Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[River Tam]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
A job usually held by girls. Since you have a tattle-tale mentality, you get to do it.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is Misogyny a prerequisite of Christianity or is it the other way around?

[Givemeliberty]

Rotflmfao! That apologetic nonsense is always good for a laugh :))

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text>What does convincing you have to do with anything?
[QUOTE]- Egyptian records discussing the capturing of Israel and the enslaving of its people
- Egyptian records discussing the mass "exodus" of Israelites (half a million people just leave their society and they don't notice???)
- Egyptian records bewailing the fact that every single firstborn just died (quite an odd medical mystery, wouldn't you say?)
- if the Bible story on Exodus was written by one person instead of three plus a "redactor" who tried to unify the various accounts and, through his anachronistic additions, made it look even worse
- if we didn't have evidence that the Jews were already in the region in the time that Exodus purports to have happened"

They are wrong on the dates. Folks in your camp do not take into account 1 Kings 6:1 which took place 966BC. 480 gets you back to around 1446BC. Late daters got it at 1290 which is about a 156 year difference. They figure the Exodus took place in 1445BC. Amenhotep II was Pharaoh and no match for his father Thutmose III who oppressed Israel and was probably the one who died in Exodus 2:23.

Then comes Amenhotep II and Moses returns to Egypt to confront Pharaoh. You can look at the differences in their rule and note that a lot of fighting and building went on during the reign of Thutmose and a lot less during the reign of Amenhotep. Egypt declines in power during Amenhotep. Assuming the Exodus took place in 1445 then 40 years of wandering gets you to 1405 BC for the destruction of Jericho.
http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html

[Givemeliberty]

Why should anyone care about what one scripture says about another scripture?

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text>Discredit the source because you do not like what it says. My initial source quotes academics. The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent. Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth. Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right. Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics. I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post. Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it? All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.

[Givemeliberty]

Light pukes out apologetic reject sites that say oh hey look what this scripture says about another scripture or ohhhhhh look this scripture sounds kind of like an older one! Woohoo!

Lmfao!

EMS Servant wrote:

<quoted text>I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"

[timn17]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Discredit the source because you do not like what it says. My initial source quotes academics. The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent. Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth. Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right. Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics. I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post. Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it? All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.

Admittedly, there are two schools of thought concerning the date of the Exodus (i.e., the early date and late date theories). "Proponents of the late date theory (1290 B.C.) are clearly in the majority, but they reject clear Biblical statements with reference to the date of the Exodus. Therefore their arguments in favor of a particular pharaoh will not be considered in this article."

That is from your linked article. Do you really expect people to take your sources seriously when that is how they think? "Everyone else thinks this, but they don't believe in the bible like me, so let's ignore them."

Hilarious.

[timn17]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Discredit the source because you do not like what it says. My initial source quotes academics. The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent. Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth. Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right. Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics. I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post. Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it? All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.

The ancients are the best!

[River Tam]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

I'll wait.

Someplace else?

[timn17]

EMS Servant wrote:

I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"
<quoted text>

Are you joking? Both of you have been provided with multiple sources that all say the same thing - the exodus probably did not happen. Light posting a link to an apologetics website (whose author specifically says that he is ignoring the majority scholarship in favor of bible verses) is not "data from various sources." It's a desperate attempt to defend his beliefs based on another man's desperate attempt to substantiate his belief.

[timn17]

Haha, wow, light, your "source" believes in the parting of the red sea. Is there no limit to his, and your, madness?

[timn17]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
Someplace else?

Haha, if only.

[Hidingfromyou]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Discredit the source because you do not like what it says.

Let's review. I post interviews and commentary from two archaeologists who are actually uncovering sites during the times in question.

You post the slanted views of the religious.

Yes, we can discredit your sources.

For example, read this laughable quote:

"History tells us that for several years after 1445 B.C. Amenhotep II was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations. This would seem like very strange behavior for a pharaoh who hoped to equal his father's record of no less than seventeen military campaigns in nineteen years. But this is exactly what one would expect from a pharaoh who had lost almost all his cavalry, chariotry, and army at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:23, 27-30)."

Oh, that's truly awesome.

My initial source quotes academics.

I can't seem to find it.

The only one who lies to self is you and others who convict Scripture as guilty until proven innocent.

Not guilty. It's a mythology book, designed for people at that time.

Again and again. Refuse to accept Scripture as evidence for anything other than myth.

Yes, now you got it. And, no, I've already stated that some of the sites mentioned in the Bible are accurate. Just not all. Some that were mentioned - like Jericho - did not exist at the time stated in the Bible. So they were anachronistically added by later editors who were trying to unify the disparate versions.

Jewish scholars freely acknowledge that but you creatoinists are science and history deniers, so it's part of your religion to dismiss evidence.

Even when 1 Kings refers to the Exodus as actual it is dismissed. All the ancients were wrong and your sources are right.

Ah...the Egyptian sources also discredit the Bible's passages.

Never mind they were 1000s years closer to the event. They are all sub standard according to critics.

Well, when the writers add cities that they knew about that could not have existed during the happenings of their writing then, yes, we dismiss the writing as fantasy.

I was reviewing the past few pages and noted you initially dismissed EMS post as fiction which was rude so i think you have little to gripe about when you stated he asked a mis leading question as you invited the response given your trite dismissal of his post.

Yes, and then I apologized and admitted my mistake, while noting that scholars have said "you have to have faith to connect those two stories."

Bersides, i don't think you were put off only by the question. There were other things going on. Who knows how long he spent just to bring that post here only to have you and others dismiss it. That is why you ahve a hard time to get academics to come on to sites like this. Why slum it?

You mean, why do I post here at all? I like some of the people. It makes for procrastination.

All you had to do was google and look for hostile opinions. There is more to the Exodus than just dismissive opinions which basically calls all the ancients liars and you elites know the real truth of the matter. No matter how much is thrown at you it is easy to predict your reaction.

You've never posted a non-apologetic opinion that uses actual evidence to back up your beliefs.

I make use of academics - many of whom are Jewish and whom you would assume would have vested interests in supporting their Holy writings. That they don't is telling:

1. they're more honest than you and your religion
2. they have higher standards in evidence based research
3. they're critical thinkers and can separate religious versus scientific knowledge

I even posted material from the Jewish government acknowledging that the Bible isn't accurate and discussing what that means to their identity as a nation.

You aren't even capable of engaging in such a learned discussion.

[Hidingfromyou]

timn17 wrote:

Haha, wow, light, your "source" believes in the parting of the red sea. Is there no limit to his, and your, madness?

hahaha, that's great, we picked up on the same inanity.

:)

[timn17]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
hahaha, that's great, we picked up on the same inanity.
:)

Haha that we did:) It was definitely good for a laugh.

[Hidingfromyou]

EMS Servant wrote:

I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"

Let's take a look at what I posted:

"Among Biblical scholars and archaeologists it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230–1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the Generally Accepted Date (GAD) is 1550–1200 B.C. Yet there are enormous problems with this dating. In recent decades an increasing number of scholars have recognized that if we accept the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan, we must reject the Biblical account of Israel’s conquest of Canaanite cities. This is because the Biblical account conflicts so strongly with the archaeological record. The Bible describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan at length and refers to a number of cities encountered by Joshua and his armies. In almost every case the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence—if we date the Israelite entry into Canaan to the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C."

http://davelivingston.com/davelivingston/arti...

They go on to demonstrate where the editors of the Bible have anachronistically added cities and happenings. For example:

"The Bible tells us that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb at the time of the conquest (Joshua 14:13– 15, 15:13–14; Judges 1:20). At Hebron, excavations in the 1960s produced only scanty remains from between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and a late phase of Iron Age I (11th century B.C.) and no evidence of occupation in the 13th century B.C"

and

"On their march to Canaan, the Israelites were opposed by the king of Arad (Numbers 22:1,b33:40), yet Tel Arad was abandoned from the end of the Early Bronze Age (third millenniumbB.C.) until the Iron Age.7 No Late Bronze Age settlement was found. The late Professor
Yohanan Aharoni’s suggestion that Canaanite Arad lay at Tel Malhata, about eight miles to thebsouthwest of Tel Arad, does nothing to solve the problem, for there is no evidence of a settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and Iron Age II (tenthbcentury B.C.)."

There's lots more. I also posted a link that discussed the paper your posted. It also discredited the Exodus story. I further posted a discussion about the workers of the Pyramids by THE archaeologist doing the onsite digging:

http://www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/WhoBuiltTheP...

And, I've posted discussions by archaeologists about how they treat the Bible as any other historical mythology: not as 100% accurate, but as something that can shed light on the past but also may be misleading.

So...no. Modern archaeology does not support Biblical literally. It shows that the Bible is a mythology designed to forge an identity and unity for the ancient Hebrew people. Over the years it was edited repeatedly as the times changed to keep their Holy book relevant.

[scaritual]

lightbeamrider wrote:

(...snip...)Assuming the Exodus took place in 1445 then 40 years of wandering gets you to 1405 BC for the destruction of Jericho. http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html

There was a more recent, thorough and complete excavation performed at Jericho. The link you give above does not utilize that data. This is something I see frequently at apologetics sites. They will ignore and often won't cite conflicting data, or the accepted and more accurate data that is clear.

It's disingenuous. It's misleading.

But I've come to expect it. In discussing the bible, I attempt to use Christian approved sources, along with trying to determine those sources are actually following an *a posteriori* scientific method, in which conclusions are subservient to the data; The conclusion is reached after the data or facts have been observed. Only data or fact that can be verified are utilized.

Opposed to an *a priori* method.<=(not preferable)

Anyway...

QUOTING:
"John Garstang conducted excavations at Jericho from 1930 to 1936. He found a destruction layer corresponding to the termination of City IV, and dated it to ca. 1400 B.C. This worked out well for traditional biblical chronology. However, in the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon conducted further excavations at Jericho and concluded that the destruction of Garstang's City IV should be dated ca. 1550 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. In fact, Kenyon found no evidence at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

But, then another "apologist archaeologist" came forward with a different interpretation. His name is Bryant Wood.

QUOTING:
"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

No surprise there, and it was rejected. Now, before you yell: "REVISIONIST AGENDA!"... There is no agenda, unless you consider arriving at an accurate conclusion an agenda.

QUOTING:
"Settling the Dispute

It is clear that the question is one of chronology. When was City IV Jericho destroyed? The scholarly consensus says ca. 1550 B.C., Wood says ca. 1400 B.C. What source can we turn to to settle this dispute?

In fact, radiocarbon is such a source. In the early 1990's, when Wood first published his claims, there was only one radiocarbon measurement available for City IV. It was from a piece of charcoal dated by the British Museum to 1410 plus or minus 40 years B.C.(...)The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction.

The corrected date no longer supported Wood's proposal, but it was insufficient to falsify the proposal. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal give the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned.

To be consistent with Bryant Wood's proposal, the wood which burned to produce the charcoal sample would need to have been cut from a living tree 150 years prior to the destruction.

Of course, this is not impossible."
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

One more quote from a different source concerning Bryant Wood.

"Each of Wood’s arguments is flawed: At each point he is either wrong, does not take account of previously published data or his argument is simply irrelevant." http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp...

There is no proof of the biblical "Exodus".

<*winks* at Hiding>

[River Tam]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's take a look at what I posted:
"Among Biblical scholars and archaeologists it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230–1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the Generally Accepted Date (GAD) is 1550–1200 B.C. Yet there are enormous problems with this dating. In recent decades an increasing number of scholars have recognized that if we accept the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan, we must reject the Biblical account of Israel’s conquest of Canaanite cities. This is because the Biblical account conflicts so strongly with the archaeological record. The Bible describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan at length and refers to a number of cities encountered by Joshua and his armies. In almost every case the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence—if we date the Israelite entry into Canaan to the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C."
http://davelivingston.com/davelivingston/arti...
They go on to demonstrate where the editors of the Bible have anachronistically added cities and happenings. For example:
"The Bible tells us that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb at the time of the conquest (Joshua 14:13– 15, 15:13–14; Judges 1:20). At Hebron, excavations in the 1960s produced only scanty remains from between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and a late phase of Iron Age I (11th century B.C.) and no evidence of occupation in the 13th century B.C"
and
"On their march to Canaan, the Israelites were opposed by the king of Arad (Numbers 22:1,b33:40), yet Tel Arad was abandoned from the end of the Early Bronze Age (third millenniumbB.C.) until the Iron Age.7 No Late Bronze Age settlement was found. The late Professor
Yohanan Aharoni’s suggestion that Canaanite Arad lay at Tel Malhata, about eight miles to thebsouthwest of Tel Arad, does nothing to solve the problem, for there is no evidence of a settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and Iron Age II (tenthbcentury B.C.)."
There's lots more. I also posted a link that discussed the paper your posted. It also discredited the Exodus story. I further posted a discussion about the workers of the Pyramids by THE archaeologist doing the onsite digging:
http://www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/WhoBuiltTheP...
And, I've posted discussions by archaeologists about how they treat the Bible as any other historical mythology: not as 100% accurate, but as something that can shed light on the past but also may be misleading.
So...no. Modern archaeology does not support Biblical literally. It shows that the Bible is a mythology designed to forge an identity and unity for the ancient Hebrew people. Over the years it was edited repeatedly as the times changed to keep their Holy book relevant.

Yeah, but.........I need this thread to keep going. So stop with your wonderfully elegant refutation of Biblical "facts". It's demonic.

[Hidingfromyou]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, but.........I need this thread to keep going. So stop with your wonderfully elegant refutation of Biblical "facts". It's demonic.

Oh, alright. I renounce my evil ways. Buddha caused Exodus.

[River Tam]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, alright. I renounce my evil ways. Buddha caused Exodus.

Buddha loves Luther Campbell.

Buddha love you long time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[lightbeamrider]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

Jewish scholars freely acknowledge that but you creatoinists are science and history deniers, so it's part of your religion to dismiss evidence.

You seem to believe the universe created itself which is logical absurdity. If that makes me a denier of Science then i wear your indictment as a badge of honor. You also believe in life on other planets out there somewhere. SETI is still waiting for that magical signal!

Ah...the Egyptian sources also discredit the Bible's passages.

What Egyptian source discredits Bible passages.

Well, when the writers add cities that they knew about that could not have existed during the happenings of their writing then, yes, we dismiss the writing as fantasy.

This is where you discredit yourself. That is easily explained. Take New York for example. It was initially New Amsterdam [?]. Some scribe probably changed the name so the audience would know the location. Not some extinct city no one knew of. Critics come along and say the city did not exist at that time so it is late dated. It's hyper criticism and garbage.

Yes, and then I apologized and admitted my mistake, while noting that scholars have said "you have to have faith to connect those two stories."

You got to have faith the universe created itself or life came from inert elements. Now who is anti science? Now who believes in miracles?

You've never posted a non-apologetic opinion that uses actual evidence to back up your beliefs.
I make use of academics -

Selective. Most of your posts are opinion. Most come from apologetic websites who have academics on them. They cite sources. They do research. Do you look at the sources?

many of whom are Jewish and whom you would assume would have vested interests in supporting their Holy writings. That they don't is telling:

Many are atheist.

1. they're more honest than you and your religion

You start with the premise Christianity is a lie and Christians are liars and go from there. If Fred the drunk down the street was an atheist and could pontificate your points then Fred would have more credibility with the crowd here than a Biblical scholar who believed the Exodus happened. Enough of your wrapping yourself around all the honest scholars and all that claptrap. They are all over the board on this one. All you have to do is look at Scripture. 1 Kings 6:1. Establish the time Solomon started to build the Temple and back date it 480 as it says in the text! Then you have the time of the Exodus. Not 146 or so years after that date!

2. they have higher standards in evidence based research
3. they're critical thinkers and can separate religious versus scientific knowledge

Then why can't they do the math?

I even posted material from the Jewish government acknowledging that the Bible isn't accurate and discussing what that means to their identity as a nation.
You aren't even capable of engaging in such a learned discussion.

It has more to do with my position than my capacity. Learned discussion. Go learn that things cannot create themselves.

[lightbeamrider]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
"Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipu...

No ''leap of faith'' is required. All one has to do is compare the Exodus account with this Egyptian text to see the obvious similiarities. The river to blood is in both. What is the Egyptian author describing? Slaves revolting. What event is the Egyptian describing? The land dark. All this and more jibes with the Exodus account.''Not everyone is willing to make'' subsequently means many are willing to make. If not everyone is willing to make then who is willing to make? That is what happens when an authentic document is produced which jibes with Exodus account. It is dismissed! Explained away. No one know the date!(Appeals to ignorance!) Any number of excuses and hiding asks how does the document add validation to the Exodus accounts?