Hawk you're still missing the point. Old stories religious or not are old stories. They aren't history unless we can corroborate then with actual evidence.

Also the rosetta stone being religious or not is irrelevant. If we had an ancient porn written in multiple languages it would have helped us decipher language.

hawk,

Tyson basically addressed it. We do not presuppose the validity of any religious text or story contained therein. The rosetta stone was useful only in comparing languages-it didn't matter what it said, just that it said the same thing in each language.

As a side note, the history channel is a bad place to learn history. It wasn't always so, but it is today.

I don't understand how this thread when to 5 pages about the Exodus. Aggrad did a good job but when you hear examples like the holocaust being used to support of the Exodus, it makes me wonder if the point we have been making was still misunderstood.

“We do not presuppose the validity of any religious text or story contained therein”

Once again, I am not debating your viewpoint on whether the Exodus occurred. My statements have been in response to the following statement "There is no evidence for the exodus." I believe this statement to be factually incorrect.

“They aren't history unless we can corroborate then with actual evidence”

“The stories aren't considered historical.”

Who doesn’t consider them historical? What then qualifies as history? Statements like these show an ignorance as to the definition of the word history and a conjecture that the audience agrees with the author’s viewpoint. History, by definition, is a written description of past events. Does the Bible not meet this criteria?

I have been accused of “missing the point” and that I don’t “get it”, but twice my examples have been responded to without addressing the main theme of the example. I have also been attributed a statement that I did not in fact make. My examples were given to illustrate the point that a lot of the knowledge conveyed in modern history books and programs has been accumulated through the examination of religious artifacts. The Bible is used as one of these sources. If the Bible says that the Hebrews were enslaved in Babylon and a tablet of Sargon the Akkad corroborates this as being true, which is the definitive source? History as understood today is compiled from many sources, many of which we could later learn to be false. I maintain that you cannot proclaim that there is no evidence of the Exodus, when by definition, that is factually incorrect. Your review of the evidence has lead you to the conclusion that it didn’t happen.

quote:

---

Who doesn’t consider them historical? What then qualifies as history? Statements like these show an ignorance as to the definition of the word history and a conjecture that the audience agrees with the author’s viewpoint. History, by definition, is a written description of past events. Does the Bible not meet this criteria?

---

his·to·ry/ˈhist(ərç/
noun:

1.The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
2.The past considered as a whole.

A book about "history" or supposed historical events like a religious book isn't considered to have actually happend i.e. to be historically accurate without evidence. You are playing fast and loose with the word history. False histories aren't considered actual history. When we say they aren't considered historical we mean they wouldn't be described in a modern history book as a real event.

quote:

---

Once again, I am not debating your viewpoint on whether the Exodus occurred. My statements have been in response to the following statement "There is no evidence for the exodus." I believe this statement to be factually incorrect.

---

By all means, show us the evidence that makes that statement factually incorrect. You keep saying this without providing any.

quote:

---

History, by definition, is a written description of past events. Does the Bible not meet this criteria?

---

No it doesn't meet the criteria. As mentioned earlier, the scrutiny of the bible has shown that exodus was written 1000 years after the exodus supposedly took place. The account can only be used as a starting point to go look for evidence. No evidence has been found (although you are about to provide some). Much evidence has been found that points to a different history that invalidates the bible's account.

quote:

---

I have been accused of “missing the point” and that I don’t “get it”,

---

You obviously don't get it if you can't get the difference between evidence against and no evidence.

quote:

---

If the Bible says that the Hebrews were enslaved in Babylon and a tablet of Sargon the Akkad corroborates this as being true, which is the definitive source?

---

When exodus and other books of the old testament were written, the babylonian invasion was recent history/current affairs. This is well understood. The exodus was 1000 years earlier and a legend. Seperating what is legend and what is factual in the bible is where you are having a problem. Some of the written text is factual and some is not. The point we've been trying to make that you can't "get" is that you must have evidence that supports claims. Just because it is an old book does not make it history. The only conclusions you can make is that that is what those people believed. It is historical factual to say that the isrealites believed in the exodus, and moses, and noah and the flood...we know this because we have their written texts. Thats all you can factually say about these texts.

“Seperating what is legend and what is factual in the bible is where you are having a problem.”

I haven’t revealed what I believe about the Bible. You have inferred that I believe the opposite of you when I have yet to make a statement of opinion regarding either the Exodus or the accuracy of the Bible. The “fact” that I am discussing isn’t even one from the Bible. It was from a previous poster’s statement, which I believe to be erroneous.

“isn't considered to have actually happend”

Considered by whom? Is there some collective of knowledge, whose mandate is to arbitrate all things written and spoken?

“You are playing fast and loose with the word history.”

I’d rather not digress into a debate about semantics. I feel that my definition of the word was sufficient and accurate. If you don’t agree, take it up with Merriam Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history

Hawk, under your interpretation of what is evidence and historical, Star Wars would be considered evidence that there is a death star.

quote:

---

When we say they aren't considered historical we mean they wouldn't be described in a modern history book as a real event.

---

Your definition tries to circumvent this simple fact I pointed out earlier. I already posted the dictionary definition in case you didn't notice. Call it "history" or whatever the hell you want. Just know that it isn't considered to have really happened based on the evidence by historical scholars, Egyptologists and archaeologists as I've pointed out before. I will say that you are the first person I've ever seen who tried to use the term historical to mean anything other than real and true.

[This message has been edited by Aggrad08 (edited 4/9/2012 9:58p).]

quote:

---

I haven’t revealed what I believe about the Bible. You have inferred that I believe the opposite of you when I have yet to make a statement of opinion regarding either the Exodus or the accuracy of the Bible.

---

You did this when you said this:

quote:

---

The fact that it is mentioned in the bible, does in fact consistute a historical reference.

---

A historical reference would include anything written in the past.

“it isn't considered to have really happened based on the evidence by historical scholars, Egyptologists and archaeologists”

I’m glad that you have finally identified the subject of your verb “considered”. I haven’t read much regarding the Biblical Exodus and the corresponding theories about whether it truly happened or was a fictional tale included in a religious text. I’ve seen a few programs and read a few web articles. It would appear that there isn’t much corroborating evidence outside of the Bible to substantiate the occurrence. Perhaps you could point me to the writings of these “historical scholars, Egyptologists and archaeologists”?

Honestly, I’d rather do my own research. I make the point, because too often I see people communicating what they’ve been told or taught as opposed to critically breaking down the information they receive and forming their own conclusion. This idea is what many of my atheist friends accuse of my Christian friends regarding their faith. The irony! Have many scholars come to the conclusion that the Exodus is fiction? There is no doubt in my mind. Do some scholars believe it was literal? I believe someone linked to one earlier in this thread. I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven’t done much research yourself into the subject matter. If so, I would have expected to see more detailed and research source identified arguments. You made a definitive statement regarding an opposing viewpoint that I believed to be factually incorrect. You may redirect the conversation into a dialogue discussing the plurality of the English language if you wish, but it doesn’t change my stance that dismissing someone else’s arguments with an erroneous statement of fact, is bad practice. Just because you do not agree with the validity of a piece of evidence, doesn’t mean that piece of evidence isn’t by definition “A thing or things helpful in forming a judgement or conclusion”.

so to be clear, hawk thinks star wars is historical evidence that a death star exists

To be clear, I haven't formed a conclusion on what I believe about the Exodus. As part of what I believe to be good manner, I try not to ridicule others for their religious belief, regardless of how preposterous it may appear to me.

that's why I'm not ridiculing anyone's religious beliefs. I'm just ridiculing the idea that any old book is evidence. there is a lot of evidence out there that zeus the throws thunder bolts. jesus isn't the only half man half god. so was hercules.

Here's my source for the definition of evidence:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

I chose this one over Webster's because I don't want to get into a debate over the definition of "proof".

quote:

---

jesus isn't the only half man half god. so was hercules.

---

You could have at least read a wikipedia article or two on orthodox Christology to save a litle bit of face. This is just pathetic.

quote:

---

Honestly, I’d rather do my own research. I make the point, because too often I see people communicating what they’ve been told or taught as opposed to critically breaking down the information they receive and forming their own conclusion. This idea is what many of my atheist friends accuse of my Christian friends regarding their faith. The irony!

---

This is a red herring.

This is where the peer review process comes in. You an I are not able to do 'our own research' on the Exodus. Neither of us have the means or ability to go to Egypt and begin excavating for evidence on the Exodous.

quote:

---

Here's my source for the definition of evidence:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

I chose this one over Webster's because I don't want to get into a debate over the definition of "proof".

---

Once again if any story in a book is evidence then you have evidence of lots of silly things.

quote:

---

quote:

---

jesus isn't the only half man half god. so was hercules.

---

You could have at least read a wikipedia article or two on orthodox Christology to save a litle bit of face. This is just pathetic.

---

Check your sarcasm meter

Fair enough if you were being sarcastic?

Next time you should aim your sarcasm at something more accurate if you'd like to be more effective.

[This message has been edited by Cyprian (edited 4/10/2012 2:44p).]

“This is where the peer review process comes in. You an I are not able to do 'our own research' on the Exodus. Neither of us have the means or ability to go to Egypt and begin excavating for evidence on the Exodous.”

Agreed. I feel that I must clarify my previous post. I wasn’t stating that I believe we should all go and do our own archeological excavations and then formulate our own opinion based exclusively on our individual exploration. From what I’ve observed, most of the archaeological information utilized in published media is obtained through examining other people’s research. Examining the knowledge of others is good practice in my opinion. Throughout this thread, multiple comments of mine were rebutted with arguments such as “it isn’t history” or “it’s not considered”. In these statements, it is assumed that there is an absolute conglomeration of historical knowledge. I believe this to be a fallacy. Published history is formulated using inexact sources, with no universal method of assemblage. The validity of the conclusions as well as the validity of the evidence used in forming the conclusions is subjective. The rebuttals mentioned show a lack of critical thinking on the part of the author in my opinion. I intended my statement to convey a challenge to the responder to re-evaluate their position through critical evaluation of the basis knowledge in their statements, by way of research.

quote:

---

The rebuttals mentioned show a lack of critical thinking on the part of the author in my opinion. I intended my statement to convey a challenge to the responder to re-evaluate their position through critical evaluation of the basis knowledge in their statements, by way of research.

---

You could have just asked for a link and saved yourself some time.

Its interesting that you have this scrutiny of our posts on this thread yet seem like you don't apply it to the bible. Maybe you do. Its hard to believe that you do with such a vague definition of evidence. Again, there isn't a lack of critical thinking when there is much evidence that shows the exodus did not happen.

Would the revelation of my personal beliefs change the credibility of my statements?

quote:

---

I intended my statement to convey a challenge to the responder to re-evaluate their position through critical evaluation of the basis knowledge in their statements, by way of research.

---

You are completely ignorant of the research. You are completely ignorant of whether or not I have thoroughly researched the evidence. You are completely ignorant of whether or not I have challenged this subject from both sides.

You are arguing from ignorance. Learn about the history and archaeology that we are talking about before you go on talking about re-evaluating opinions. If you wanted to know about the evidence you should have asked or simply looked it up yourself. You merely argued from a complete lack of familiarity with the subject or why we have arrived at the conclusion we arrived at. Do some research on your own and get back to me. If you think my conclusions are unfounded based on the evidence at hand I'd like to hear you make an argument why-if not don't assume my ignorance-epecially in light of your own.

quote:

---

Would the revelation of my personal beliefs change the credibility of my statements?

---

No, not at all. Your argument is dumb no matter what you believe.

"You are completely ignorant of the research. You are completely ignorant of whether or not I have thoroughly researched the evidence. You are completely ignorant of whether or not I have challenged this subject from both sides."

This statement is completely correct. I do not know whether you have read 100 books on the topic or a single paragraph blog. It was the language within your previous statements that lead me to the conclusion that you speak without thorough knowledge. You spoke of history as though it is single source truth. It is not a science. Repetitive statements such as “the stories aren’t considered historical” and “it isn’t considered to have actually happened” lead me to believe you haven’t evaluated both sides of the topic because there are (in fact) several “scholars” who have argued there is evidence outside of the bible. A thirty second google search will confirm this fact. You did not define the subject of the verb “considered” until later on in the conversation, in which you provided the very vague description of “scholars, Egyptologists, and archaeologists”. Do you speak for them all? Is there an absolute consensus? Nothing in your subsequent posts has led me to change my hypothesis about your knowledge. I apologize if you have done thorough research on the Exodus, however if that be the case, you might want to start thinking more critically about the language you use in communicating.

“If you think my conclusions are unfounded based on the evidence”

You keep going back to this notion that I disagree with your conclusion. Are you reading my posts? Are you simply trying to find a counter-argument that makes you appear victorious in debate?

quote:

---

Repetitive statements such as “the stories aren’t considered historical” and “it isn’t considered to have actually happened” lead me to believe you haven’t evaluated both sides of the topic because there are (in fact) several “scholars” who have argued there is evidence outside of the bible

---

Look at what "evidence" they have. A simple wiki search would tell you that there exists no archaelogical evidence for the exodus. You presume we aren't giving credence to both sides of the argument. You presume falsely. The argument in favor does not rely on historical evidence and ignores major flaws in the biblical tale. If you have any evidence that makes it seem the claims you've seen here are overstated then please-put them forward.

From the knowledge base you are working with your statements aren't much different than a someone trying to tell people who beleive in evolution about creationist websites. Look at the evidence look at the arguments-spend more than 30 seconds on google and learn.

here is a basic place to start. Go to the sources for more detail.

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

[This message has been edited by Aggrad08 (edited 4/11/2012 10:24a).]

"From the knowledge base you are working with your statements aren't much different than a someone trying to tell people who beleive in evolution about creationist websites."

Please elaborate on the thought behind this statement.

Aggrad,

'Israel in Egypt: The Evidence For the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition' by James K. Hoffmeier is a good read if you are interested in researching both sides of the argument. Despite your statement that there is no evidence for the Exodus of Israel, this book would state otherwise. Check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X

[This message has been edited by Reed10 (edited 4/11/2012 5:02p).]

Aggrad,

Another good book that goes against your absolute statement

quote:

---

look. There is no evidence for the exodus. You call it faith its not. I didn't go and edit the wiki page for crying out load. I didn't go and tamper with the research of archaeologist.

---

Wiki is always the first place I look if I want to know if something is true........................

Check it out

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

Reed. Can you point out the major pieces of evidence the book contends there are? I found these reviews on the amazon page.

"I had hoped this book would finally provide some evidence for the belief that the ancient Hebrews were enslaved by Egypt and/or existed as a group in Egypt for any appreciable amount of time--- as the book "Exodus" in the Hebrew Testament claims.

Sadly, this book failed to make a convincing argument for that claim.

First off, the synopsis for this book reads "Scholars of the Hebrew Bible have in the last decade begun to question the historical accuracy of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, as described in the book of Exodus." That is not quite accurate: historians, Egyptologists, and Bible scholars have been critical of the claim that the Hebrews were enslaved by Egypt for over 100 years, not merely a "decade." See for example Robert Green Ingersoll's text "Some Mistakes of Moses."

from the five stars:
"This relatively slim but heavily footnoted volume by Professor Hoffmeier constitutes one of the most recent additions to the ongoing debate on ancient Israel's origins. The author begins with the proposition that while no direct archæological evidence for the Exodus has been discovered to date, indirect indications show the events transcribed to be plausible and therefore potentially historical--not to be dismissed merely because of the theme in which such stories are recorded emphasizes a religion which has many adherents even today. "

from the two stars:
"This book contends that the Hebrews really were enslaved by Egypt, but that fact has either been "lost" to historians or has been "hidden" from historians.... and that one must infer the existence of the ancient Hebrews in Egypt."

Well. Thats not what I'm looking for. Especially considereing that the evidence against is fairly damning.


[This message has been edited by Aggrad08 (edited 4/11/2012 5:24p).]

quote:

---

Especially considereing that the evidence against is fairly damning.

---

There is evidence against Israelites ever being in Egypt in 2000 BC ? This is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen. It’s hard to understand much about people from a 4000 year old archeological site, but it seems like you arguing something even more specific. That someone can know who was not ever in a land for a small amount of time. To me, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

quote:

---

There is evidence against Israelites ever being in Egypt in 2000 BC ? This is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen. It’s hard to understand much about people from a 4000 year old archeological site, but it seems like you arguing something even more specific. That someone can know who was not ever in a land for a small amount of time. To me, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

---

Well there are writings from the time period....lots of them....Perhaps one might expect them to mention the jews at some point....

Really? That's some claim...

You got a link or something to that? I wouldn't think there would be a lot over that 400 year span that survived.

So we do know the city of Rameses has been found (about 100Km north of Cairo), and the excavations have been done since 1966 under Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo. So which discovered 3500-4000 year old writings from there are you taking about?

I'm not an archeologist. I was just pointing out the stupidity of your claim that there can't be evidence the jews weren't in egypt. If they had been you would expect to see some evidence, some mention of culture, faith, anything. The exodus would be a notable event. I mean it is up to you guts to show they were there. I haven't seen any evidence.