The Exodus

Pompey Magnus

Do Christians really believe the story of the Exodus out of Egypt? I mean even those who believe the Bible is innerant must surely be a little unsure about this story?

The whole thing just never made sense to me, I mean where did these so-called slaves get all their gold from that they could build a statue to worship, what kind of slaves are allowed by their masters to keep gold? How on earth could it take all those people 40 years to walk just 250 miles? That is a rate of under 6 miles PER YEAR or 0.0007 miles per hour! I would call that snail's pace but I think that would be insulting to snails because from a quick calculation I would make it that a snail would travel the same distance in roughly 13 years (without taking a break, admittedly). Also how could a few million people travel across a desert for close to half a century and not leave a shred of archaeological evidence to prove the journey actually took place?

Can Christians actually take this story seriously or would you accept that the story of Moses leading the Jews to the Promised Land is either mostly or entirely fictional?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Do Christians really believe the story of the Exodus out of Egypt?

Yes.

I mean where did these so-called slaves get all their gold from that they could build a statue to worship, what kind of slaves are allowed by their masters to keep gold?

Er, didn't you think of actually reading the account of the Exodus before attacking it?

"So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go. And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians." (Exodus 3:20-22)

"Now the LORD had said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." The LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh's officials and by the people. (Exodus 11:1-3)

The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians. (Exodus 12:34-36)

BTW, it is entirely possible that the Israelites already had gold before this act. You are making the mistake of assuming that 'slavery' in the Ancient Near East was like the North Atlantic slave trade of the 1700s. In fact it was often much more benign with slaves owning property and carrying on commerce.

How on earth could it take all those people 40 years to walk just 250 miles? That is a rate of under 6 miles PER YEAR or 0.0007 miles per hour! I would call that snail's pace but I think that would be insulting to snails because from a quick calculation I would make it that a snail would travel the same distance in roughly 13 years (without taking a break, admittedly).

In Numbers Chapters 13 and 14 the Bible describes how the Israelites walked those 250 miles in a very short space of time. Then they sent out some spies to scout out the land. The spies spent 40 days doing this, and then brought back a discouraging report about the strength of the occupants of the Promised Land. The bulk of the Israelites, on the basis of this report, refused to obey God's instruction to enter the land. As a punishment for their belief God said that generation would wander in the wilderness for 40 years, one year for every day that they scouted out the land. So the 40 years, as any child in our Sunday school classes could tell you, was a punishment, not the actual time it took to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

Again, don't you think it would make sense to read the text you are attacking rather than spending your time making calculations about the speed of travel of snails?

Also how could a few million people travel across a desert for close to half a century and not leave a shred of archaeological evidence to prove the journey actually took place?

Hmm, so you are a supporter of arguments from silence? A nomadic people in a desert environment tend not to leave too much behind that we would expect to find thousands of years later.

JimiTime

Indeed. I think its getting to the stage with so many people, that the bible is so much of a joke to them at this stage, that everything is up for being cannon fodder. I mean, if one doesn't believe in God, then all its writers were complete liars, so why would you believe anything from it.
I remember seeing a historian talking about Babylon on the TV a few years back saying 'The bible describes Babylon as a godless people. How wrong it is, as we see they had many Gods.':rolleyes: Talk about completely missing the point! I can see how someone may then say, 'Well historians say the bible was wrong about babylon being godless'.
Good post though PDN.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I mean, if one doesn't believe in God, then all its writers were complete liars, so why would you believe anything from it.

Ye gods, jimi, take it easy! Just because I think that god doesn't exist, doesn't also mean that I think the bible was written by a pack of liars, any more than I think that Homer was a liar for writing the Odyssey.

There is a reasonable middle ground between the two extreme and untenable positions that everything in the bible is true, and everything in the bible is false.

Galvasean

I'm thinking maybe 40 days instead of 40 years sounds more reasonable. Could have been a mistranslation or something.
I certainly don't believe the parting of the red sea bit, but certainly they may have been able to take advantage of a shallow ford or something.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm thinking maybe 40 days instead of 40 years sounds more reasonable. Could have been a mistranslation or something.
I certainly don't believe the parting of the red sea bit, but certainly they may have been able to take advantage of a shallow ford or something.

If you read everything that happened in those 40 years then it would be absolutely impossible for them to have happened in 40 days. Why create an issue over translation when the text makes it clear that they spent 40 years in the wilderness and explains just why they had to spend 40 years there?

As for the shallow ford? In that case I will praise God for the even bigger miracle he performed by drowning the entire Egyptian army in a shallow ford! Why, that sounds like an even bigger miracle than the parting of the Red Sea!

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Do Christians really believe the story of the Exodus out of Egypt? I mean even those who believe the Bible is innerant must surely be a little unsure about this story?

The whole thing just never made sense to me, I mean where did these so-called slaves get all their gold from that they could build a statue to worship, what kind of slaves are allowed by their masters to keep gold? How on earth could it take all those people 40 years to walk just 250 miles? That is a rate of under 6 miles PER YEAR or 0.0007 miles per hour! I would call that snail's pace but I think that would be insulting to snails because from a quick calculation I would make it that a snail would travel the same distance in roughly 13 years (without taking a break, admittedly). Also how could a few million people travel across a desert for close to half a century and not leave a shred of archaeological evidence to prove the journey actually took place?

Can Christians actually take this story seriously or would you accept that the story of Moses leading the Jews to the Promised Land is either mostly or entirely fictional?

You're focusing on the time element while ignoring the small matter of the parting of the Red Sea? I view the content of the bible as any other collection of primary and secondary sources, with suspicion. However, I don't see much in the exodus journey itself to be especially skeptical of. The time of its occurrence is not clear so pinning down the archeological evidence could be tricky.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, so you are a supporter of arguments from silence? A nomadic people in a desert environment tend not to leave too much behind that we would expect to find thousands of years later.

I would be a supporter of an argument from silence when we are talking about 600,000 men, plus presumably an equal number of women and then an even greater number of children, all within a relatively confined space simply couldn't help but leave massive evidence for their presence. I mean how many hundreds of people would die every single day, the desert should be filled with mass burial grounds, broken pottery etc.

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I would be a supporter of an argument from silence when we are talking about 600,000 men, plus presumably an equal number of women and then an even greater number of children, all within a relatively confined space simply couldn't help but leave massive evidence for their presence. I mean how many hundreds of people would die every single day, the desert should be filled with mass burial grounds, broken pottery etc.

Really depends on how large the area actually is (were they actually confined in any manner at all other than being unable to return to Egypt or enter Israel?) and how long ago it occurred. The date range is from about 3000 BC to 1000 BC.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

If you read everything that happened in those 40 years then it would be absolutely impossible for them to have happened in 40 days. Why create an issue over translation when the text makes it clear that they spent 40 years in the wilderness and explains just why they had to spend 40 years there?

Fair enough.

PDN wrote:

As for the shallow ford? In that case I will praise God for the even bigger miracle he performed by drowning the entire Egyptian army in a shallow ford! Why, that sounds like an even bigger miracle than the parting of the Red Sea!

Flash floods are nowhere near as common as someone using divine powers to part a sea.

Pompey Magnus

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Really depends on how large the area actually is (were they actually confined in any manner at all other than being unable to return to Egypt or enter Israel?) and how long ago it occurred. The date range is from about 3000 BC to 1000 BC.

Well when I say confined I really meant it is a pretty well defined area where they were, the Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, the Jews could not go too far off course because of coastal boundaries. The entire Sinai peninsula is a good bit smaller in area than Ireland. Imagine dumping a few million people in the Galway and have them wander around for 40 years before they manage to find Dublin, they would have to leave some mark of their presence.

In Numbers Chapters 13 and 14 the Bible describes how the Israelites walked those 250 miles in a very short space of time. Then they sent out some spies to scout out the land. The spies spent 40 days doing this, and then brought back a discouraging report about the strength of the occupants of the Promised Land. The bulk of the Israelites, on the basis of this report, refused to obey God's instruction to enter the land. As a punishment for their belief God said that generation would wander in the wilderness for 40 years, one year for every day that they scouted out the land.

Well that sort of makes sense. Of course it leaves the question open as to why they the Jews were so afraid of what could only have been relatively small tribal communities present in the Promised Land after their God had just obliterated the entire army of the global Superpower of the time, Egypt.

I also wonder how that event affected the regional power structures at the time, for Egypt to suffer such a devastating blow as losing its military might presumably left it wide open to external invasion and perhaps slave revolt, I wonder if there is any evidence in history for any of these things happening?

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well when I say confined I really meant it is a pretty well defined area where they were, the Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, the Jews could not go too far off course because of coastal boundaries. The entire Sinai peninsula is a good bit smaller in area than Ireland. Imagine dumping a few million people in the Galway and have them wander around for 40 years before they manage to find Dublin, they would have to leave some mark of their presence.

That area is more like three quarters that of Ireland. 600,000-1,200,000 people in an area the size of the Republic. Had they settled we'd certainly expect to find evidence but nomadic peoples tend to leave little evidence of their existence behind even when they persist for hundreds of years. These guys were about for just 40 years. A passing moment in archeological terms.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well when I say confined I really meant it is a pretty well defined area where they were, the Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, the Jews could not go too far off course because of coastal boundaries. The entire Sinai peninsula is a good bit smaller in area than Ireland. Imagine dumping a few million people in the Galway and have them wander around for 40 years before they manage to find Dublin, they would have to leave some mark of their presence.

I don't see that such evidence would be expected to remain after thousands of years. Your argument from silence here is as about as convincing as when the Creationists talk about missing links. Maybe you've been spending too much time reading the Creationism thread?

Well that sort of makes sense. Of course it leaves the question open as to why they the Jews were so afraid of what could only have been relatively small tribal communities present in the Promised Land after their God had just obliterated the entire army of the global Superpower of the time, Egypt.

They were afraid of giants and of walled cities such as Jericho. Of course they should have believed God, but lack of faith is frequently irrational, isn't it?

I also wonder how that event affected the regional power structures at the time, for Egypt to suffer such a devastating blow as losing its military might presumably left it wide open to external invasion and perhaps slave revolt, I wonder if there is any evidence in history for any of these things happening?

As with any civilisation, the ancient Egyptians suffered invasion, rebellions and periods of unrest and collapse. Various attempts have been made to link some of these with the Israelites. I believe Josephus made some such attempt by trying to identify the Israelites as the Hyksos people.

I know some have identified Pepy II as the pharaoh who opposed Moses. This would place it at the end of the Old Kingdom (around 2200 BC) when there was political turmoil, famine, a cessation of trading with Egypt's trading partners, and economic collapse which included the abandonment of perfectly viable mining operations. I don't pretend to know enough about Egyptian history or chronology to say whether they have a point or whether they are talking junk.

Pompey Magnus

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That area is more like three quarters that of Ireland. 600,000-1,200,000 people in an area the size of the Republic. Had they settled we'd certainly expect to find evidence but nomadic peoples tend to leave little evidence of their existence behind even when they persist for hundreds of years. These guys were about for just 40 years. A passing moment in archeological terms.

How many nomadic communities are made up of a couple of million people? They are usually made up of a small number of families. Anyways, it isn't really up to me to prove that the Exodus didn't happen, as with all historical claims it should be up to those who say it did happen to provide resonable proof for it. Absence of evidence may not be proof that an event didn't happen but it certainly doesn't help the claim that it did happen.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How many nomadic communities are made up of a couple of million people? They are usually made up of a small number of families. Anyways, it isn't really up to me to prove that the Exodus didn't happen, as with all historical claims it should be up to those who say it did happen to provide resonable proof for it. Absence of evidence may not be proof that an event didn't happen but it certainly doesn't help the claim that it did happen.

If you come on to the Christianity forum and start trying to tell us that the biblical account is clearly fictional then the burden of proof certainly lies with you. So far you have offered three arguments:

1. Where did the gold come from? (Answer: Already explained in Exodus)
2. Why did it take them 40 years to reach Canaan. (Answer: Already explained in Numbers)
3. An argument from silence based on the lack of evidence left behind by nomads over 3000 years ago.

Then you try to tell us we have to prove something? No way Jose.

Bduffman

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Really depends on how large the area actually is (were they actually confined in any manner at all other than being unable to return to Egypt or enter Israel?) and how long ago it occurred. The date range is from about 3000 BC to 1000 BC.

I didn't realise that those were the kind of dates that exodus was (supposed) to have taken place. So if people take exodus literally - then I presume they also take genesis literally as well, yes? Which means that the earth may only have been 1,000 years old at the time of exodus? So...um...where were the dinosaurs?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

I didn't realise that those were the kind of dates that exodus was (supposed) to have taken place. So if people take exodus literally - then I presume they also take genesis literally as well, yes? Which means that the earth may only have been 1,000 years old at the time of exodus? So...um...where were the dinosaurs?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are being serious and not trolling.

1. Plenty of Christians treat Exodus as literal history but read the opening chapters of Genesis as a metaphorical description. This is due to their differing literary characteristics.

2. Plenty of Christians read Genesis as literal history but do not subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. In other words they believe that the earth may be much older.

3. If you want to discuss dinosaurs without earning infractions then turn left on the way in and join the Creationism thread.

Have a nice day.

PDN

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are being serious and not trolling.

1. Plenty of Christians treat Exodus as literal history but read the opening chapters of Genesis as a metaphorical description. This is due to their differing literary characteristics.

2. Plenty of Christians read Genesis as literal history but do not subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. In other words they believe that the earth may be much older.

3. If you want to discuss dinosaurs without earning infractions then turn left on the way in and join the Creationism thread.

Have a nice day. PDN

No - I was being (reasonably) serious. But your reply above does show the vast - and I really mean extremely vast - range of beliefs that can be derived from these couple of books alone. Whether these books are literal or symbolic, whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?
I find it comparable to a la carte catholics - just pick what you want to believe in as fact & call the rest 'metaphorical' if its a bit too 'out there'.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

No - I was being (reasonably) serious. But your reply above does show the vast - and I really mean extremely vast - range of beliefs that can be derived from these couple of books alone. Whether these books are literal or symbolic, whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?
I find it comparable to a la carte catholics - just pick what you want to believe in as fact & call the rest 'metaphorical' if its a bit too 'out there'.

No, the age of the earth does not determine my entire philosophy at all. Where on earth do you get such an idea?

As for determining whether something is literal or symbolic, that is the very nature of language. For example, look at a piece of text randomly lifted from skysports.com:

DOMENECH SPARED THE AXE
Raymond Domenech will remain as manager of France despite a disastrous showing at Euro 2008.

Les Bleus were among the pre-tournament favourites heading into the European Championship, but limped out at the group stages with just a solitary point and a single goal to show for their efforts.

The embarrassing nature of their exit had led to suggestions that their coach would find it difficult to retain his post.

Now, I assume that the article is speaking literally when it says that France only scored one goal in Euro 2008. However, I also assume that the headline about the axe is metaphorical - unless you think the French football authorities really were planning to decapitate the unsuccessful coach. Both of these are fairly safe assumptions.

However, imagine that we were to read this report in 500 years time. How do we interpret the line about the French team having "limped out at the group stages"? Since we would no longer be familiar with what happened at the tournament we could interpret that literally or metaphorically. Maybe the French were kicked off the park by the Italians (literally limping off the pitch). Or maybe the word 'limped' is being used metaphorically, meaning that the manner of their exit was uninspiring. Either way, how we interpret that particular line will not affect our understanding of the main point of the report - that the French did crap but the coach appears to have kept his job.

I just picked that example by random. Any kind of text or oral communication uses both literal and metaphorical language, and we usually do OK in getting the point. The Bible is no different.

To compare that to a la carte Catholicism is indeed 'out there'.

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

Whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?
I find it comparable to a la carte catholics - just pick what you want to believe in as fact & call the rest 'metaphorical' if its a bit too 'out there'.

Well, you don't know much about what a Christian is if you think that the earths age determines their entire philosophy.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Ye gods, jimi, take it easy! Just because I think that god doesn't exist, doesn't also mean that I think the bible was written by a pack of liars, any more than I think that Homer was a liar for writing the Odyssey.

There is a reasonable middle ground between the two extreme and untenable positions that everything in the bible is true, and everything in the bible is false.

It was an honest assesment, I wasn't annoyed if thats how it sounded. Does Homers odyssey claim to be true? Or does Homer claim its true? I don't know, but if he doesn't, then its not a valid comparrison. If he does claim its true, and its not, then he is indeed a liar.

If God does not exist, then much of the bible is lie's, and virtually all of it very unrelliable. What would be your reasonable middle ground? Moses said God spoke to him, that Gods hand wrote the 10 commandments. If you don't believe in God, then you must think he is a liar, thus his historical accounts must be deemed very unreliable. If you believe Jesus never did what the gospel writers claimed, then again, they are unreliable liars. I don't see much wiggle room, as virtually all of the bible writers claimed Godly experiences; and not just the 'i had a feeling' type experiences we get from some folk today.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

It was an honest assesment, I wasn't annoyed if thats how it sounded. Does Homers odyssey claim to be true? Or does Homer claim its true? I don't know, but if he doesn't, then its not a valid comparrison. If he does claim its true, and its not, then he is indeed a liar.

If God does not exist, then much of the bible is lie's, and virtually all of it very unrelliable. What would be your reasonable middle ground? Moses said God spoke to him, that Gods hand wrote the 10 commandments. If you don't believe in God, then you must think he is a liar, thus his historical accounts must be deemed very unreliable. If you believe Jesus never did what the gospel writers claimed, then again, they are unreliable liars. I don't see much wiggle room, as virtually all of the bible writers claimed Godly experiences.

A trilemma: Liars, Lunatics or Truthful Writers.

(Sorry, I tried to keep the alliteration and come up with something starting with L - but couldn't think of anything).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Any kind of text or oral communication uses both literal and metaphorical language, and we usually do OK in getting the point. The Bible is no different.

This point has come up fairly often in the past, but I each time it does, I still find myself as entertained as I am baffled that you actually do appear to believe it.

You would agree that if the text really was unambiguous, then everybody who reads the bible would acquire pretty much the same understanding about the text. But at the same time, it's splendidly clear, even within this tiny forum with its tiny population, that there are vast and frequently irreconcilable differences of interpretation about almost everything bar the very few things that the religious can collectively agree upon.

Hence my bafflement -- can you not connect the dots here?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

A trilemma: Liars, Lunatics or Truthful Writers.

(Sorry, I tried to keep the alliteration and come up with something starting with L - but couldn't think of anything).

To quote meatloaf, 2 out of 3 aint bad:)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

A trilemma: Liars, Lunatics or Truthful Writers. (Sorry, I tried to keep the alliteration and come up with something starting with L - but couldn't think of anything).

Mendacious, mad or moral?
False, frenzied or factual?
Counterfeit, crazy or correct?

Do feel free to pepper your next sermon with these

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Mendacious, mad or moral?
False, frenzied or factual?
Counterfeit, crazy or correct?

Do feel free to pepper your next sermon with these

Robin, you should have been a preacher.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

No, the age of the earth does not determine my entire philosophy at all. Where on earth do you get such an idea?

Where did I state it was your philosophy? It is A philosophy held by some christians - young earth creationists. I wouldn't dare paint you all with the same brush - there are way too many hues of christian to be able to do that.

And I'm afraid your football analogy doesn't really stand up to the argument really. It's obvious what is literal & what is not in that statement - any reasonably well educated person can tell the difference. But the bible - thats another story. There are huge differences between those at one end of the spectrum who take it all literally & those who take most of it as symbolism - and a lot in between (just take a look at the flesh & blood thread).
So in the case of exodus - some christians take parts of it as symbolic - some take it all as literal. Genesis? - much the same except the symbolic faction probably have the edge.
So my question is - who decides?? Who decides what is literal & what is not? Its just personal opinion - right?
So where is the truth you all talk about?

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

Where did I state it was your philosophy?

See below :pac:

Bduffman wrote: »

No - I was being (reasonably) serious. But your reply above does show the vast - and I really mean extremely vast - range of beliefs that can be derived from these couple of books alone. Whether these books are literal or symbolic, whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?

I'm beginning to think that you have lumped all Christians together out ignorance, then did a little back-track when pulled up on it.

Bduffman wrote: »

It is A philosophy held by some christians - young earth creationists. I wouldn't dare paint you all with the same brush - there are way too many hues of christian to be able to do that.

And I'm afraid your football analogy doesn't really stand up to the argument really. It's obvious what is literal & what is not in that statement - any reasonably well educated person can tell the difference.

I thought the analogy worked perfectly well.

Yes. The metaphorical and literal parts of the article may be perfectly obvious to you now. But that does nothing to counter PDN's point.

Slav

I think everybody, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. (not to mention Jews) would agree that the story about 40 years in the desert is probably the most beautiful in the Bible and there is still some mystics about it. A fair and wise punishment for the panic and cowardice: none of you, apart from Joshua and Caleb, will enter the Promised Land. And none of them did including Moses himself.

Now, according to the Jewish tradition it was the 9th of Av when the scouts came back from Canaan. It is still the most tragic date in Jewish calendar. Every summer on Tisha B'Av, the day of strict fast and mourning, Jews are commemorating all the calamities that keep falling on that date. So:

On the 9th of Av, on the way from Egypt to Canaan, Israelis were sentenced to 40 years in the desert so all adults would die there and would not enter the Promised Land,

On the 9th of Av 586 BCE the First Temple was destroyed by Babylonians,

On the 9th of Av 70 CE the Second Temple was destroyed by Romans,

On the 9th of Av 132 CE Jerusalem is razed by Hadrian,

On the 9th of Av 135 CE failed the city of Beitar. That was the end of the last revolt (Bar Kokhba Revolt) and therefore the beginning of the last Galut.

Later some significant and tragic events in Jewish history also fell exactly on the 9th of Av or within a couple of days before of after:

1095: Pope Urban II declared First Crusade.

1290: England expelled Jews.

1306: France expelled Jews.

1492: Spain expelled Jews.

1555: Pope Paul IV issued Cum Nimis Absurdum bull that restricted the rights of Jews and created the Jewish Ghetto in Rome.

1914: Germany declared war on Russia, World War I began.

1941: Hermann Göring issued the (in)famous memo on the so-called "Final Solution"

1942: First day of deportation of about 250000 Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka death camp.

Pompey Magnus

Bduffman wrote: »

So my question is - who decides?? Who decides what is literal & what is not? Its just personal opinion - right?
So where is the truth you all talk about?

This reminds me, I was recently reading an article about the various Christian denominations and their attitudes towards salvation, how a soul can get into Heaven. It really is laughable because they all seem to have different attitudes towards what someone must do to be saved and all these conflicting conclusions are based on passages from the New Testament.

Some believe that you only need to hear the Gospels and believe to get into Heaven because John said so: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."
Some believe you must do good deeds because James said so: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
Others believe good deeds are unnecessary because Ephesians says so: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."
Others believe in predestination of the saved.

Strangely though not too many believe Matthew when he said that a person must follow the Torah, "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

These are just a snapshot of the various methods for being saved, all can confidently point out passages in the New Testament which support their claims whilst at the same time dismissing the conclusions of opposing denominations even though they too have just as good evidence for their interpretation. After 2,000 years of analysing the Bible even the Christians themselves haven't a clue what it really says about even a basic question such as salvation. They have all found what they consider to be "truth", even though their "truth" might differ significantly from another Christian's "truth".

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

And I'm afraid your football analogy doesn't really stand up to the argument really. It's obvious what is literal & what is not in that statement - any reasonably well educated person can tell the difference.

Not so. The reference to France having 'limped' out of the group stages could be literal (particularly if France had injury problems or if the Italians had committed a lot of fouls) or symbolic. However, the uncertainty over that point does not affect our understanding of the main point of the article - that the team performed badly and the coach nearly got fired.

In the same way the main points of the Scriptural message are clear and obvious enough for anyone who uses standard hermeneutical methods (as we would apply to other documents).

Yes, there is disagreement over secondary issues - which makes life a bit more interesting.

just take a look at the flesh & blood thread

That is not an example of genuine differing interpretations. The Roman Catholic slant on this, that the verse refers to the mass, is a reading back of later traditions into the text. If someone was to come fresh to the biblical text, with no knowledge of Catholic tradition and doctrine, they would never come to this conclusion in a month of Sundays.

So my question is - who decides?? Who decides what is literal & what is not? Its just personal opinion - right?
So where is the truth you all talk about?

You could ask this about anything. Creationism or Evolution - who decides? In the end people have to make their own minds up - but one of the viewpoints is still truth.

On some (relatively minor) points of Biblical interpretation there is room for different interpretations and discussion. That's OK, it doesn't affect anyone's salvation, and we should be adult enough to use our intelligence.

Fanny Cradock

All of the passages you mentioned have something in common.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Some believe that you only need to hear the Gospels and believe to get into Heaven because John said so: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."
Some believe you must do good deeds because James said so: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
Others believe good deeds are unnecessary because Ephesians says so: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."
Others believe in predestination of the saved.

As an aside. Is there any belief held as widely as Christianity that has uniformity amongst it's followers? I don't see why the ultimate truth of Christianity should hang on whether millions of Christians over 1000's of years have or have not reached disagreements.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see why the ultimate truth of Christianity should hang on whether millions of Christians over 1000's of years have or have not reached disagreements.

Well, lack of uniformity does cause structural problems for members of belief systems, like christianity, in which you're generally required to believe the right thing, and avoid believing the wrong thing, in order to elude that eternal tubful of sulfer.

It does suggest that there's going to be (literally for once, I suppose ) a hell of a lot of disappointed christians receiving their marching orders up on judgment day.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that you have lumped all Christians together out ignorance, then did a little back-track when pulled up on it.

No - I think you know very well what I was stating - I was not trying to state the beliefs of just one poster - just trying to emphasise the diversity between christians belief. If I was not clear I apologise.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I thought the analogy worked perfectly well.

Yes. The metaphorical and literal parts of the article may be perfectly obvious to you now. But that does nothing to counter PDN's point.

Yes it does. We know what happened in Euro 2008 because we saw it on television with our own eyes - we have proof - therefore we know what is literal in that statement & what is metaphorical.
So back to my question - who decides what is literal & what is symbolic in the bible?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Not so. The reference to France having 'limped' out of the group stages could be literal (particularly if France had injury problems or if the Italians had committed a lot of fouls) or symbolic. However, the uncertainty over that point does not affect our understanding of the main point of the article - that the team performed badly and the coach nearly got fired.

How many people would you say thought the phrase 'limped' meant something literal in this case?

PDN wrote: »

In the same way the main points of the Scriptural message are clear and obvious enough for anyone who uses standard hermeneutical methods (as we would apply to other documents).

Meaning you? So why doesn't everyone else use this method? Are they all wrong?

PDN wrote: »

That is not an example of genuine differing interpretations. The Roman Catholic slant on this, that the verse refers to the mass, is a reading back of later traditions into the text. If someone was to come fresh to the biblical text, with no knowledge of Catholic tradition and doctrine, they would never come to this conclusion in a month of Sundays.

So the catholic church is wrong because they are taking the literal interpretation & you are right because you take the symbolic? But you take exodus at literal??

PDN wrote: »

You could ask this about anything. Creationism or Evolution - who decides? In the end people have to make their own minds up - but one of the viewpoints is still truth.

Yes but whose viewpoint is the truth? As there are many viewpoints amongst christians - there is a strong chance that you are one of the wrong ones.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

How many people would you say thought the phrase 'limped' meant something literal in this case?

I certainly wondered. Because of my travels I didn't see a single one of France's games. I think it is probably symbolic, but I am open to correction if France had an injury crisis.

Someone who read this account years later could easily take it literally, particularly if they read this article about the same tournament which refers to Turkey 'limping' towards their semi-final with Germany in a more literal sense due to an injury crisis: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/06/25/sfnger125.xml

Meaning you? So why doesn't everyone else use this method? Are they all wrong?

So you think I am alone in employing standard hermeneutical principles? Get real. Biblical scholars of all religious traditions and backgrounds (and indeed of none) have reached a fair consensus on how to do biblical exegesis.

'Everyone' else doesn't use this method for the same reason that 'everyone' doesn't use sound logic, or that 'everyone' doesn't use sound methods of scientific research. Human beings are varied and, apart from breathing, it's hard to find anything that 'everyone' does in the same way.

So the catholic church is wrong because they are taking the literal interpretation & you are right because you take the symbolic? But you take exodus at literal??

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I believe the Catholic Church is wrong because they take their later tradition and then try to read it back into the Biblical text. I also believe that even if the Catholic Church were to be right, and it literally does become the Body and Blood of Christ, that would have no bearing on what the Bible teaches about salvation - so no great harm would be done. I believe that the Exodus account is literal because everything we know about similar ancient literature leads Christians and non-Christians alike to the conclusion that it was meant to be taken by its original readers. That is what we call exegesis (discovering what the text meant to its original readers) rather than eisegesis (reading our own ideas into the text).

Yes but whose viewpoint is the truth? As there are many viewpoints amongst christians - there is a strong chance that you are one of the wrong ones.

Let's unpack your logic here. There are many different theories of how human life was created. So, if you believe in evolution, that must mean that there is a strong chance that you are wrong. Would you agree? If there are 10,000 creation myths among human societies rather than just 10 - do you think that actually decreases the chances of evolution being correct? Or do you believe that a theory that follows commonly accepted academic and scientific procedures is actually more valid than those that don't - irrespective of how numerous those other theories might be?

I certainly don't believe my interpretation of everything in the Bible to be infallible. But I do try to follow recognised and academically respectable procedures that apply to the interpretation of literature, and I believe that makes my interpretations more likely to be correct than those which don't follow such procedures. What is unreasonable about that?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

I certainly wondered. Because of my travels I didn't see a single one of France's games. I think it is probably symbolic, but I am open to correction if France had an injury crisis.

Someone who read this account years later could easily take it literally, particularly if they read this article about the same tournament which refers to Turkey 'limping' towards their semi-final with Germany in a more literal sense due to an injury crisis

The very fact that you read that article & raise the possibility that someone could confuse the literal references with the symbolic ones probably best explains the differences between christians & atheists.

PDN wrote: »

So you think I am alone in employing standard hermeneutical principles? Get real. Biblical scholars of all religious traditions and backgrounds (and indeed of none) have reached a fair consensus on how to do biblical exegesis.

'Everyone' else doesn't use this method for the same reason that 'everyone' doesn't use sound logic, or that 'everyone' doesn't use sound methods of scientific research. Human beings are varied and, apart from breathing, it's hard to find anything that 'everyone' does in the same way.

No - I don't believe you are alone in using your methods. When I state 'everyone else' I mean every other point of view other than your own & those who share your view. But the very fact that many very different versions of the truth can be derived depending on what method you use must create serious problems for biblical scholars.

PDN wrote: »

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I believe the Catholic Church is wrong because they take their later tradition and then try to read it back into the Biblical text. I also believe that even if the Catholic Church were to be right, and it literally does become the Body and Blood of Christ, that would have no bearing on what the Bible teaches about salvation - so no great harm would be done. I believe that the Exodus account is literal because everything we know about similar ancient literature leads Christians and non-Christians alike to the conclusion that it was meant to be taken by its original readers. That is what we call exegesis (discovering what the text meant to its original readers) rather than eisegesis (reading our own ideas into the text).

So you do genuinely believe that god parted the red sea? If he got directly involved in peoples lives in that way back then, why doesn't he do it now? Is it because there is a risk that one of his 'miracles' may be caught on camera & ruin his aura of mysteriousness? Why hasn't he performed miracles on that scale in the scientific era???

PDN wrote: »

Let's unpack your logic here. There are many different theories of how human life was created. So, if you believe in evolution, that must mean that there is a strong chance that you are wrong. Would you agree? If there are 10,000 creation myths among human societies rather than just 10 - do you think that actually decreases the chances of evolution being correct? Or do you believe that a theory that follows commonly accepted academic and scientific procedures is actually more valid than those that don't - irrespective of how numerous those other theories might be?

I think you need to get your facts right. One doesn't 'believe' in evolution. Evolution is not in itself proof that there is no god. Neither is it an absolute explanation of how life began. But it does logically explain how species evolve. The difference is, evolution is a scientific theory open to rigorous examination - if it is proved wrong in the morning then it will disappear. The same is not true of religion. You believe god created life without any evidence? Well fine. But I'm open to logical suggestions as to how life was created.

PDN wrote: »

I certainly don't believe my interpretation of everything in the Bible to be infallible. But I do try to follow recognised and academically respectable procedures that apply to the interpretation of literature, and I believe that makes my interpretations more likely to be correct than those which don't follow such procedures. What is unreasonable about that?

Nothing. But how can you apply those rigorous procedures & still come to the conclusion that those miracles happened? If it happened today would you think it was god or some sort of natural phenomenon?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

The very fact that you read that article & raise the possibility that someone could confuse the literal references with the symbolic ones probably best explains the differences between christians & atheists.

No, not at all. I have had discussions with some atheists who are quite intelligent, perfectly capable of engaging in a rational debate about the use and meaning of language, and able to understand the use of illustrations.

No - I don't believe you are alone in using your methods. When I state 'everyone else' I mean every other point of view other than your own & those who share your view. But the very fact that many very different versions of the truth can be derived depending on what method you use must create serious problems for biblical scholars.

Why? The same is true of any other field of study. The fact that people come to wrong conclusions if they use dodgy methods would be just as true in scientific research, history, medicine etc as in biblical studies.

So you do genuinely believe that god parted the red sea? If he got directly involved in peoples lives in that way back then, why doesn't he do it now? Is it because there is a risk that one of his 'miracles' may be caught on camera & ruin his aura of mysteriousness? Why hasn't he performed miracles on that scale in the scientific era???

Stop trying to change the subject. The issue we have been discussing for the last few posts is whether Exodus is intended to be taken literally (something which just about every biblical scholar that has ever lived agrees on), and if so why? Whether I personally believe that the Red Sea parted (which incidentally I do) has no bearing whatsoever on whether the author of Exodus intended his account to be taken literally or not. You are trying to turn the Red Sea into a red herring. Naughty.

I think you need to get your facts right. One doesn't 'believe' in evolution.

Maybe you should explain that to your pals in the atheist fraternity. Then they might not come on here starting polls and threads entitled 'Do you Believe in Evolution?' Anyway what are you talking about? One doesn't 'believe' in a theory? Nonsense. I believe in the theory of gravity.

Evolution is not in itself proof that there is no god.

Did I, or anyone else in this thread, say it was?

Neither is it an absolute explanation of how life began.

Did I, or anyone else in his thread, say it was?

But it does logically explain how species evolve. The difference is, evolution is a scientific theory open to rigorous examination - if it is proved wrong in the morning then it will disappear. The same is not true of religion. You believe god created life without any evidence? Well fine. But I'm open to logical suggestions as to how life was created.

Now you've got that irrelevant little rant off your chest, would you answer my question. Is the likelihood of evolution being true lessened by the fact that there are 10,000 creation myths in the world rather than 10? Or is a conclusion reached by a sensible methodology inherently weighter than those that are reached by wrong methodologies. It's not a trick question and should be easy enough to answer.

My point is that an interpretation of a Biblical text reached by sound methodology (hermeneutical principles shared with those who study literature and ancient texts) is more likely to be correct than interpretations reached by other means. That principle is good whether the competing (but based on poor methodology) interpretations are few or many. So, your argument that the existence of many interpretations somehow makes my own less likely to be correct is based on poor logic.

But how can you apply those rigorous procedures & still come to the conclusion that those miracles happened?

Once again you are conflating two separate issues.

Those rigorous procedures can lead me to a interpretation of what the Book of Exodus actually intended to communicate to its original readers. I have been concentrating on that fact ever since you tried to introduce an element of confusion in this thread over what is literal and what is symbolic.

The issue of whether I believe the Book of Exodus to be accurate or not is another matter entirely. That involves faith, my previous experiences of God, and the testimony of others whom I trust about their experiences of God.

If it happened today would you think it was god or some sort of natural phenomenon?

That would depend on the circumstances of the event.

Let's take the parting of the Red Sea. If that occurred as a random event then I would be inclined to ask if there were a natural explanation. So, if I saw a photograph of a sea parted in two, with the water standing like a wall on either side, I would listen very carefully to any geologists or whoever who could come up with a plausible explanation. I certainly do not ascribe everything new or unusual to a miracle.

However, what if it transpired that the sea in the photograph had parted exactly at the moment when a religious leader had raised his staff in the air and told a huge crowd of witnesses that they were about to see something special? What if that parting of the sea actually provided those witnesses with an amazing escape from a deadly situation? What if it further transpired that the same religious leader had similarly predicted a string of amazing phenomena (the plagues in Egypt) just before they happened? In that case I would be much more inclined to see the parting of the sea as a God-event.

Bduffman

I hope you don't mind but due to time constraints I'd like to reply just to the relevant topics from your last post

PDN wrote: »

Stop trying to change the subject. The issue we have been discussing for the last few posts is whether Exodus is intended to be taken literally (something which just about every biblical scholar that has ever lived agrees on), and if so why? Whether I personally believe that the Red Sea parted (which incidentally I do) has no bearing whatsoever on whether the author of Exodus intended his account to be taken literally or not. You are trying to turn the Red Sea into a red herring. Naughty. .

How am I changing the subject exactly? If you look at the OP you will see that Exodus is the subject. Anyway, I'm a bit confused by your statements in bold above. If the author meant it to be metaphorical then that obviously has a bearing on what you would believe - surely? I mean if he made it up to illustrate some lesson or other, then you are wrong in believing it actually happened- no?

PDN wrote: »

Did I, or anyone else in this thread, say it was?

Yes - you implied it in a statement about 'how human life was created' . However, evolution is primarily about how it evolved. Theres a clue in the name.

PDN wrote: »

Now you've got that irrelevant little rant off your chest, would you answer my question. Is the likelihood of evolution being true lessened by the fact that there are 10,000 creation myths in the world rather than 10? Or is a conclusion reached by a sensible methodology inherently weighter than those that are reached by wrong methodologies. It's not a trick question and should be easy enough to answer.

Yes it is easy to answer. Christians have multiple interpretations of a books that were written mostly by persons unknown, that were possibly updated/changed/rewitten over several centuries by people with their own interpretations. Therefore all further interpretations are a matter of opinion no matter what 'procedure' you use. As none of these are based on testable facts - all must be given equal status - diluting each one accordingly. Evolution however (as I've already stated) is a scientific theory based on rigorous examination. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how many other conflicting theories there are - only the quality of those other theories matter.

PDN wrote: »

My point is that an interpretation of a Biblical text reached by sound methodology (hermeneutical principles shared with those who study literature and ancient texts) is more likely to be correct than interpretations reached by other means. That principle is good whether the competing (but based on poor methodology) interpretations are few or many. So, your argument that the existence of many interpretations somehow makes my own less likely to be correct is based on poor logic.

Addressed above

PDN wrote: »

The issue of whether I believe the Book of Exodus to be accurate or not is another matter entirely. That involves faith, my previous experiences of God, and the testimony of others whom I trust about their experiences of God.

So why do you not have the same 'faith' in genesis?

PDN wrote: »

Let's take the parting of the Red Sea. If that occurred as a random event then I would be inclined to ask if there were a natural explanation. So, if I saw a photograph of a sea parted in two, with the water standing like a wall on either side, I would listen very carefully to any geologists or whoever who could come up with a plausible explanation. I certainly do not ascribe everything new or unusual to a miracle.

However, what if it transpired that the sea in the photograph had parted exactly at the moment when a religious leader had raised his staff in the air and told a huge crowd of witnesses that they were about to see something special? What if that parting of the sea actually provided those witnesses with an amazing escape from a deadly situation? What if it further transpired that the same religious leader had similarly predicted a string of amazing phenomena (the plagues in Egypt) just before they happened? In that case I would be much more inclined to see the parting of the sea as a God-event.

So now its time for you to answer my previous question - why hasn't this kind of huge event happened in the scientific / technological age?

Minder

There is a possible rational, scientific explanation for the events in the Exodus story, the eruption of the volcanic island of Santorini.

Evidence for the ten plagues and the Exodus
Epidemiologist Dr John Marr believes most of the ten plagues could have been caused by polluted water in the Nile poisoning fish and setting off a tragic chain of events. Meanwhile, Professor Costas Synolakis, a leading tsunami expert, believes a massive volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in 1600BCE could have generated a giant tidal wave that struck the Nile Delta. This incredibly powerful wave could be linked to the parting of a 'reed sea' in the delta that could explain how the story of the 'Red Sea' parting into two walls of water was written centuries later.

The ten plagues
In the Bible, the ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea are miracles – acts of God working through nature. Can any of them be explained scientifically? Scientific experts such as climatologists, oceanographers and vulcanologists suggest that there is evidence that a string of natural events triggered phenomena that could explain the story of the plagues and the parting of the sea.

More information on the link above.

Bduffman

Minder wrote: »

There is a possible rational, scientific explanation for the events in the Exodus story, the eruption of the volcanic island of Santorini.

Interesting theory. But of course, you do realise that even if this were proved, the religious reply would be that god caused the eruption.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

I hope you don't mind but due to time constraints I'd like to reply just to the relevant topics from your last post

How am I changing the subject exactly? If you look at the OP you will see that Exodus is the subject.

You introduced an objection about what is literal and what is symbolic. It is difficult for us to discuss that properly if you keep switching the topic under debate.

Anyway, I'm a bit confused by your statements in bold above. If the author meant it to be metaphorical then that obviously has a bearing on what you would believe - surely? I mean if he made it up to illustrate some lesson or other, then you are wrong in believing it actually happened- no?

I think your confusion is due to putting the cart before the horse. My bold-faced statement said that my belief about the historicity of the events in Exodus have no bearing as to whether the author intended it to be taken literally. In other words, the meaning of Exodus cannot be contingent upon my beliefs - that would be eisegesis. What you have just stated above is rather about my beliefs being contingent upon the meaning of Exodus - that is exegesis and so entirely proper.

If the intended meaning of the author of Exodus was symbolic, then it would be rather silly of me to believe the events actually happened. However, as already stated, the consensus of Biblical and literary scholarship is overwhelmingly in favour of a literal meaning.

Yes - you implied it in a statement about 'how human life was created' . However, evolution is primarily about how it evolved. Theres a clue in the name.

The clue was in the word 'human'. But I think you're quibbling about semantics because, in a discussion on the Christianity forum, a Christian refers to human life as being created. Actually I was careful in choosing my word because I am fully aware that the concept of the creation of human life is entirely consistent with a theory of theistic evolution.

Yes it is easy to answer. Christians have multiple interpretations of a books that were written mostly by persons unknown, that were possibly updated/changed/rewitten over several centuries by people with their own interpretations. Therefore all further interpretations are a matter of opinion no matter what 'procedure' you use. As none of these are based on testable facts - all must be given equal status - diluting each one accordingly. Evolution however (as I've already stated) is a scientific theory based on rigorous examination. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how many other conflicting theories there are - only the quality of those other theories matter

Not so. The rigorous testing involved in science is only valid inasmuch as you accept the methodology of the scientific method. There are those who reject that methodology. Now, I believe that those who reject the commonly and academically accepted methodology of both science or literary criticism are wrong. You appear to be dismissing everything that is not science as totally subjective and purely a matter of opinion. That is wrong. History, archeology, linguistics, literary criticism etc are all based on objective criteria and are accepted academic disciplines. As such their methodology deserves respect and is not purely a matter of opinion.

So why do you not have the same 'faith' in genesis?

Because, as already explained above, my beliefs should be contingent upon the intended meaning of the text, not vice versa. While a scholarly consensus exists as to the intended literal meaning of Exodus, that same consensus does not exist as to the first 11 Chapters of Genesis. One of the reasons is that literary criticism gets progressively harder and less objective the further back in time we go. This is because there are fewer contemporary texts or manuscripts with which to make comparisons, and because we know less about the cultural worldview of the authors.

Whether those first 11 Chapters of Genesis are literal or not is a matter of debate. I have freely admitted in other threads that I don't know whether they were intended to be taken literally or not. Therefore I would be on much shakier ground to declare those events as definitely historical.

My faith is actually just the same - I am fully prepared to believe what the authors of the biblical text intended me to believe. It is simply less clear what that intended belief is.

I might also point out that the historicity of the first 11 Chapters of Genesis, while interesting and fun to debate, has no particular significance with respect to the important things in my Christian faith. The way of salvation and the morality I am expected to obey remain the same whether God created Adam out of dust or whether God used evolution to create humanity.

So now its time for you to answer my previous question - why hasn't this kind of huge event happened in the scientific / technological age?

Such events as the parting of the Red Sea are extremely rare in the biblical record. They do not occur with chronological regularity but rather tend to be clustered around seminal events in God's dealing with the human race (the call of Abraham, the Exodus & Conquest of Canaan, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ). Our much vaunted scientific/technological age is but a blink of the eye compared to the many thousands of years of human history that has preceded it. Furthermore, for many people in the non-Western world, the scientific/technological age has barely arrived or is still yet to arrive.

So what you're really asking is this:
Why haven't the kind of huge events that occur very rarely over millennia happened in a tiny sliver of time in the particular geographic region where we live?

Of course, if my beliefs are correct, we will see such events in connection with the next major event in God's dealing with the human race - namely the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. That should definitively prove which of us are right, and will be visible to a scientific/technological age, although we may both be dead and forgotten by then.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Interesting theory. But of course, you do realise that even if this were proved, the religious reply would be that god caused the eruption.

Quite true. God can work through natural events just as easily as by any other method.

Minder

Bduffman wrote: »

Interesting theory. But of course, you do realise that even if this were proved, the religious reply would be that god caused the eruption.

More likely to refute the idea by referencing Velikovsky, who first championed the idea. Immanuel Velikovsky was the author of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.

His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1100-750 BCE) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archeology and Egyptian chronology.....

Velikovsky's "Revised chronology" has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and Egyptologists. It was claimed that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective. In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at Brown University, discredited Velikovsky's use of Mesopotamian cuneiform sources. Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.....

In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos series, the UK's Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in Glasgow specifically to debate the revised chronology. The ultimate conclusion of this work, by names including Peter James, John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and David Rohl, was that the Revised Chronology was untenable. Specifically, Michael Jones contended that it was impossible to separate the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties by centuries as Velikovsky proposed, presenting evidence from genealogies of construction workers which spanned the three dynasties contiguously. However, inspired by Velikovky's original premise that the Manethian chronology of Egypt was flawed, James, Rohl and several other authors have gone on to publish their more conservative chronological revisions, which have also failed to find any acceptance in the mainstream academic community. Historian Emmett Sweeney has published works supporting the Revised Chronology, but these, too, have not found mainstream acceptance.

John Marr and Professor Costas Synolakis may have been rehashing Velikovsky's ideas, but he is not referenced in their piece.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Of course, if my beliefs are correct, we will see such events in connection with the next major event in God's dealing with the human race - namely the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. That should definitively prove which of us are right, and will be visible to a scientific/technological age, although we may both be dead and forgotten by then.

Of course even if Christians are wrong I am sure you will agree they can never actually be proven to be wrong as they will always argue that the 2nd coming is still on its way sometime in the future. If Christianity still exists in the year 30,000 AD your successors will still be preaching the imminent return of Jesus and finding passages in the Bible which supports a return within their lifetime.

Minder

PDN wrote: »

Quite true. God can work through natural events just as easily as by any other method.

So god decided that the Minoans (annihilated by the Santorini eruption) were an acceptable sacrifice in the Exodus of the Jews out of Egypt. I wonder how many more people around the Mediterranean coastline were killed by the immediate effects of that event, not to mention the aftermath?

Yes, I know. You haven't said that the Santorini Eurption was part of the exodus story.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course even if Christians are wrong I am sure you will agree they can never actually be proven to be wrong as they will always argue that the 2nd coming is still on its way sometime in the future. If Christianity still exists in the year 30,000 AD your successors will still be preaching the imminent return of Jesus and finding passages in the Bible which supports a return within their lifetime.

Future events are, by their very nature, somewhat difficult to disprove.

I certainly believe that the Second Coming might occur in our lifetime, but I have little sympathy for those who claim to have evidence that it definitely will do so.

However, if we are wrong and the human race peters out some other way, then the last man left alive will be able to shout, "I told you Christians you were wrong!" Of course there will be no-one left alive to hear him, but that's life!

robindch

Minder wrote: »

More likely to refute the idea by referencing Velikovsky, who first championed the idea. Immanuel Velikovsky was the author of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.

He also reinterpreted a lot of other things too, notably celestial mechanics, gravity, time, and physics as a whole really.

Velikovsky's ideas are not treated very seriously anywhere these days, and were never treated seriously in the universities, so I would advise some caution in basing anything upon his rather loopy conclusions.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Robin, you should have been a preacher.

And I'm sure you made a great atheist -- I'm sure you will again

Minder

robindch wrote: »

He also reinterpreted a lot of other things too, notably celestial mechanics, gravity, time, and physics as a whole really.

Velikovsky's ideas are not treated very seriously anywhere these days, and were never treated seriously in the universities, so I would advise some caution in basing anything upon his rather loopy conclusions.

Agreed. Unfortunately the Exodus story and the Santorini event are very difficult to pinpoint in time. That confusion makes it at least plausible that the two are linked. But since Velikovsky is the root of the idea and Velikovsky is a confirmed nutter, any trace of plausibility vanishes. Which is why Velikovsky is never mentioned by Marr and Synolakis is their piece for the BBC.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

If the intended meaning of the author of Exodus was symbolic, then it would be rather silly of me to believe the events actually happened. However, as already stated, the consensus of Biblical and literary scholarship is overwhelmingly in favour of a literal meaning.

And so therefore it must be literal? Tell me, how much of that biblical scholarship is carried out by objective means - i.e. non judaeo christians.

PDN wrote: »

You appear to be dismissing everything that is not science as totally subjective and purely a matter of opinion. That is wrong. History, archeology, linguistics, literary criticism etc are all based on objective criteria and are accepted academic disciplines. As such their methodology deserves respect and is not purely a matter of opinion.

The problem I have with this argument is that you have lumped literary criticism in with history and archeology. Literary criticism of a book that has absolutely no historical or archeological evidence cannot be treated in the same way as a historical discussion which is based on evidence. A historian who embellishes a particular story without first stressing that it is pure speculation based on hearsay, would not be taken seriously as an academic. Yet biblical scholars can 'interpret' the bible in a particular way that is then taken as fact?

PDN wrote: »

Because, as already explained above, my beliefs should be contingent upon the intended meaning of the text, not vice versa. While a scholarly consensus exists as to the intended literal meaning of Exodus, that same consensus does not exist as to the first 11 Chapters of Genesis. One of the reasons is that literary criticism gets progressively harder and less objective the further back in time we go. This is because there are fewer contemporary texts or manuscripts with which to make comparisons, and because we know less about the cultural worldview of the authors.

This 'scholarly consensus' you talk of - where is the evidence? A historian would at least have some historical evidence to back them up. And what would the 'cultural worldwiew' of the authors got to do with it? Weren't they written by god through the medium of man?

PDN wrote: »

Such events as the parting of the Red Sea are extremely rare in the biblical record. They do not occur with chronological regularity but rather tend to be clustered around seminal events in God's dealing with the human race (the call of Abraham, the Exodus & Conquest of Canaan, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ). Our much vaunted scientific/technological age is but a blink of the eye compared to the many thousands of years of human history that has preceded it. Furthermore, for many people in the non-Western world, the scientific/technological age has barely arrived or is still yet to arrive.

Which is probably why many people in the non-western world still believe in some of the things we have since discarded.
Ok so forget about the technological age. When was the last great miracle he performed? And why were they all performed so long ago at a time and in a place that we have no chance of verifying?

PDN wrote: »

So what you're really asking is this:
Why haven't the kind of huge events that occur very rarely over millennia happened in a tiny sliver of time in the particular geographic region where we live?

Well at least in the last 2 - 3000 years or so. And it doesn't have to happen in a specific place - just somewhere there are TV cameras & lots of witnesses.

PDN wrote: »

Of course, if my beliefs are correct, we will see such events in connection with the next major event in God's dealing with the human race - namely the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. That should definitively prove which of us are right, and will be visible to a scientific/technological age, although we may both be dead and forgotten by then.

I wait with bated breath. Of course if I'm right I can't say I told you so.:D