *literature* written centuries after
the alleged event. There is nothing that says that the Exodus actually
happened the way it says in the Bible or that this is coincident with
the Santorini eruption.

The "column of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night
does sound consistent with the Santorini eruption, but it could have been conflated with the Exodus story as a literary device.

[John Stockwell]

1) there isn't a shred of corroborating evidence supporting the Exodus
story of the Bible.
2) Moses in Hebrew is Moshe, which according to the Torah comes from the Hebrew
"mashah" meaning "drawn out of"
3) in Ancient Egyptian there is a common name element represented by "MS S",
which means child of. For example Ramses isn't "Ram zeez" it is "Ray MS S"
"child of Ra (the Egyptian Sun God)"

We are talking literature here, a dramatic story of revolution and escape
that has to have a Hebrew guy as its hero, written centuries after
the fact. It is reasonable that there could be conflation with other accounts.

The "pillar of fire by night/column of smoke by day" would be consistent
with the Santorini eruption (1628 BCE), but it could be simply chosen as a literary device. There also could have been adverse weather conditions following
the eruption. So, the "years of famine" also might be consistent with
a big eruption.

There is evidence from Greenland ice cores of another
large eruption in 1642 BCE that is now thought (through chemical analysis)
to be associated with an eruption of Mount Aniakchak in Alaska. So with a one-two punch of big eruptions,
there would be significant cooling and climate disruption so a famine/eruption motif might have
become part of oral tradition, as well.

-John




>
> Ray

[Bill]

Exodus may be true, historically accurate, there is no
evidence from the time to settle the question. There are,
however, numerous conjectures of what might be true, what
could or should or ought to be true. We have an ancient book
and modern critiques and the modern speculations are
preferred because they are not ancient.

Exodus is rejected because it is both ancient and the basis
of three major religions. Evidence is really immaterial.

Bill

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <okqvt7$fnm$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Exodus may be true, historically accurate, there is no
> evidence from the time to settle the question. There are,
> however, numerous conjectures of what might be true, what
> could or should or ought to be true. We have an ancient book
> and modern critiques and the modern speculations are
> preferred because they are not ancient.
>
> Exodus is rejected because it is both ancient and the basis
> of three major religions. Evidence is really immaterial.
>
> Bill

Exodus is rejected as an historical account not because it is ancient,
nor because it is the basis of three major religions, but because it
simply isn't corroborated by any archaeological evidence.

You are the one for whom evidence appears immaterial. It's pretty easy
to say that such-and-such might be true if you don't bother to actually
look at the evidence.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[John Stockwell]

Nope. Exodus is rejected because, though there is a huge amount of
written material in ancient Egypt, there isn't anything in Egyptian
literature which mentions any event that could be construed as being
this story. You would think that if Exodus was this big deal with
plagues and all of that, there would have been something?

The closest that anyone has gotten is the invasion and later expulsion of
the Hyksos, who are thought to have been from the northern part of the
Levant (Syria/Southern Turkey). The Roman historian Flavius Josephus identifies
the Hyksos with the Hebrews.

>
> Bill

-John

[Bill]

What would count as evidence? What evidence is there that
Exodus is false? All we really have is the opinions of
experts who have no access to original sources who claim
that the absence of original sources is evidence that there
were none. On the other hand, we have what are claimed as
eyewitness accounts that are dismissed because they are
eyewitness.

Egyptian history is spotty and controversial where
significant events embarrassing to the Pharoh were ignored
or suppressed.

Bill

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:50:05 UTC+1, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <okqvt7$fnm$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Exodus may be true, historically accurate, there is no
> > evidence from the time to settle the question. There are,
> > however, numerous conjectures of what might be true, what
> > could or should or ought to be true. We have an ancient book
> > and modern critiques and the modern speculations are
> > preferred because they are not ancient.
> >
> > Exodus is rejected because it is both ancient and the basis
> > of three major religions. Evidence is really immaterial.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Exodus is rejected as an historical account not because it is ancient,
> nor because it is the basis of three major religions, but because it
> simply isn't corroborated by any archaeological evidence.

And because the story isn't naturalistically
plausible and doesn't try to be. The stick
that turns into a snake, etc. (Hmm... could
be a snake with a muscle cramp, that just
/looked/ like a stick. In the story they
are common in Egypt. In reality, no.)

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 21 July 2017 00:20:05 UTC+3, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:50:05 UTC+1, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > In article <okqvt7$fnm$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Exodus may be true, historically accurate, there is no
> > > evidence from the time to settle the question. There are,
> > > however, numerous conjectures of what might be true, what
> > > could or should or ought to be true. We have an ancient book
> > > and modern critiques and the modern speculations are
> > > preferred because they are not ancient.
> > >
> > > Exodus is rejected because it is both ancient and the basis
> > > of three major religions. Evidence is really immaterial.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> > Exodus is rejected as an historical account not because it is ancient,
> > nor because it is the basis of three major religions, but because it
> > simply isn't corroborated by any archaeological evidence.
>
> And because the story isn't naturalistically
> plausible and doesn't try to be. The stick
> that turns into a snake, etc. (Hmm... could
> be a snake with a muscle cramp, that just
> /looked/ like a stick. In the story they
> are common in Egypt. In reality, no.)

Yes but what evidence do you hope for? Bible clearly tells that
"But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs." No wonder that there
are none left for now. :P

[erik simpson]

All the real evidence was suppressed by the Egyptians because they couldn't
admit to posterity that Pharoah was afraid of frogs.

[Jonathan]

This site lists some evidence, but it's pretty thin.

The evidence does support the claim Israelites lived
in the region in the proper times period, and that
slavery was common, plus the Biblical account
cites three cities that have been confirmed.


The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?
Evidence of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/



s

[Bill]

Which evidence? Are the eyewitness accounts evidence or
should I prefer the accounts of those who analyze the
eyewitness accounts 3000 years after the fact? Why are books
written in the last 100 years considered authoritative while
those written 3000 years are not? If the current evidence
requires us to reject ancient evidence, what is this
evidence?

Show that evidence is not immaterial by citing it.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

They did dig up a house in middle of Egypt in Western Thebes and so bang,
Exodus confirmed? What it has to do with Exodus?
It is like Chewbacca Defense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE
It does not make sense, you must acquit.

Where did those 2 millions of Jews with Moses go? Canaan was also part
of New Kingdom of Egypt 15th 13th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#/media/File:Egypt_NK_edit.svg

Did Moses lead that "Exodus" from Egypt to Egypt? Or where they went?
Why they left no trace anywhere?

[Vincent Maycock]

Not necessarily.

Plus archeology would have caught the collapse of the Egyptian economy
if millions of slaves had decided to leave Egypt at once.

Also, since the land of Canaan "conquered by" the Israelites (rather
than being simply the home of the Hebrews who lived there) was
Egyptian territory at the time the Israelites were supposed to be
escaping from Egypt; so it made little sense for the Israelites to
escape to that region.

Also, there is no evidence of widespread destruction of cities in
Canaan at the time the Hebrews were supposed to have been conquering
it.

>Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Logically invalid: maximalists accepting minimalism. If true then the former cannot be maximalists.

>
> You are aware that some atheists don't even accept the historicity of
> Jesus, never mind Exodus?
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

Yes, I'm quite aware. Some don't.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Once again I ask, show us any where in Egyptian texts or inscriptions or bas-reliefs where defeats are recorded?

Waiting...

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> > u
> > Ray

Your reply, second point, supports what I said. How could that get by you? Concerning your first point Christians completely disagree. There is plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical version.

Ray

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <okrdrq$tgg$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>
> > In article <okqvt7$fnm$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill
> > <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Exodus may be true, historically accurate, there is no
> >> evidence from the time to settle the question. There are,
> >> however, numerous conjectures of what might be true, what
> >> could or should or ought to be true. We have an ancient
> >> book and modern critiques and the modern speculations are
> >> preferred because they are not ancient.
> >>
> >> Exodus is rejected because it is both ancient and the
> >> basis of three major religions. Evidence is really
> >> immaterial.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > Exodus is rejected as an historical account not because it
> > is ancient, nor because it is the basis of three major
> > religions, but because it simply isn't corroborated by any
> > archaeological evidence.
> >
> > You are the one for whom evidence appears immaterial. It's
> > pretty easy to say that such-and-such might be true if you
> > don't bother to actually look at the evidence.
>
> Which evidence? Are the eyewitness accounts evidence

There are no eyewitness accounts. period. The Tanakh was written many
centuries after the events it purports to describe. Moreover, it's very
clearly not intended as a history, but as an attempt to establish a
cultural identity and to advocate a particular moral and legal system.
That doesn't mean that none of the events which it describes have a
possible historical basis, but it means that there is no reason to
accept any particular claims it makes unless they are independently
corroborated.

> or
> should I prefer the accounts of those who analyze the
> eyewitness accounts 3000 years after the fact? Why are books
> written in the last 100 years considered authoritative while
> those written 3000 years are not? If the current evidence
> requires us to reject ancient evidence, what is this
> evidence?
>
> Show that evidence is not immaterial by citing it.

Any modern book which simply analyzed (non-existent) eyewitness accounts
from the past would carry no more weight than the original texts. That's
why *empirical* evidence is what must be focussed on.

If the egyptian captivity had actually occurred, we would expect there
to be evidence of a hebrew presence in Egypt during the relevant time
period, and we simply don't find it. Compare this situation with that of
(e.g.) the Babylonian captivity where we do find archaeological support
for the existence of a hebrew population. People leave traces, and the
absence of such traces in Egypt is telling given the amount of effort
expended on looking for them during the heydays of biblical archaeology.

[Bill]

Since there is no empirical evidence for the Exodus, there
is no empirical evidence against it; there is simply no
evidence at all. How then is your non-evidence preferable to
the non-evidence of those who argue that Exodus is
historical?


Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:43:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Other than a lack of evidence that a particular event
occurred, what would you imagine "evidence against it" might
consist of? Does this "logic" also apply to Von Daniken's
assertions, or for that matter to *any* event for which no
physical evidence exists?

> there is simply no
>evidence at all. How then is your non-evidence preferable to
>the non-evidence of those who argue that Exodus is
>historical?

If you genuinely believe those cases are equivalent there's
probably no reason to discuss any of this with you.

[Öö Tiib]

It is not that there are no evidence just that the evidence does indicate
other things than the story of Exodus tells.

There are lot of archeological evidence of Egypt. There was civilization.
There was kingdom of pharaoh starting about 3150 BC. They did live there.
They built their houses, carved their writings, buried their dead
(sometimes in huge mausoleums, sometimes with horses or other sacrifices)
and they threw away their trash that also sometimes contained pieces of
their broken tools and pottery. On case of flourishing civilization there
is fat cultural layer left that all is now found there by archeologists
but somehow there are no evidence about millions of Jews living there
and leaving from there.

There is no evidence where these Jews wandered and also further where they
arrived. The great kings David and Solomon did somehow manage to leave no
archeological trace. Their neighbors don't mention them, there is nothing.
There is so thin cultural layer of that era that it seems like in Jerusalem
did live few hundred residents or less.

As contrast from king Omri (whom Bible portays unfavorably) there suddenly
is lot of evidence like Mesha stele (on display in the Louvre), or
Assyrian Black Obelisk in the British Museum plus other Assyrian records
mentioning "Land of Omri" or "House of Omri".

So the Bible is clearly lot less reliable historically than "Historia
Regum Britanniae" or "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" or other
similar pieces of fiction.

[jillery]

As usual, you conflate two kinds of "non-evidence": 1) evidence which
is known to not exist, and 2) evidence which might exist but hasn't
been observed. Type 1) isn't really non-evidence, but negative
evidence, where effects were actively sought and found to not exist.
The lack of evidence for the Exodus, and for many other Old Testament
narratives, is of this type.

As with most legends, something like the Exodus may have occurred
somewhere at sometime, but not like the Bible describes it.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <okt77d$318$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill <fre...@gmail.com>

There are two separate issues at play here.

The first concerns the status of "absence of evidence". There is an old
adage that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This view
is warranted, but only under certain circumstances.

For example, consider the following two claims:

(1) There is life in the oceans of Enceladus.
(2) There was, at one point, a large, enslaved, Hebrew population in
Egypt.

In both of these cases, we have no actual evidence to support these
claims. However, in the first case, we have not had any opportunity to
actually look for evidence. We have satellite evidence that there are
indeed oceans under the surface of Enceladus, but we've never actually
been to these oceans, so a lack of evidence is completely unsurprising.
In this case the absence of evidence really isn't evidence of absence,
so one can claim that there *might* be life in the oceans of Enceladus,
and this claim would be consistent with the (non-existent) evidence.
Note of course that just as there is no evidence showing there isn't
life in these oceans, there is also no evidence that there is, so one
cannot assert that there *is* life here, only that there might be.

In the second case, however, we *have* had opportunities to gather
evidence. Egypt is, from an archaeological standpoint, one of the most
extensively researched areas on earth. We've uncovered a huge amount of
data on the various periods of Egyptian history, enough to glean large
amounts of information on their lifestyle, their economy, their
religion, and so forth. But, we haven't found anything to suggest a
hebrew population in Egypt, and because we expect people to leave
traces, in this particular case absence of evidence really does start to
become evidence of absence given enough data.

The only thing that suggests such a hebrew presence is the exodus
account itself, but using that as evidence would be on par with arguing
for the existence of an historical Lady Macbeth based solely on
Shakespeare, or that Raskolnikov really did kill his landlord with an
axe based solely on Dostoevskij. These accounts both reference some
actual people, places, and events, but they also reference many that are
not, and unless something found in these works can be corroborated there
is no reason to assume that it is real.

The second issue involves burden of proof. In general, it is incumbent
on the one claiming the existence of something to provide evidence in
favour of that claim; not for their detractors to disprove said claim.
Thus, were I to assert that there is, in fact, life on Enceladus, it
would be incumbent on me to provide evidence supporting this claim, not
for you to provide evidence that there isn't. Similarly, in absence of
any evidence regarding exodus, it is incumbent on those who assert that
it actually happened to provide evidence of this fact, not on those who
would deny that it occurred.

Without adopting such a position, one is left in a position where we
have to take any claim made anywhere by anyone seriously and attempt to
disprove it. For example, we have lots of evidence that the pyramids
were constructed by egyptian artisans. We have no evidence to suggest
that they were constructed by aliens, or by hebrew slaves, or by the
servants of Cthulhu. But, by your reasoning, we'd have to treat all of
these claims as on par since we don't have any evidence against these
claims, either. But if we were to preoccupy itself with disproving every
claim, no matter how fanciful, knowledge would never progress. That's
why we insist that evidence be offered *in favour* of claims rather than
against claims.

[Robert Carnegie]

The fall of Constantinople was said to be the
cause of the European Renaissance, as scholars
of the Eastern church headed west. So like that?

[jillery]

It's plausible there was a community of Hebrews in ancient Egypt, the
evidence for which is undiscovered, whose fortunes waxed and waned,
which may have been the basis for the OT Exodus. It's also plausible
such basis was embroidered over generations. The negative evidence
suggests the latter.

Andre Isaak posted an illustrated example of the same distinction I
describe above.

[Robert Carnegie]

Genesis says originally it was one guy who went
to Egypt, then there were two there, then eventually
twelve. Were you considering a particular number?

[Ray Martinez]

There is plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical version of the Exodus. Atheists, as one could expect, deny and suppress the evidence.

Atheist archaeologists BEGIN with a deeply flawed Egyptian chronology as their starting facts. Chronologies that contradict are deemed to be in error. Velikovsky proved that Egyptian chronology is the main problem. When Egyptian chronology is corrected all other ANE chronologies, including Israel in the Bible, align. When the alignment is made plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical Exodus shows up in archaeology.

Ray

[jillery]

For example...????

>Atheists, as one could expect, deny and suppress the evidence.
>
>Atheist archaeologists BEGIN with a deeply flawed Egyptian chronology as their starting facts. Chronologies that contradict are deemed to be in error. Velikovsky proved that Egyptian chronology is the main problem. When Egyptian chronology is corrected all other ANE chronologies, including Israel in the Bible, align. When the alignment is made plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical Exodus shows up in archaeology.
>
>Ray

Velikovshky is as credible as Kent Hovind.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <30810eff-5764-4c5b...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> There is plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical version of the
> Exodus. Atheists, as one could expect, deny and suppress the evidence.

Perhaps you'd care to cite some?

> Atheist archaeologists BEGIN with a deeply flawed Egyptian chronology as
> their starting facts. Chronologies that contradict are deemed to be in error.
> Velikovsky proved that Egyptian chronology is the main problem.

You do realize that Velikovsky is a complete crackpot.

> When Egyptian
> chronology is corrected all other ANE chronologies, including Israel in the
> Bible, align. When the alignment is made plenty of material evidence
> supporting the biblical Exodus shows up in archaeology.
>
> Ray

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:33:40 -0600, "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

>In article <30810eff-5764-4c5b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There is plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical version of the
>> Exodus. Atheists, as one could expect, deny and suppress the evidence.
>
>Perhaps you'd care to cite some?
>
>> Atheist archaeologists BEGIN with a deeply flawed Egyptian chronology as
>> their starting facts. Chronologies that contradict are deemed to be in error.
>> Velikovsky proved that Egyptian chronology is the main problem.
>
>You do realize that Velikovsky is a complete crackpot.

I occasionally wonder which is worse, a complete or an incomplete
crackpot?

>> When Egyptian
>> chronology is corrected all other ANE chronologies, including Israel in the
>> Bible, align. When the alignment is made plenty of material evidence
>> supporting the biblical Exodus shows up in archaeology.
>>
>> Ray

--

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <4e7bnc1rmvb22lbbe...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:33:40 -0600, "Andre G. Isaak"
> <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <30810eff-5764-4c5b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There is plenty of material evidence supporting the biblical version of
> >> the
> >> Exodus. Atheists, as one could expect, deny and suppress the evidence.
> >
> >Perhaps you'd care to cite some?
> >
> >> Atheist archaeologists BEGIN with a deeply flawed Egyptian chronology as
> >> their starting facts. Chronologies that contradict are deemed to be in
> >> error.
> >> Velikovsky proved that Egyptian chronology is the main problem.
> >
> >You do realize that Velikovsky is a complete crackpot.
>
>
> I occasionally wonder which is worse, a complete or an incomplete
> crackpot?

I prefer the term 'half-baked' to 'incomplete'

Andre

[Robert Carnegie]

I think potters say "fired", not "baked".
But I don't remember their special terms
for the piece of work that turns out cracked.

[jillery]

IIUC it depends on how deeply cracked. For surface cracks of the
glaze, it's called "crackle". For cracks all the way through, it's
called "trash", another apt description of Velikovsky's arguments.

[rolf.a...@gmail.com]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7d5nc9qp00chs854...@4ax.com...

This is what Amazon.com says about Sivertsen's book:

For more than four decades, biblical experts have tried to place the story
of Exodus into historical context--without success. What could explain the
Nile turning to blood, insects swarming the land, and the sky falling to
darkness? Integrating biblical accounts with substantive archaeological
evidence, The Parting of the Sea looks at how natural phenomena shaped the
stories of Exodus, the Sojourn in the Wilderness, and the Israelite conquest
of Canaan. Barbara Sivertsen demonstrates that the Exodus was in fact two
separate exoduses both triggered by volcanic eruptions--and provides
scientific explanations for the ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea.
Over time, Israelite oral tradition combined these events into the Exodus
narrative known today.


Skillfully unifying textual and archaeological records with details of
ancient geological events, Sivertsen shows how the first exodus followed a
1628 B.C.E Minoan eruption that produced all but one of the first nine
plagues. The second exodus followed an eruption of a volcano off the Aegean
island of Yali almost two centuries later, creating the tenth plague of
darkness and a series of tsunamis that "parted the sea" and drowned the
pursuing Egyptian army. Sivertsen's brilliant account explains
inconsistencies in the biblical story, fits chronologically with the
conquest of Jericho, and confirms that the Israelites were in Canaan before
the end of the sixteenth century B.C.E.

In examining oral traditions and how these practices absorb and process
geological details through storytelling, The Parting of the Sea reveals how
powerful historical narratives are transformed into myth.

................

When I want to know something about a subject, I buy books. The local
library is useless.And sources are great to have at hand.

[Ray Martinez]

In other words Jillery implies, like I said, there is plenty of evidence supporting the biblical Exodus----that's why she discredits the source and continues blacklisting Velikovsky, a fellow Atheist and Evolutionist who had the integrity to publish the evidence, which had been deliberately suppressed by Atheist Egyptologists for decades. That's precisely why Velikovsky is SO hated.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 4:00:05 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
> > > <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> There are no facts about the Exodus.
> > >> The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
> > >> Nor did Moses exist.
> > >
> > > Maybe not. Cite?
> > >

> > >> It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40
> > >> years and leave No Evidence.
> > >

> > > Just curious... Where did that number come from?
> >
> > Is there any evidence to warrant belief the exodus from Egypt happened?
>

> Show me any ANE nation other than Israel that records defeats in text, inscriptions, bas-reliefs, etc.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray

Egypt recorded its defeats in inscriptions on stele. They called them victories, but when a series of victories happens in which each "victory" occurs at a site closer to Thebes, it's easy enough to see that each alleged recorded victory is actually a recorded defeat. Had the Exodus actually occurred, there would no doubt have been a monument to the great victory in which the Egyptian army drove the rebellious Jews out into the desert.

[Bill Rogers]

Consider two claims about my own origins....

Claim 1 - I was born in New Jersey in 1957 of male and female human parents.

Claim 2 - I was brought to a hospital in New Jersey by clever aliens who had constructed me as a biological robot to infiltrate the human race. The aliens altered the memories of all involved so that all eye-witness testimony supports my normal birth.

As far as I can tell, you have no basis on which to judge which of those claims is more likely to be true.

What sort of evidence would you expect to find if the story of Exodus was false? Would you like to find an Egyptian document saying "Jews were never held as slaves in Egypt and they never escaped from Egypt after a series of supernatural plagues under the leadership of Moses"? If one wants to assert that a historical event occurred, most people would suggest that you provide positive evidence that it did.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:37:08 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:43:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

I asked Bill the same question on the 21st regarding
acceptable evidence for a non-event. So far only silence.

[Burkhard]

Well, there is the Ipuwer Papyrus just for starters. Then there is the
Piye victory stele that records the conquest of Egypt by the Nubinas -
and which was kept by the Egyptians.

[Bill]

This is true of course and archaeology supports it; it's not
even controversial. It is also significant that the
Israelites didn't create large monuments tracing their
history at that time so there was no enduring record from
their point of view. The historicity of Exodus is unknown.

Bill

[John Stockwell]

Actually, we do. Births of the variety of claim 1 are well understood.
Claim 2 contains a number of companion claims which include
a) the existence aliens
b) the contact of aliens with the earth
c) that it is possible to have the technology to genetically engineer
a "Bill" unit
d) that technology to erase minds is possible
e) physical evidence that a) through d) did, indeed, happen.

For starters if we did a DNA test and found that Bill had DNA not matching
anything on the earth, then that would be a good start.

Having none of these things. We choose explanation 1) until something happens
to change that.

As far as the Exodus is concerned, if there were mention of Hebrews, slave
revolts, the plagues of Egypt---anything at all to corroborate the Exodus
account, then that would be evidence. Even better, if there was physical
evidence of the Exodus encampments, all of that.

Regarding Hebrews, there is a one liner from the era of Ramses II referring
to people known as the "Habiru". Yet, there doesn't seem to be any evidence
of any mass of people exiting.

The driving out of the Hyksos, on the other hand, is an exodus.

We also know that the authors of the Exodus are not above stealing tropes
from other sources. The story about Moses being released into the river
in a basket is the same thing that happened to Akkadian King Sargon I.
Likely a ripoff.

If, however, the Israelites were the descendants of the tribes from
the Levant, known as the Hyksos, who ruled
Egypt in the 2nd Intermediate Period, then there would be "an Exodus".

-John

[Robert Carnegie]

Consider Barbara Swertsen's theory: you are
/two/ biological robots, delivered to Earth
on different dates.

As evidence I point out that no one has seen
both of you together.

[Ray Martinez]

Reply says recorded victories mean defeats, which is logically invalid. Victory does not mean defeat. So this is actually a very good piece of evidence showing the illogical thinking of Bill Rogers. Of course if he could provide a reference for his claims that would help a lot. Good luck.

Ray

[jillery]

I have to agree about my local library in most cases. Non-fiction
books have a low priority, and books generally have a lower priority
than DVDs and public-access computers. My impression is this is what
they perceive to be the public's priorities, and provide accordingly.

I haven't read Sivertsen's book, but I would like to. Her hypothesis
sounds plausible, but she wasn't there, so I suspect most Biblical
literalists dismiss it out of hand, or worse, claim that it's proof of
Biblical veracity.

[jillery]

When it comes to political "truth", there are few who have ever been
completely logical, ex. Saddam Hussein claimed he won the first Iraq
War. It's entirely plausible and unsurprising that ancient Egyptian
leaders spun their defeats into victories.

[jillery]

Of course, I implied no such thing. You have as much trouble
understanding written English as most of the posters to T.O. To the
contrary, my question documents your complete lack of examples.

>>----that's why she discredits the source and continues blacklisting Velikovsky, a fellow Atheist and Evolutionist who had the integrity to publish the evidence, which had been deliberately suppressed by Atheist Egyptologists for decades. That's precisely why Velikovsky is SO hated.
>
>Ray

So you have no examples. Is anybody surprised?

And Velikovsky isn't hated. A more appropriate description is pitied,
as are you, and for similar reasons. But at least Velikovsky finished
his book.

[rolf.a...@gmail.com]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:g1qinc9qjerh8td8t...@4ax.com...

I believe my email address is visible here and if you email me your address
I will mail you the book.

Rolf

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 9:35:05 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 4:00:05 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> > > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cloud Hobbit
>> > > > <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > >> There are no facts about the Exodus.
>> > > >> The overwhelming consensus from archaeologists is that it never happened.
>> > > >> Nor did Moses exist.
>> > > >
>> > > > Maybe not. Cite?
>> > > >
>> > > >> It is utterly impossible for 2 million people to wander around for 40
>> > > >> years and leave No Evidence.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just curious... Where did that number come from?
>> > >
>> > > Is there any evidence to warrant belief the exodus from Egypt happened?
>> >
>> > Show me any ANE nation other than Israel that records defeats in text, inscriptions, bas-reliefs, etc.
>> >
>> > Waiting....
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Egypt recorded its defeats in inscriptions on stele. They called them victories, but when a series of victories happens in which each "victory" occurs at a site closer to Thebes, it's easy enough to see that each alleged recorded victory is actually a recorded defeat. Had the Exodus actually occurred, there would no doubt have been a monument to the great victory in which the Egyptian army drove the rebellious Jews out into the desert.
>>
>
>Reply says recorded victories mean defeats

No, Ray, his reply states that events which are *known* to
have been defeats for Egypt were recorded by Egypt as
victories. From a different venue: "We are retreating
victoriously before an enemy who is advancing in utter
disorder!"

Perhaps you could learn to read for comprehension?

[rolf.a...@gmail.com]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:18qincptacjmouh5t...@4ax.com...

To me, it says a lot when Ray still cling on to the crackpotery of
Velikovsky's. Among his great discoveries are that all the Arabian oil was
deposited from the terrible collision that is his thesis in "Earth in
Upheaval":

Back flap: "Velikovsky abandons the literary and the legendsary. He goes
into the fields of astronomy, archaeology, geology and biology . . . to cast
serious douvts on all kinds of accepted hypotheses in these various fields."
(Diogenes, Time and Tide.)

"A challenging book" - Manchester Evening News. (First published in GB 1956)
Must be over-ripe for debunking now, coprolitic.

I can send it with Sivertsen's book if you think you care to look at, if
not to read it.

Rolf

[jillery]

Thank you so much for your kind and generous offer. It was an
unexpected but wonderful surprise. However, I would (metaphorically)
die from guilt at you losing your reference source to me. Instead, I
will bite the bullet and regress to *buy* the book. I'll let you know
when I'm through reading it.

[jillery]

Again, thank you for that generous offer, but in this case, I read my
parents' copy of "Worlds in Collision" long ago, out of self-defense,
as they were into various kinds of crackpottery.

[Burkhard]

That sort of brings back memories. One of the two books that got me
hooked on history was Werner Keller's 1955 book "Und die Bibel hat doch
recht", which proposes a whole raft of naturalistic explanations for the
OT - tsunamis for the parting of the sea, insect secretion for manna
etc. (the other was Stoll's book about Schlieman's Troja excavation).

I must have been 14 or so at the time, as I remember discussing it with
out pastor during confirmation classes. He didn't like the idea to
"prove" scripture through science at all, which I found odd at the time
as for me it made the subject so much more existing and accessible. As I
got older, I think I rather changed my mind to his point of view. I want
Hector and Achilles to fight over a face to beautiful it launched a
thousand ships, a face that even for the gods meant victory of beauty
over power and wisdom. Rather than a territorial squabble between some
minor bronze age warlords. And miracles ought to be miraculous.

The idea to turn great mythology into average (at best) science is all
part and parcel of what Schiller and following him Max Weber called the
"disenchantment of modernity". And that's part of the problem: on the
one hand, you get a new way of writing history that admittedly gives
strong storytelling (by the standards of your average historical science
writing) and sound science (by the standards of mythological texts) -
but not good science by the standards of science, or good story telling
by the standards of stories.

That point was made by Miller and Hayes in 1986 (A History of Ancient
Israel and Judah)

"Theories of this sort [the Thera volcano-tsunami theories of the
parting of the seas] attempt to give naturalistic and scientifically
acceptable explanations for the more fantastic and miraculous biblical
claims. In our opinion, however, these theories presuppose such
hypothetical scenarios, such a catastrophic view of history, and such
marvelous correlations of coincidental factors that they create more
credibility problems of their own than the ones they are intended to solve."

There is a very good book on the methodological issues, and the often
bad science and bad textual exegesis that are abundant in this field,
edited by Harris (The Thera Theories: Science and the Modern Reception
History of the Exodus). Again and again what the contributors find is
that folks cheery pick first from the classical texts, or twist them
beyond recognition and in total disregard of the scholarship that exists
about their interpretation, and then shoehorn their scientific theories
of choice onto it, without typically the rigour of scientific theory
testing. And as soon someone applies this rigour, the theories often
fall apart quickly.

Here one such follow up study to Sivertsen's theory, which shows that
even under the most generous assumptions, the tsunami model just does
not work:

José M. Abril and Raúl Periáñez: A Numerical Modelling Study on the
Potential Role of Tsunamis in the Biblical Exodus Available with open
access here:
http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/3/3/745/htm

The publishers are not of the highest quality, but the authors and as
far as I can tell the paper is sound

[Ray Martinez]

Just post the link reference so I can see what you're talking about?

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:09:40 -0700 (PDT), the following

>Just post the link reference so I can see what you're talking about?

It's RIGHT THERE, Ray, about 15 lines up, just above your
comment that starts "Reply says..."

Sheeesh...

[Ray Martinez]

As a matter of fact, no link reference exists where indicated. Again, support your claim with a LINK, that is, something I can click on that takes me to a scholarly source that says what you and Bill are saying; if not, then what you and Bill are saying remains subjective nonsense.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT), the following

>As a matter of fact, no link reference exists where indicated.

It's *not a link*, idiot, it's the actual post to which you
replied!

> Again, support your claim with a LINK, that is, something I can click on that takes me to a scholarly source that says what you and Bill are saying; if not, then what you and Bill are saying remains subjective nonsense.

Get this straight, Ray. I neither supported nor denied what
Bill Rogers stated. My comment was *solely* about your
misinterpretation of his statement. To put it in language
simple enough for even you to understand, he didn't say that
*in general* "recorded victories mean defeats"; he said that
in several cases the Egyptians recorded what were obviously
defeats ("obviously" because of the associated
circumstances) as victories. His point was that, whether
they were recorded as such or not, defeats *were* recorded
by Egypt.

I can't fathom why you want a "link" to something which, if
it refutes some claim of yours, you'll simply reject, as
you've done many times in the past when presented with links
which support evolutionary theory with objective evidence.

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, sorry, the bit about Egyptian records of multiple "victories" each progressively closer to Thebes (and hence really defeats) is not something I read on-line, but in the Cairo Museum. I'll find a link for you, if I can, but as Bob has pointed out, you'll ignore it anyway.

In the meanwhile, you can read up on the Battle of Kadesh here which, based on the terms of the ensuing treaty and on Egypt's inability to actually capture Kadesh was a strategic defeat or a draw for Egypt, but which was trumpeted by Ramses II as a great victory.

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

The Egyptians still do that sort of re-interpretation of events to this very day. Outside of Cairo you can see the Museum "The October 6 Panorama" memorializing Egypt's great victory in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Most outside observers think of it as a serious defeat for Egypt and that only a U.N ceasefire prevented the advancing Israeli army from reaching Cairo, but there's a whole museum dedicated to celebrating Egypt's "great victory".

http://www.egyptindependent.com/egypts-museums-ii-october-war-panorama/

[Ray Martinez]

Thanks for the admission.

> In the meanwhile, you can read up on the Battle of Kadesh here which, based on the terms of the ensuing treaty and on Egypt's inability to actually capture Kadesh was a strategic defeat or a draw for Egypt, but which was trumpeted by Ramses II as a great victory.
>

Your challenge to my claim is therefore defeated. Ancient Egypt, unlike ancient Israel, does not record defeats.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh
>
> The Egyptians still do that sort of re-interpretation of events to this very day. Outside of Cairo you can see the Museum "The October 6 Panorama" memorializing Egypt's great victory in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Most outside observers think of it as a serious defeat for Egypt and that only a U.N ceasefire prevented the advancing Israeli army from reaching Cairo, but there's a whole museum dedicated to celebrating Egypt's "great victory".
>
> http://www.egyptindependent.com/egypts-museums-ii-october-war-panorama/

Which supports my claim that Egypt does not record defeats.

Now back to the main point: The Bible says the Plagues destroyed Egypt and the Red Sea destroyed the Egyptian army. In view of the fact that Egypt does not record defeats, and the fact that the ancient Hebrews left Egypt completely destroyed, one cannot expect Egyptian sources to write about this catastrophe. Why would Egypt want to remember? Egyptians can't even admit they lost the 1967 war. Nothing has changed.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

No, it supports my claim that Egypt recorded defeats and called them victories. You know, like Saddam Hussein Information Minister reporting that the Iraqi Army had defeated the Americans in a great battle outside of Baghdad.

>
> Now back to the main point: The Bible says the Plagues destroyed Egypt and the Red Sea destroyed the Egyptian army. In view of the fact that Egypt does not record defeats, and the fact that the ancient Hebrews left Egypt completely destroyed, one cannot expect Egyptian sources to write about this catastrophe. Why would Egypt want to remember? Egyptians can't even admit they lost the 1967 war. Nothing has changed.

And yet there is no archaeological evidence of the rapid and complete destruction of the Egyptian New Kingdom, only evidence of a gradual decline after Thutmoses III.

>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Others called them defeats, not Egyptians, crucial difference. So ancient Egypt did not record defeats, which is what I've been saying.

>
You know, like Saddam Hussein Information Minister reporting that the Iraqi Army had defeated the Americans in a great battle outside of Baghdad.
>
> >
> > Now back to the main point: The Bible says the Plagues destroyed Egypt and the Red Sea destroyed the Egyptian army. In view of the fact that Egypt does not record defeats, and the fact that the ancient Hebrews left Egypt completely destroyed, one cannot expect Egyptian sources to write about this catastrophe. Why would Egypt want to remember? Egyptians can't even admit they lost the 1967 war. Nothing has changed.
>
>
> And yet there is no archaeological evidence of the rapid and complete destruction of the Egyptian New Kingdom, only evidence of a gradual decline after Thutmoses III.
>
> >
> > Ray

If one accepts traditional Egyptian chronology as constructed by Western Egyptologists in the first half of the 20th century. This chronology has been shown to have about a 500 year alignment discrepancy. When the adjustment is made plenty of material evidence shows up in archaeology for the biblical Exodus.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

There's no objective evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Atheists must believe life evolved because in their minds no God exists to cause any-thing to exist. Therefore evolutionary theory is a biased interpretation and/or explanation of evidence.

Creationism is the same: a biased interpretation and/or explanation of the same evidence. We contend our explanation of the evidence is far superior than the evolutionary explanation.

The point is that we can admit bias----you, as seen in your comment above, cannot.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Moreover, the whole entire purpose of posting here at Talk.Origins is to show any interested party that the teleological explanation of evidence is the superior explanation of evidence, the evolutionary explanation inferior.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:57:22 -0700 (PDT), the following

As I noted, when presented with objective evidence you
dismiss it.

> Atheists must believe life evolved because in their minds no God exists to cause any-thing to exist.

And once again, you ignore the fact that many religious
believers also accept the evidence for evolution.

> Therefore evolutionary theory is a biased interpretation and/or explanation of evidence.
>
>Creationism is the same: a biased interpretation and/or explanation of the same evidence. We contend our explanation of the evidence is far superior than the evolutionary explanation.

You have no *objective* evidence.

>The point is that we can admit bias----you, as seen in your comment above, cannot.

I admit I'm biased toward objective evidence, so you are
wrong again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:09:33 -0700 (PDT), the following

That would be *your* whole purpose, not *the* whole purpose.
What a pity for you that your purpose flounders on its lack
of objective evidence.

And FYI, teleology relies on the assumption that purpose
exists, which is only an assumption based on personal
belief; there is no evidence that assumption is correct. So
your "evidence" is nothing but personal opinion.

[Bill Rogers]

Damn. What matters is that the Egyptians recorded the *event*. Ray, the Israelites described the Exodus as a defeat for the Egyptians. Nothing stopped the Egyptians from recording the same event as a successful expulsion of rebellious slaves from Egypt and thus a victory.

>
> >
> You know, like Saddam Hussein Information Minister reporting that the Iraqi Army had defeated the Americans in a great battle outside of Baghdad.
> >
> > >
> > > Now back to the main point: The Bible says the Plagues destroyed Egypt and the Red Sea destroyed the Egyptian army. In view of the fact that Egypt does not record defeats, and the fact that the ancient Hebrews left Egypt completely destroyed, one cannot expect Egyptian sources to write about this catastrophe. Why would Egypt want to remember? Egyptians can't even admit they lost the 1967 war. Nothing has changed.
> >
> >
> > And yet there is no archaeological evidence of the rapid and complete destruction of the Egyptian New Kingdom, only evidence of a gradual decline after Thutmoses III.
> >
> > >
> > > Ray
>
> If one accepts traditional Egyptian chronology as constructed by Western Egyptologists in the first half of the 20th century. This chronology has been shown to have about a 500 year alignment discrepancy.

What about a "scholarly citation" supporting this 500 year alignment discrepancy.

[Ray Martinez]

Bob evades the point that no such thing as objective evidence exists because evolution and creation start with antonymic assumptions about the origin of reality.

> > Atheists must believe life evolved because in their minds no God exists to cause any-thing to exist.
>
> And once again, you ignore the fact that many religious
> believers also accept the evidence for evolution.
>

Bob, an Atheist-Evolutionist, appeals to Christ to save him from my point. Moreover, a Christian cannot allude to their identity as a Christian in the context of accepting evolutionary theory because no one can say Christ has led them to accept a theory that uses the assumptions of Naturalism to produce its claims of fact.

> > Therefore evolutionary theory is a biased interpretation and/or explanation of evidence.
> >
> >Creationism is the same: a biased interpretation and/or explanation of the same evidence. We contend our explanation of the evidence is far superior than the evolutionary explanation.
>
> You have no *objective* evidence.
>

Actually we do, so I should have placed an asterisk next to my previous statement that said we didn't. Science before 1859 accepted appearance of design in nature. In 1986 Dawkins acknowledged that Biology studies things that appear designed. He went on to say said appearance is an illusion. But based on the facts of acknowledgement and former scientific acceptance, appearance of design qualifies as objective evidence.

> >The point is that we can admit bias----you, as seen in your comment above, cannot.
>
> I admit I'm biased toward objective evidence, so you are
> wrong again.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Bob evades my main point because, like I said, he can't, unlike Creationists, admit his bias.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:21:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

Bob "evades" nothing. You have been shown objective evidence
many times, and each time you handwaved it away. Your
"point" is simply your opinion combined with your refusal to
accept evidence which doesn't agree with your personal
beliefs.

>> > Atheists must believe life evolved because in their minds no God exists to cause any-thing to exist.
>>
>> And once again, you ignore the fact that many religious
>> believers also accept the evidence for evolution.
>>
>
>Bob, an Atheist-Evolutionist

Bob accepts the evidence for evolution; Bob has said so
repeatedly. That Bob is an atheist is your imagination.

>, appeals to Christ to save him from my point.

Oh? Please show where I "appealed to Christ". Hint: Bob said
nothing about Christ, only about religious believers, a
point which you cannot refute and therefore repeatedly
tapdance around.

> Moreover, a Christian cannot allude to their identity as a Christian in the context of accepting evolutionary theory because no one can say Christ has led them to accept a theory that uses the assumptions of Naturalism to produce its claims of fact.

Still on the "anyone who isn't a Christian and doesn't
believe exactly as I believe is and atheist" kick, huh?

>> > Therefore evolutionary theory is a biased interpretation and/or explanation of evidence.
>> >
>> >Creationism is the same: a biased interpretation and/or explanation of the same evidence. We contend our explanation of the evidence is far superior than the evolutionary explanation.
>>
>> You have no *objective* evidence.
>>
>
>Actually we do, so I should have placed an asterisk next to my previous statement that said we didn't. Science before 1859 accepted appearance of design in nature.

"Appearance" is not evidence; it is only appearance. You've
also been shown *that* repeatedly, and repeatedly fail to
acknowledge it.

> In 1986 Dawkins acknowledged that Biology studies things that appear designed. He went on to say said appearance is an illusion. But based on the facts of acknowledgement and former scientific acceptance, appearance of design qualifies as objective evidence.

No, it does not. Dawkins was correct.

>> >The point is that we can admit bias----you, as seen in your comment above, cannot.
>>
>> I admit I'm biased toward objective evidence, so you are
>> wrong again.

>Bob evades my main point because, like I said, he can't, unlike Creationists, admit his bias.

Your main point being that only you know the truth?
Uh-huh...

As I noted, I'm biased toward objective evidence.