Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Valka D'Ur]

I never claimed that as fact, I said it was a possible translation of a story altered later by the compilers of the Bible.

Okay, then stop insisting she was vaporized. That's the only story you've supported, and have kept insisting there is evidence... which consists of "well, it could have happened, so it did."

You said the region had been investigated, now you're looking it up.There wouldn't be a need to look it up if your link showed where Sodom and Gomorrah were located.

You do realize that I didn't personally investigate it, right? You do recall that I mentioned that my own anthropology courses were mostly about North America, and that my classical history courses dealt mostly with Greece and Rome, right? Do stop with these silly attempts to play "Gotcha!", okay? I've run across some articles and YouTube videos. I didn't grab those links at the time I first saw them, so I'm looking them up. Keep in mind that some of what I've said comes from documentaries I saw many years ago, in my own pre-internet days. I'm trying to see if they're available online. As I remember, the one in which the people were trying to figure out what could have caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (if they existed) was quite interesting.

You're laughing and agreeing at the same time.

I have no issue if there was a natural explanation. I do have a problem with some supernatural being chucking "fire and brimstone" or nukes. The reason I'm laughing is because you have this preference for the supernatural over rational explanations.

Where'd I say that? I wouldn't have listed natural phenomena as possible explanations if it could only be explained by magic, etc.

Does "pillar of vapor" ring a bell? Show me another incident where someone was turned into a pillar of vapor - verified by real scientists, and I might start taking your position seriously.

It means you never claimed to be reliable either... So by your logic, you aint a source or reliable.

So to be considered reliable, I have to claim to be reliable? WTH are you even talking about at this point?

I have backed up my claim, I linked to evidence showing people can be vaporized, and that their images can be transposed onto nearby surfaces.

Where?

I dont need a moderator to know when somebody is being obnoxious and I have a low opinion of people who report others.

Then I fail to see why you're complaining to me. I'll stop being amused when you stop handing me fantasies instead of proper archaeology and geology, and understand that the Bible isn't any more reliable than your stories about Marduk are about the composition of the Solar System.

Here's what you said:

[Saavik] Hypotheticals. It is a difficult concept. [/Saavik]

Represented by you... so where are these adult clones who didn't grow up?

See my answer above.

Thats the first time I heard Eve was a man, a clone, and an adult without a childhood. And its coming from you!

See my answer above.

I'm not claiming that Eve was a sex-changed adult clone of Adam. I'm saying that IF you're going to make the claim that she was created as a fully-adult woman from Adam's rib, it would have had to be some sort of cloning procedure. But since clones are a copy of the original and Adam was male, there would have been a sex change involved as well.

Note the word IF in the above paragraph.

I'm not responsible for supporting your claims, they're your links, you quote them.

I never told you to support my claims. I told you to read the links I posted.[/quote][/quote]

 

[timtofly]

Address the point I made. I never said humans can be biologically male and female. Those are your words.


Oh. Okay, so the people who have posted in the transgender thread here on the forum all had fraternal twins suddenly pop into existence, the moment they realized they were transgender and decided to address the issue? Funny how nobody mentioned that during the time I was reading that thread... maybe someone has mentioned it later? If so, please link me to the post.


I have written it off for lack of evidence. Find a pillar of salt that used to be human, and then we'll talk. Until then, you're just insisting that fantasy stories are real, like something out of the Brothers Grimm, or Dungeons & Dragons.


Nope. There is no way that I'm going to just "accept in trust" that a fully adult human woman can be zapped into existence from a body part of someone else, unless it's normal reproduction or reproduction using technology that's far in advance of anything we have now.


According to every article I've read over the last couple of days about the Dead Sea, it became closed off from the Mediterranean approximately 2 million years ago. It's fed by the Jordan River, but the only way it loses water is via evaporation. It's got inflow but no outflow.

Modern humans did not exist 2 million years ago.


See above. The Dead Sea was an extremely salty body of water long before the story in Genesis happened.


You keep confusing evolution with geology. You also keep confusing the Bible with real geology.


The ancients had an excuse, in that there was much they didn't know about nature, and lacked the technology to discover. You're a modern person who presumably went to modern 20th century North American schools. What's your excuse?

Every time you assert that Lot's wife was turned into vapor.


I'm still looking that up. Why don't we both do it and see what we find? I'm willing to bet that neither of us finds anything that says Lot's wife was vaporized or nuked.


Where did I agree with you?

And what's obnoxious is this constant assertion that things that can only be explained by magic, time travel, or space aliens with advanced technology are actually real.


What is this supposed to mean?


You're the one making extraordinary claims and backing them up with nothing more than speculation that you keep asserting actually happened.


If you're feeling insulted, you know where the report link is. This "no, you" attitude of yours was tiresome several threads ago, never mind just in this one.


Don't blame me for that. It's evidently what timtofly believes.


If you clone someone, you're making a copy. That means the copy will be the same sex as the original. The story of using Adam's rib to make a woman indicates not only cloning, but that the clone's sex was changed somewhere in the process.

Honestly, how can you not have run across this before?


I've been posting links about the Dead Sea. I suggest you read them.

I pointed out that the closest example (you are the one insisting on varifiable) would be a transgender person because they claim they are biologically both. It was never to question whether that is a concept or reality. It was a verifiable reality. If you have chosen to disregard it as a viable example, then it is impossible to preset you with one.

You disagree on principle and then insist your oponent present you with a miracle.

I am comparing any ancient accounts with other ancient accounts. I am not comparing them with modern fiction stories, nor using modern cinema to prove my points.

The lake that was there before the Dead Sea was 75,000 years ago. The account says that humans watched an event. We are not talking about an account that humans watched for 2 million years. I am not even going to provide proof that geology can happen quickly, as you twist it around, and insist the story is modern fiction anyways.

This is not even about what I believe. I am just trying to point out all aspects of the account, instead of nitpicking certain details.

 

[warpus]

There is no logical reasoning to say that Judaism concocted the whole story, because it was not an oral one, but a written account.

1. Judaism isn't a person so Judaism of course didn't concoct anything. I mean, it's not like they had some sort of a grand Jewish council where they decided what stories they were going to accept as true and which stories they were going to make up. It all happens organically, over the years, via various people. No foul play needed.

2. If there were Jews in exile in Egypt in large numbers, you would expect to find some evidence of that somewhere. But so far we have found absolutely nothing. So it seems that the story is false, or at least greatly exaggerated. I wouldn't be surprised if a family of Jews or a small amount of Jews were sold into slavery to some rich Egyptian guy, those stories stayed with them over the years, then they made it back to Israel, or their descendents did, and the story became embellished over time, 40 days in the desert turned into 40 years, 15 Jewish slaves was turned into thousands of people, and so on.

3. Made up or embellished stories form the backbone of almost any people's mythos. We have them in Poland too. Everyone does it.

 

[timtofly]

1. Judaism isn't a person so Judaism of course didn't concoct anything. I mean, it's not like they had some sort of a grand Jewish council where they decided what stories they were going to accept as true and which stories they were going to make up. It all happens organically, over the years, via various people. No foul play needed.

2. If there were Jews in exile in Egypt in large numbers, you would expect to find some evidence of that somewhere. But so far we have found absolutely nothing. So it seems that the story is false, or at least greatly exaggerated. I wouldn't be surprised if a family of Jews or a small amount of Jews were sold into slavery to some rich Egyptian guy, those stories stayed with them over the years, then they made it back to Israel, or their descendents did, and the story became embellished over time, 40 days in the desert turned into 40 years, 15 Jewish slaves was turned into thousands of people, and so on.

3. Made up or embellished stories form the backbone of almost any people's mythos. We have them in Poland too. Everyone does it.

You also have to consider the time these alleged stories were allegedly written. It would be similiar to say the Jews during the Nazis holocaust embellished the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and made it all up, from oral accounts. And they did so because the Germans wanted the Jews to hand over the alleged Law they were currently carrying out in 70 A.D. So the Germans could translate them from Aramaic to German. Then we all in 1000 years claim the Jews just made up the Roman subjugation because there is no evidence of Jewish settlers, but only Islamic settlements.

 

[warpus]

In Polish mythos we have a story that there were once three brothers: Czech, Lech, and Rus. Each one wanted to find a good place to live for him and his wife and kids. Lech went west, Czech went south-west, and Rus went east. After a couple days/weeks of wandering they each settled, and now we have the countries of Poland, Czechia, and Russia.

I think it's reasonable to assume that this is simply an embellished or fully made up story that was at one point perhaps thought to have been true. If there was some evidence of these 3 brothers existing then it would be a completely different story, but what we know about ancient Slavs and proto-Slavs contradicts the story of the 3 brothers. So it probably didn't happen.

Now, I'm not a historian, but I've read that that's pretty much our modern stance on the story of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. It probably didn't happen, but it could have simply been an embellished story of a slave who managed to escape and make his way back home, instead of a completely made up story.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this since I am looking at this from a purely historical context, while you are likely taking a more religious approach. So that's fine, but either way my initial post was about Moses and the claim that "since he was a prophet he wouldn't lie about stuff"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I pointed out that the closest example (you are the one insisting on varifiable) would be a transgender person because they claim they are biologically both. It was never to question whether that is a concept or reality. It was a verifiable reality. If you have chosen to disregard it as a viable example, then it is impossible to preset you with one.

The main issue with the Eve story is that either of them exists at all. There's no evidence. And apparently you find hypotheticals just as difficult to follow in my posts as Berzerker does. I'm saying that IF the Genesis account is true, there would have to be some things going on that are presently far in advance of even our own medical technology.

You disagree on principle and then insist your oponent present you with a miracle.

I am comparing any ancient accounts with other ancient accounts. I am not comparing them with modern fiction stories, nor using modern cinema to prove my points.

What modern cinema have I used?

The lake that was there before the Dead Sea was 75,000 years ago. The account says that humans watched an event. We are not talking about an account that humans watched for 2 million years. I am not even going to provide proof that geology can happen quickly, as you twist it around, and insist the story is modern fiction anyways.

The Dead Sea was formed approximately 2 million years ago. Modern humans were not around 2 million years ago. And don't even start to try to tell me that the events in Genesis happened 75,000 years ago.

This is not even about what I believe. I am just trying to point out all aspects of the account, instead of nitpicking certain details.

Of course it's about what you believe. You've tried very hard to convince me of all kinds of "reasons" the flood could have happened, and various other things could have happened, and you're willing to move many goal posts and make up new "reasons". I give you "E" for "earnest" but nowhere near "C" for "convincing."

 

[timtofly]

In Polish mythos we have a story that there were once three brothers: Czech, Lech, and Rus. Each one wanted to find a good place to live for him and his wife and kids. Lech went west, Czech went south-west, and Rus went east. After a couple days/weeks of wandering they each settled, and now we have the countries of Poland, Czechia, and Russia.

I think it's reasonable to assume that this is simply an embellished or fully made up story that was at one point perhaps thought to have been true. If there was some evidence of these 3 brothers existing then it would be a completely different story, but what we know about ancient Slavs and proto-Slavs contradicts the story of the 3 brothers. So it probably didn't happen.

Now, I'm not a historian, but I've read that that's pretty much our modern stance on the story of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. It probably didn't happen, but it could have simply been an embellished story of a slave who managed to escape and make his way back home, instead of a completely made up story.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this since I am looking at this from a purely historical context, while you are likely taking a more religious approach. So that's fine, but either way my initial post was about Moses and the claim that "since he was a prophet he wouldn't lie about stuff"

His being a prophet, was just one point. It is consistent with a religious ideal. It was my attempt at pointing out the argument that it is not logical for one to predict how their life would end. There are no prophetic books attributed to Moses to further such a claim.

Here is another point attributed to the "made up stories" Abraham had two sons. The first was claimed as being the father of the Arabians or the legendary 12 tribes of the region that would cover Iraq, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Oman, and Yemen. The argument would be in 500 BC this was just a made up story. Today the argument says a religion that started over a thousand years later was the actual descendants of this made up story. It is not logical to say such a people group is Abrahamic any more than a passing fancy, unless it is indeed true, that such descendants can lay claim to the fact. It is hardly a point that would reconcile descendants much less religiously diverse humans. The argument is a group of people capable of having writing claimed they wrote down stuff while at the same time only relied on oral transmission, but kept stressing the fact to write it down constantly finally decided to make it all up so it could be translated into a different language. And in the process gave made up information so 2 more religions much later could use the same material. They even laid down the thought process where people should be killed for making stuff up, to ensure the made up stuff looked genuine.

1 Moses was literate as well as the Egyptians of the time.

2 The Hebrews constantly rejected any effort to prove God was a reality.

3 The Hebrews were tribal and never laid claim to anything that would leave a large archeological footprint.

4 Included in the made up tale were accounts of kings that have been credited in archeology.

5 During the 400 years period of time the Hebrews spent in Egypt, there was a major change in Egyptian history of that time. There was a temporary "hiccup" in the normal flow of history.

6 There are archeological references of other nations mentioning the Hebrews.

7 The Hebrews did not try to reconcile the account written to fit into the rest of other national histories.

8 The Hebrews themselves refused to accept who God was and never whitewashed that fact.

9 While not being a religious manefesto, it was congruent with current Greek philosophy that pointed out one God as a single mover of the universe. Not that the idea was trending, but it may have been a deciding factor to get the Greeks on board with the translation.

So either the Greeks convinced the Hebrews to make up a bunch of stories, or these stories were already available since the time they actually happened.

The main issue with the Eve story is that either of them exists at all. There's no evidence. And apparently you find hypotheticals just as difficult to follow in my posts as Berzerker does. I'm saying that IF the Genesis account is true, there would have to be some things going on that are presently far in advance of even our own medical technology.


What modern cinema have I used?


The Dead Sea was formed approximately 2 million years ago. Modern humans were not around 2 million years ago. And don't even start to try to tell me that the events in Genesis happened 75,000 years ago.


Of course it's about what you believe. You've tried very hard to convince me of all kinds of "reasons" the flood could have happened, and various other things could have happened, and you're willing to move many goal posts and make up new "reasons". I give you "E" for "earnest" but nowhere near "C" for "convincing."

What do you mean by medical technology? Or even moving the goal post?

Are you saying that your internal reasoning is the only governing or point of authority in the universe? I have never made the attempt to have all the answers. I am just pointing out that most of the arguments that have occurred in these chats have a lot more complex points to them, than just dismissing them as not "fitting into the way one views things".

Our current condition of humanity is hardly the source and regulator of the entire universe.

 

[warpus]

His being a prophet, was just one point. It is consistent with a religious ideal. It was my attempt at pointing out the argument that it is not logical for one to predict how their life would end. There are no prophetic books attributed to Moses to further such a claim.

I think I see what you mean (and that our conversation thus far might have been moot)

There are archeological references of other nations mentioning the Hebrews.

Of large groups of Hebrews being in Egypt? Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression that such evidence did not exist, so if that's what you mean I would be interested to read about it and fix my internal knowledge base

 

[Berzerker]

Okay, then stop insisting she was vaporized. That's the only story you've supported, and have kept insisting there is evidence... which consists of "well, it could have happened, so it did."

I didn't insist, I said this was evidence the Bible was altered later.

You do realize that I didn't personally investigate it, right?

You wanted evidence and I said we dont know where the cities were located. You countered by claiming the region had been investigated (ie, we should have found it). So I asked if the Dead Sea had been searched and you were gonna look it up.

I have no issue if there was a natural explanation. I do have a problem with some supernatural being chucking "fire and brimstone" or nukes. The reason I'm laughing is because you have this preference for the supernatural over rational explanations.

I haven't stated a preference

Does "pillar of vapor" ring a bell? Show me another incident where someone was turned into a pillar of vapor - verified by real scientists, and I might start taking your position seriously.

Yes, I offered the pillar of vapor as a possible translation of the biblical story instead of pillar of salt, and I said that was evidence of an alteration to the Bible. We have images of people vaporized by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Undoubtedly any source of extremely intense heat can vaporize a person.

So to be considered reliable, I have to claim to be reliable? WTH are you even talking about at this point?

I 'considered' you a source and you denied it, you never said you were a source. So yes, by your logic you're not reliable until you confirm it.

Where?

Earlier in the thread. The site had photos taken of people who were vaporized and their images appear on nearby structures.

Then I fail to see why you're complaining to me.

You're the one being obnoxious, who else is in need of knowing that?

[Saavik] Hypotheticals. It is a difficult concept. [/Saavik]


See my answer above.


See my answer above.

I'm not claiming that Eve was a sex-changed adult clone of Adam. I'm saying that IF you're going to make the claim that she was created as a fully-adult woman from Adam's rib, it would have had to be some sort of cloning procedure. But since clones are a copy of the original and Adam was male, there would have been a sex change involved as well.

Note the word IF in the above paragraph.

You're blaming me because you introduced cloning into the discussion? Clones dont just pop into existence as adults. Thats a problem for you, not me. And I dont believe Adam's rib was used, thats why I brought up the Sumerian myth about our creation. It claims the gods bound their image onto an existing creature roaming Enki's Abzu (southern lands) to make a primitive worker. The Bible refers to these ancient people as a creation of the 6th day and when it says there was no adam to till the land. The rib part of the story comes from a different myth about Enki's rib being healed by Ninhursag - both of these gods created us.

Now here's some interesting features of the story... Adam and Eve gain knowledge of good and evil. They became "us". This story describes an ancient transition from a more primitive creature to one that obtains enlightenment. Adam was naked and knew no shame. Adam named the animals but found no helpmate from among them. Eve's curse is increased pain in child bearing. That one is particularly intriguing, recent evidence indicates anatomically modern women did become subject to increased pain when "we" show up in the world ~200kya. Our older ancestors didn't suffer nearly as much giving birth.

I never told you to support my claims. I told you to read the links I posted.

Are you saying you posted a link because it doesn't support your claim? Its your link, you quote it. I'm not reading through a website looking for what you might consider evidence in support of your argument.

 

[timtofly]

I think I see what you mean (and that our conversation thus far might have been moot)

Of large groups of Hebrews being in Egypt? Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression that such evidence did not exist, so if that's what you mean I would be interested to read about it and fix my internal knowledge base

Nova had a piece about one. Wiki has an article about others. There is not much about Hebrews in Egypt. I am pretty sure the Egyptians sanitized the area thoroughly. They were better at covering up anything unfavorable. Nor if there was anything in Ethiopia would it be much different. Africa has it's own claims on being a lost tribe of Isreal, so anything there would not seem to point any further back than after the point Isreal thought they were a nation divided or not.

Also the point is not really about finding literal actual truth. The point is understanding why we have the information we do. I am still unsure why any one thinks another poster is trying to make any one believe anything. I am sure I am no different than any other human though. Read about Ptolomy 1 Soter and how the Greeks decided to translate the Hebrew Scriptures. Perhaps if it was not for this one Greek Ruler, we would never have a Greek version. He would be to the Jews what King James was to the English, but really not here to twist people's minds.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

His being a prophet, was just one point. It is consistent with a religious ideal. It was my attempt at pointing out the argument that it is not logical for one to predict how their life would end. There are no prophetic books attributed to Moses to further such a claim.

What isn't logical is to claim that Moses wrote the book that tells of his own death.

Here is another point attributed to the "made up stories" Abraham had two sons. The first was claimed as being the father of the Arabians or the legendary 12 tribes of the region that would cover Iraq, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Oman, and Yemen. The argument would be in 500 BC this was just a made up story. Today the argument says a religion that started over a thousand years later was the actual descendants of this made up story. It is not logical to say such a people group is Abrahamic any more than a passing fancy, unless it is indeed true, that such descendants can lay claim to the fact. It is hardly a point that would reconcile descendants much less religiously diverse humans. The argument is a group of people capable of having writing claimed they wrote down stuff while at the same time only relied on oral transmission, but kept stressing the fact to write it down constantly finally decided to make it all up so it could be translated into a different language. And in the process gave made up information so 2 more religions much later could use the same material. They even laid down the thought process where people should be killed for making stuff up, to ensure the made up stuff looked genuine.

If you were a cat, you'd be happy with a giant ball of string and a banquet hall full of furniture legs to wrap it around.

What a twisted lot of stuff. And still with this "people group"...

1 Moses was literate as well as the Egyptians of the time.

Moses the character was literate. So what? The stories told about him were told by people who mostly were not literate.

3 The Hebrews were tribal and never laid claim to anything that would leave a large archeological footprint.

What does being tribal have to do with it? Evidence has been found for human occupation in North America dating back over 14,000 years. Their culture was a lot less technologically advanced than the Hebrews supposedly were.

4 Included in the made up tale were accounts of kings that have been credited in archeology.

I never claimed that the bible was 100% made up. Genesis? Yeah. Fiction. Moses? Show me the evidence. The closer you get to modern times, the more likely it is that there will be kernels of truth in the stories. Someone once tried to play "Gotcha" with me about Augustus. They were quite surprised when I said I don't have a problem with Augustus, or even Herod. There are independent primary sources confirming their existence.

5 During the 400 years period of time the Hebrews spent in Egypt, there was a major change in Egyptian history of that time. There was a temporary "hiccup" in the normal flow of history.

Link?

What do you mean by medical technology? Or even moving the goal post?

Are you seriously asking me what medical technology is?

I 'considered' you a source and you denied it, you never said you were a source. So yes, by your logic you're not reliable until you confirm it.

That is ridiculous.

Earlier in the thread. The site had photos taken of people who were vaporized and their images appear on nearby structures.

Those photos were of the bombings in Japan. No such event took place at the time and place that we're discussing here. And do not come back with "how do you know" or "but it could have" or any other such stuff. We've had this conversation so many times, it's ridiculous.

NO EVIDENCE. None. Zip, for an ancient atomic explosion.

You're the one being obnoxious, who else is in need of knowing that?

Well, you're not getting anywhere complaining about it here. I don't plan to change any of my opinions regarding your posts and you keep twisting my words around when you're not posting utterly ludicrous nonsense in "support" of your contentions.

If you think I'm "obnoxious" because I have a negative opinion of your views, that's your problem. I've suggested a solution, which you discarded. So either live with it, stop reading my posts, or stop complaining. Your choice.

You're blaming me because you introduced cloning into the discussion? Clones dont just pop into existence as adults. Thats a problem for you, not me. And I dont believe Adam's rib was used, thats why I brought up the Sumerian myth about our creation. It claims the gods bound their image onto an existing creature roaming Enki's Abzu (southern lands) to make a primitive worker. The Bible refers to these ancient people as a creation of the 6th day and when it says there was no adam to till the land. The rib part of the story comes from a different myth about Enki's rib being healed by Ninhursag - both of these gods created us.

I don't give any part of a rodent's anatomy which fictitious characters you insist "created" us. They are made-up characters in stories invented by humans. Evidently the concept of hypotheticals - IF any of this silly nonsense were true, THIS (cloning) is how it would have to have worked. BECAUSE the ancient people who made and told these stories didn't have the required technology, there is no way it could be true.

What part of this is so damned hard to understand? I am not saying anyone was cloned, other than as a hypothetical. Do try to understand this: You have been describing cloning, even though you didn't call it that. What's worse, you've been describing the science fiction/fantasy version of cloning, not the kind that is undergoing current research in labs in RL. Of course I don't believe that your version really happened.

Now here's some interesting features of the story... Adam and Eve gain knowledge of good and evil. They became "us". This story describes an ancient transition from a more primitive creature to one that obtains enlightenment. Adam was naked and knew no shame. Adam named the animals but found no helpmate from among them. Eve's curse is increased pain in child bearing. That one is particularly intriguing, recent evidence indicates anatomically modern women did become subject to increased pain when "we" show up in the world ~200kya. Our older ancestors didn't suffer nearly as much giving birth.

We already had this ridiculous conversation in your Babylonian/Marduk mess of a thread.

Adam and Eve never existed, therefore it's irrelevant whether or not they were naked. IF they had existed, they would have been around considerably later than 200,000 years ago.

Are you saying you posted a link because it doesn't support your claim? Its your link, you quote it. I'm not reading through a website looking for what you might consider evidence in support of your argument.

So I've provided information, and you're flat-out refusing to read it. Typical. Sorry, but I'm not quoting an entire web page. And I can't fathom why I would post a link if I didn't think it supported my position.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Eve's curse is increased pain in child bearing. That one is particularly intriguing, recent evidence indicates anatomically modern women did become subject to increased pain when "we" show up in the world ~200kya. Our older ancestors didn't suffer nearly as much giving birth.

Oh, I'd love to read about that recent evidence.

 

[warpus]

Nova had a piece about one.

Here is what this particular archeologist says about Exodus:

Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.

Which is exactly what I was saying a couple posts ago in this thread, so my internal understanding of the consensus on the matter seems to be accurate.

I looked through the other link and found no reference to Exodus specifically.

 

[timtofly]

What isn't logical is to claim that Moses wrote the book that tells of his own death.

And if God said assisted suicide was the proper thing to do, it still would not change your mind.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And if God said assisted suicide was the proper thing to do, it still would not change your mind.

WTH does assisted suicide have to do with this?

 

[timtofly]

WTH does assisted suicide have to do with this?

Why else would someone make up a story as you say. There has to be some allegorical meaning in there somewhere.....

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why else would someone make up a story as you say. There has to be some allegorical meaning in there somewhere.....

I asked you what assisted suicide has to do with this. Now I'm asking what it has to do with making up stories.

Could you ever answer a question without twisting my words or taking them out of context or throwing out something completely unrelated?

 

[warpus]

People make up stories all the time, there doesn't have to be a reason.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, he brought assisted suicide into this, presumably having something to do with making up stories. I have absolutely no idea what prompted this.

 

[timtofly]

We are still talking about how logical it is for a human to write about their own death....

Would assisted suicide be more palatable if there was some beneficial ritual applied to the process?