Any competent historian is able to glean information.<quoted text>
I know for a fact that they were superstitious. And that does mean that is some cases they cannot tell fact from fiction.
They were nomads in the Dessert. What are you looking to find?Because we know from other sources and the actual digs at the scene that the Exodus did not happen.
BS. It is written and understood as history. All over the multiple accounts in the Old and repeated by both Josephus and Philo. This is only off the top of my head. I could probably come up with more.It was an origin legend for that society.
I think you are just regurgitating. You don't seem to be able to comprehend historians glean out information from biased sources and if you don't know that then you don't know much. This is an article pertaining to Hitchens by another atheist. He makes a point here pertinent to this discussion.But it was written hundreds of years after it supposedly happened and has many anachronistic aspects in it.
''This case has been well made by others, if mostly in places far more obscure than Hitchenss privileged position on the New York Times best-seller list. For example, William J. Hamblin wrote a thorough and admirably restrained review (The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible) in which he held Hitchens to account for historical howlers of this kind:
In discussing the exodus, Hitchens dogmatically asserts:There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert ..., and no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date. No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing.... All the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded. These narratives can be easily discarded by Hitchens only because he has failed to do even a superficial survey of the evidence in favor of the historicity of the biblical traditions. Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeiers Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai? It should be noted that Hoffmeiers books were not published by some small evangelical theological press but by Oxford Universityhardly a bastion of regressive fundamentalist apologetics. Hitchenss claim that no Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode [of Moses and the Israelites] either, even in passing is simply polemical balderdash.''
Yeah the moderns were wrong on David and i can go back and point out were the moderns were wrong on a lot of their assumptions about the Bible. You have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent and are unable, due to your hopeless bias, look at it objectively.Among other things, it seems to be unaware that Egypt controlled the holy lands at the time. The time of David was actually in the time when the texts were written, so is far more likely to be accurate about some types of things.