Did the Red Sea Part?
-
What I was taught is that the likelihood that everything in the Bible being 100% factual is very slim. Many texts were written years after the events and things get 'buffed up' as Judah mentioned. As a Jew, I believe it happend. If it didn't, I think the underlying story and guiding principles are what are important. Happy Passover!
_________________________________________ You can't fix stupid, but you can medicate crazy.
Well said, leckey. Happy Pesach!
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
So.. what are claims without supporting evidence?
I don't have any. I don't know with 100% certainty that the Red Sea was parted. I also didn't make the claim. It's a historical account of an event.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
It is always the task of the claimer to provide evidence.
And this guy made a claim. But his claim was based on his lack of evidence rather than evidence. Where is it?
Red Stateler wrote:
It's a historical account of an event.
This is the part I have issue with. Saying something is a historical event means that there is proof, not just word of mouth. One of the reasons I'm not too big on religion, including my own, is because there's usually no proof. In regards to the way he say it, I'll acquiesce (POTC) that he did appear biased. However, he could still be speaking truthfully.
"Religion is assurance in numbers." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Doesn't agree with your ideals, does he?
No, but that's besides another point. This guy is making the statement that an event did not occur because he has not seen any evidence of it. He stated that "If they get upset, I don’t care. This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem." He also said, "Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence." He's making a statement of fact based on a lack of evidence. It would be reasonable for him to say that he doubts it happened or that he doesn't believe it happened or that there is currently no archeological evidence that supports it, but to proclaim "truth" over a lack of evidence is disingenuous. What would be even more interesting is if this guy is Muslim (and given his name and location, I suspect he is). If that's the case, then we can see another similarity between Islamic fundamentalism and atheism...lack of physical evidence as the basis of faith. Addendum: If I farted 10 minutes ago, and you can't smell it, that doesn't mean I didn't fart.
Red Stateler wrote:
If I farted 10 minutes ago, and you can't smell it, that doesn't mean I didn't fart.
Now that makes a good philosophical question. If a person farts in the forest, does it make a smell?
"Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weasling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel." - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
No Evidence, Archaeologists Say[^] Ask the wiki-ball. The question is, how much of what we're told as historical fact is actually true? 90%, 50%, or less?
"I know which side I want to win regardless of how many wrongs they have to commit to achieve it." - Stan Shannon Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
It's now accepted that it was a mistranslation of Reed Sea. Potentially it was a tsunami that sucked the water out, allowing Moses through, then the tsunami came in over Pharoah. However since, as this article says, there is basically no evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt, and also that the 12 (?) cities supposedly burnt to the ground on their return show no evidence of any catastrophic fires, I doubt that Exodus is anything more than a kiddie's bedtime story.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It's a historical account of an event.
This is the part I have issue with. Saying something is a historical event means that there is proof, not just word of mouth. One of the reasons I'm not too big on religion, including my own, is because there's usually no proof. In regards to the way he say it, I'll acquiesce (POTC) that he did appear biased. However, he could still be speaking truthfully.
"Religion is assurance in numbers." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
This is the part I have issue with. Saying something is a historical event means that there is proof, not just word of mouth. One of the reasons I'm not too big on religion, including my own, is because there's usually no proof.
That's not true at all. Herodotus (an ancient Greek historian), for example, chronicled many events that have no direct archaeological support but are accepted as factual by historians. Droves of historical accounts don't have accompanying archaeological evidence because...well...that stuff decays and most of it hasn't been found. Even when archeological support is found, historical accounts are often the authority on historical events because archeology really tells very little.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Doesn't agree with your ideals, does he?
No, but that's besides another point. This guy is making the statement that an event did not occur because he has not seen any evidence of it. He stated that "If they get upset, I don’t care. This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem." He also said, "Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence." He's making a statement of fact based on a lack of evidence. It would be reasonable for him to say that he doubts it happened or that he doesn't believe it happened or that there is currently no archeological evidence that supports it, but to proclaim "truth" over a lack of evidence is disingenuous. What would be even more interesting is if this guy is Muslim (and given his name and location, I suspect he is). If that's the case, then we can see another similarity between Islamic fundamentalism and atheism...lack of physical evidence as the basis of faith. Addendum: If I farted 10 minutes ago, and you can't smell it, that doesn't mean I didn't fart.
where does it actually say that he is islamic, couldnt he be coptic christian?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
At the end of the day, the 4 inch fish have grown into a 2 feet barracuda. Imagine what 2-3000 years can do!!
Normally I'd agree, but there's something special about preserving something one believes to be God-inspired. Take for example the Dead Sea scrolls: 2000 years later, our Scriptures are basically the same; no exaggerations in our modern texts, nothing different but for minor word translation errors. (I've been studying an English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, please have a look for yourself if you don't believe me.) I'm amazed at how well our Masoretic texts and Greek Septuagints have held up over the last 2000 years. To me, it confirms that what we have now in the Bible, even if it's imperfect and flawed by mistranslations or even if it contains allegorical stories, is here for a reason, and that reason is God. :cool:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
If the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a ringing endorsement of Christianity why were they suppressed for so long? If they confirmed the Christian texts to the degree you suggest then the Catholic Church would be waving copies of it from the rooftops.
-
I don't remember who said that here, but it was something like: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. And, btw, if an atheist agrees on something with someone that is not an atheist, it does not mean that atheism is a religion.
----- Formerly MP(2)
Le Centriste wrote:
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheists don't simply reject religion. They actively have a working theology, which makes that analogy a poor one. Saying "If atheism is a religion, then collecting coins is a hobby" would be more along the lines of reality.
-
where does it actually say that he is islamic, couldnt he be coptic christian?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
where does it actually say that he is islamic, couldnt he be coptic christian?
Where did I say he's Islamic?
-
If the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a ringing endorsement of Christianity why were they suppressed for so long? If they confirmed the Christian texts to the degree you suggest then the Catholic Church would be waving copies of it from the rooftops.
Steve_Harris wrote:
If they confirmed the Christian texts to the degree you suggest then the Catholic Church would be waving copies of it from the rooftops.
Yeah, Catholics are usually so open and communicative... :rolleyes:
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Red Stateler wrote:
From which Caribbean-based college did that "doctor" get his PhD?
It's not a problem, just do what you did when it was proved that Genesis wasn't a literal account. You know, put less importance on that part. Move on - the Bible has lots of other pages!
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
It's not a problem, just do what you did when it was proved that Genesis wasn't a literal account. You know, put less importance on that part. Move on - the Bible has lots of other pages!
There are numerous non-literal portions of the Bible (both old and new testament...see Revelations). But there are sections that are historical accounts and others that are not. That's nothing new.
-
What I was taught is that the likelihood that everything in the Bible being 100% factual is very slim. Many texts were written years after the events and things get 'buffed up' as Judah mentioned. As a Jew, I believe it happend. If it didn't, I think the underlying story and guiding principles are what are important. Happy Passover!
_________________________________________ You can't fix stupid, but you can medicate crazy.
You believe a man with a stick parted the seas and walked his people along a sea floor to the other side?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
No Evidence, Archaeologists Say[^] Ask the wiki-ball. The question is, how much of what we're told as historical fact is actually true? 90%, 50%, or less?
"I know which side I want to win regardless of how many wrongs they have to commit to achieve it." - Stan Shannon Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
I love that someone got paid to look into this. It makes me feel confident that when I ask for a raise next week I'll get it.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
It's not a problem, just do what you did when it was proved that Genesis wasn't a literal account. You know, put less importance on that part. Move on - the Bible has lots of other pages!
There are numerous non-literal portions of the Bible (both old and new testament...see Revelations). But there are sections that are historical accounts and others that are not. That's nothing new.
Red Stateler wrote:
There are numerous non-literal portions of the Bible (both old and new testament...see Revelations). But there are sections that are historical accounts and others that are not. That's nothing new.
I know, I know. God didn't seem to mind when you rejected his literal account of the creation of everything (even though his word is law!), so I'm sure he won't be upset about the Red Sea bit either. It's not like he's going to destroy the world or anything. I can't seem to figure out where the Egyptians got the horses to chase the Israelites though. God had killed all the livestock in Egypt that didn't belong to the Jews. Is that another mistranslation?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
There are numerous non-literal portions of the Bible (both old and new testament...see Revelations). But there are sections that are historical accounts and others that are not. That's nothing new.
I know, I know. God didn't seem to mind when you rejected his literal account of the creation of everything (even though his word is law!), so I'm sure he won't be upset about the Red Sea bit either. It's not like he's going to destroy the world or anything. I can't seem to figure out where the Egyptians got the horses to chase the Israelites though. God had killed all the livestock in Egypt that didn't belong to the Jews. Is that another mistranslation?
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I can't seem to figure out where the Egyptians got the horses to chase the Israelites though. God had killed all the livestock in Egypt that didn't belong to the Jews. Is that another mistranslation?
How should I know? I'm not Jewish.
-
You believe a man with a stick parted the seas and walked his people along a sea floor to the other side?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
What can I say? Moses is my homeboy.
_________________________________________ You can't fix stupid, but you can medicate crazy.
leckey wrote:
What can I say? Moses is my homeboy.
Didn't your parents get a divorce? Isn't that against Jewish law? Are you paying for the sins of your father by enduring an old dishwasher?
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
This is the part I have issue with. Saying something is a historical event means that there is proof, not just word of mouth. One of the reasons I'm not too big on religion, including my own, is because there's usually no proof.
That's not true at all. Herodotus (an ancient Greek historian), for example, chronicled many events that have no direct archaeological support but are accepted as factual by historians. Droves of historical accounts don't have accompanying archaeological evidence because...well...that stuff decays and most of it hasn't been found. Even when archeological support is found, historical accounts are often the authority on historical events because archeology really tells very little.
And when one historical account replaces another or gets replaced by another over time, who gets it right? I was reading about the burning of the Library of Alexandria which I always attributed to Muslims. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Anyhoo, it would seem that that piece of information was also wrong and the real reason has been lost in time, but historians seem to think that it was due to another event which they can't prove either. However, people believe in what is the most pushed version of history when that may or may not be true. Another example was the building of the pyramids. It has always been attributed to Jewish slaves when historians time and again said it was millions of Egyptian people who built it when the Nile was low and farming was on hold. Again, whatever theory is pushed to people is the one that sticks in their heads. From what I've learned of history, such as Herodotus and others, it seems that these writings are not taken as fact unless some other person of that time also wrote something similar about that event. In either case, they're usually talked about as "The best known evidence seems to suggest that ..." which to me is not the same as equating it as fact. I'm not saying that I don't trust anything in history, I just find it interesting that what is taken to be true today, may turn out to be false tomorrow. So my original question on how much truth their is in history still remains unanswered. However, I am inclined to believe that as time goes on, history becomes more and more false.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Red Stateler wrote:
There are numerous non-literal portions of the Bible (both old and new testament...see Revelations). But there are sections that are historical accounts and others that are not. That's nothing new.
I know, I know. God didn't seem to mind when you rejected his literal account of the creation of everything (even though his word is law!), so I'm sure he won't be upset about the Red Sea bit either. It's not like he's going to destroy the world or anything. I can't seem to figure out where the Egyptians got the horses to chase the Israelites though. God had killed all the livestock in Egypt that didn't belong to the Jews. Is that another mistranslation?
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
God had killed all the livestock in Egypt that didn't belong to the Jews. Is that another mistranslation?
It probably is since that would probably have killed off a large portion of the Egyptian population since farming around the Nile was not year-round, which is how the people helped build the pyramids.
"Religion is assurance in numbers." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
I love that someone got paid to look into this. It makes me feel confident that when I ask for a raise next week I'll get it.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...