The Bible's Buried Secrets

[stahrwe]

You can always claim that nothing is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, but the plain fact is that most people just don't find factual truth in the Exodus story. The numbers don't begin to add up for most folks, for one thing. 2 to 3 million people--about half the population drawn out of Egypt --wandering in the desert for 40 years, presumably as hunter-gatherers so their leaving no trace is explained? And what about the Deuteronomy passages that emphasize the smallness of the Israelite population as it prepared to invade Canaan? Something isn't jibing. Even if you think you can wiggle out of these difficulties to suit yourself, can't you understand why others can't possibly go along?

It becomes harder and harder to tell where there is an error or a deliberate ignoring or ignorance of the Bible. With respect to the Exodus story in the Bible the Jews were not hunter/gatherers.

What trace would you expect them to leave as they did not construct any permanent structures?

As for the section you laud in this comment, What Bible Buried Secret is being presented?

Hold the thought about the historicity of the events for a minute.

[DWill]

It becomes harder and harder to tell where there is an error or a deliberate ignoring or ignorance of the Bible. With respect to the Exodus story in the Bible the Jews were not hunter/gatherers.

What trace would you expect them to leave as they did not construct any permanent structures?

As for the section you laud in this comment, What Bible Buried Secret is being presented?

Hold the thought about the historicity of the events for a minute.

You misread me. To not leave traces of structures or settlement would argue that they were hunter-gatherers--not my assertion, of course, but the only possibility for there being no traces of them. Even then, of course, it's preposterous to suppose the land being able to carry even a small fraction of that population. I don't know what you mean by section lauded, but the buried secret suggested is quite obviously that the Exodus story that is mostly legendary could have had its origin in a historical event. This favors the Bible, if one is a non-literalist.

[stahrwe]

It becomes harder and harder to tell where there is an error or a deliberate ignoring or ignorance of the Bible. With respect to the Exodus story in the Bible the Jews were not hunter/gatherers.

What trace would you expect them to leave as they did not construct any permanent structures?

As for the section you laud in this comment, What Bible Buried Secret is being presented?

Hold the thought about the historicity of the events for a minute.

You misread me. To not leave traces of structures or settlement would argue that they were hunter-gatherers--not my assertion, of course, but the only possibility for there being no traces of them. Even then, of course, it's preposterous to suppose the land being able to carry even a small fraction of that population. I don't know what you mean by section lauded, but the buried secret suggested is quite obviously that the Exodus story that is mostly legendary could have had its origin in a historical event. This favors the Bible, if one is a non-literalist.

I presume you are referring to the wilderness of the 40 years in your comment on the land being able to support the population. To that objection I would ask whether you had read Exodus, and if so, what the capacity of the land has to do with anything.

[DWill]

I suppose you mean that for Yahweh, anything was possible. How they fed their huge numbers while milling around the desert for so long, presumably growing even more numerous with Yahweh's favor, not making any permanent settlements, is meant to be a question drawing on common sense, which doesn't apply when the divinity is intervening.

It's a spectacle, seeing someone fending off all reasonable skepticism on such matters, while playing the skeptic himself on things like carbon 14 dating.

[Azrael]

I suppose you mean that for Yahweh, anything was possible. How they fed their huge numbers while milling around the desert for so long, presumably growing even more numerous with Yahweh's favor, not making any permanent settlements, is meant to be a question drawing on common sense, which doesn't apply when the divinity is intervening.

It's a spectacle, seeing someone fending off all reasonable skepticism on such matters, while playing the skeptic himself on things like carbon 14 dating.

It's a spectacle, seeing someone fending off all reasonable skepticism on such matters, while playing the skeptic himself on things like carbon 14 dating

For him it's not! Its christian hypocrisy at its finest hour!

Amorte!

[stahrwe]

I suppose you mean that for Yahweh, anything was possible. How they fed their huge numbers while milling around the desert for so long, presumably growing even more numerous with Yahweh's favor, not making any permanent settlements, is meant to be a question drawing on common sense, which doesn't apply when the divinity is intervening.

It's a spectacle, seeing someone fending off all reasonable skepticism on such matters, while playing the skeptic himself on things like carbon 14 dating.

The point is that you are no more familiar with the Bible than Wright was. The population remained stable over the 40 years. As for their diet, I will leave that to you to investigate or not.

[DWill]

What is your explanation for the Deuteronomy references to the smallness of the invading Israelite population? I'm sure you don't need references for these passages. Is it credible that the conquered peoples were all so much larger in population than the supposedly large Israelite force?

[stahrwe]

What is your explanation for the Deuteronomy references to the smallness of the invading Israelite population? I'm sure you don't need references for these passages. Is it credible that the conquered peoples were all so much larger in population than the supposedly large Israelite force?

"Smallness?" - You have no idea what the population of the Israelites was do you? This is a prime example of what I have complained about. If you want to discuss the Bible discuss it, in context and as a complete book. Jumping around provides no foundation for understanding.

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
The population remained stable over the 40 years. As for their diet, I will leave that to you to investigate or not.

DWill, Stahrwe believes that god sent the Israelites manna from the sky to eat… so they did not live off the land… making them simply gatherers…

Of course no self respecting historian or archeologist would propose such a thing without first finding evidence of the event… but stahrwe seems to think that this omission is a fundamental lack of biblical knowledge on their (and your) part.

Later

[stahrwe]

No bias in those results was there?

There are dozens if not hundreds of other ways biases and prejudices can affect your thinking. I account for as many as possible as often as possible.

On the other hand, if you weren't shackled by divine duty to walk and talk like Jesus, your arrogance would shine brightly in social ways instead of merely intellectual ways. Certainty breeds arrogance, and something tells me you'd require certainty even as an atheist.

And you committed to believing what I said from now on.

Would that I were shackled and walked and talked like Jesus.

As for arrogance, how about this:

]I really don't know what to do about this situation. It isn't so cut and dry as some of you would like to think. I agree that statements like this "We are all blessed to live under grace" are embarrassing and will drive away bright people. I have to think about this. This is tough. Atheism drives away the masses, while religion drives away the intellectuals.

Sorry Chris but this was the easiest quote I could come up with and it struck me at the time. These sentiments are not unique to you. Most of the BT members spend a fair amount of their time telling me how stupid I am.


Dawkins is known for his arrogance and takes pride in his arrogance. {When Tyson tried to make a legitimate criticism of Dawkins work how did Dawkins respond? He essentially tells Tyson, to F off.}