Did the Red Sea Part?
-
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...
-
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
Although this is funny, I think it's a false analogy. Atheism is not simply a disregard for theism. It is not a lack of belief. Atheism is the acting belief that there is no God. Since it cannot be proven that there is no God, atheists take it on faith that there is no God. It is not as though theists have a belief and atheists don't (as the stamp-collecting analogy humorously suggests). Theists have a belief. They believe there is a God. Atheists have a belief. They believe there is no God. So, to correct (and unfortunately ruin) your analogy: If atheism is a religion, then collecting something other than stamps is a hobby. -- modified at 13:26 Tuesday 3rd April, 2007
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
where does it actually say that he is islamic, couldnt he be coptic christian?
Where did I say he's Islamic?
Red Stateler wrote:
What would be even more interesting is if this guy is Muslim (and given his name and location, I suspect he is).
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
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
"History is written by the winner" not precisely the quote, but the same gist.
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
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...
It does sound silly when you present it that way, doesn't it? Of course, Christians don't present it that way. Christians believe that God parted the sea, not Moses. The only thing worth trying to attack in regards to what Christians believe is God himself. After all, if they believe in God, why should they have a problem with Him parting a sea? If they believe in God, why should they care whether there is enough "proof" that the sea was indeed parted? The beliefs of a Christian begin and end in God and those beliefs are not based on proof, but on faith. Admittedly, it does not make for a fair debate, but I'm not sure what debate has to do with it anyway. If the existence or non-existence of God could be proven, not many would be arguing one way or the other. But since it cannot, those who believe God is, take it on faith. Those who believe God isn't take it on faith.
-
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
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
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.
Welcome to the real world.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
What would be even more interesting is if this guy is Muslim (and given his name and location, I suspect he is).
I win because I have the most fun in life...
Exactly. I didn't say he was a Muslim. I said I suspect he is one given that he is a chief archeologist for that 90% Muslim nation and has a Muslim name.
-
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, if you don't believe me, please read them yourself. There are free English translations online, or you can order an English translation for cheap ($25 USD). The Dead Sea Scrolls are a great example of how well the Tenakh (Jewish Scripture/Old Testament) has been preserved for 2000 years. The only real difference I've seen are some minor translation errors and some previously lost Psalms, which are pretty cool to see. Please check it out.
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
-
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
:laugh:
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
-
It does sound silly when you present it that way, doesn't it? Of course, Christians don't present it that way. Christians believe that God parted the sea, not Moses. The only thing worth trying to attack in regards to what Christians believe is God himself. After all, if they believe in God, why should they have a problem with Him parting a sea? If they believe in God, why should they care whether there is enough "proof" that the sea was indeed parted? The beliefs of a Christian begin and end in God and those beliefs are not based on proof, but on faith. Admittedly, it does not make for a fair debate, but I'm not sure what debate has to do with it anyway. If the existence or non-existence of God could be proven, not many would be arguing one way or the other. But since it cannot, those who believe God is, take it on faith. Those who believe God isn't take it on faith.
Excellent, well said.
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
-
Exactly. I didn't say he was a Muslim. I said I suspect he is one given that he is a chief archeologist for that 90% Muslim nation and has a Muslim name.
Red Stateler wrote:
Exactly. I didn't say he was a Muslim. I said I suspect he is
Exactly, which is why i suggested that he could be coptic christian
Red Stateler wrote:
I suspect he is one given that he is a chief archeologist for that 90% Muslim nation and has a Muslim name.
That's racism...
Red Stateler wrote:
has a Muslim name
So Muslims can't have names such as Bob, Fred, John, Jane, or Sue. Egyptians can't have historical / region specific, popular names, even if they aren't Muslim?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
"History is written by the winner" not precisely the quote, but the same gist.
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
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.
Welcome to the real world.
I believe the real world has been trademarked by MTV.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - Albert Einstein 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?
Young's Literal translation[^] (in short: a plague on all livestock, but only Egypt's cattle is mentioned as dying)
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
-
Exactly. I didn't say he was a Muslim. I said I suspect he is one given that he is a chief archeologist for that 90% Muslim nation and has a Muslim name.
Why do you call it a Muslim name? Yu do realie that Arab Christians and Druze also use these names. It's like calling your name a Christian name instead of an American one. Hmmm, maybe yours is a bad example. :confused:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
It does sound silly when you present it that way, doesn't it? Of course, Christians don't present it that way. Christians believe that God parted the sea, not Moses. The only thing worth trying to attack in regards to what Christians believe is God himself. After all, if they believe in God, why should they have a problem with Him parting a sea? If they believe in God, why should they care whether there is enough "proof" that the sea was indeed parted? The beliefs of a Christian begin and end in God and those beliefs are not based on proof, but on faith. Admittedly, it does not make for a fair debate, but I'm not sure what debate has to do with it anyway. If the existence or non-existence of God could be proven, not many would be arguing one way or the other. But since it cannot, those who believe God is, take it on faith. Those who believe God isn't take it on faith.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Whatever, it is the same bullsh*t.
Yes. It's the same in that we can see here how atheism is a religion. Though this archeologist is likely a Muslim, we have several atheists jumping to his aid...Asserting truth based on a lack of evidence. That should be the antithesis of atheism, but because the assertion supports the dogma, it's defended.
Well said.
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