Yes, Simon.  Which is not to say that there cannot be some religious scholars with integrity.  This example, from an earlier thread, provides a stellar example of such.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24217-po...#pid608332

Quote:Between 1965 and 1972 Joseph Callaway, an American archaeologist and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor who had studied method with Kenyon, reopened the investigation. And he confirmed Marquet-Krause's results beyond doubt. To his credit, he acknowledged the excavations of Ai as a major blow to the "conquest theory." He put it this way in 1985":

For many years, the primary source for the understanding of the settlement of the first Israelites was the Hebrew Bible, but every reconstruction based upon the biblical traditions has floundered on the evidence from archaeological remains....(Now) the primary source has to be archaeological remains.

Moreover, Callaway -- a southern gentleman of great moral character-- took early retirement from his very conservative seminary rather than risk being the cause of theological embarrassment.

I doubt that we will see anything like Callaway's integrity exhibited by these clods.

(January 11, 2016 at 3:22 pm)athrock Wrote:

---

(January 11, 2016 at 2:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, what is missing is evidence of a global flood and the rest of the Noah story.    But that wouldn't work as a meme, so you get the ark instead.

Got any evidence that a global flood occurred?

---

Quote:

---

Not personally, no. And I'm not a fan of Noah's Ark claims, so I don't pay much attention to people who think they found it.

However, I also think it is possible that the writer of that account in Genesis may have ASSUMED that flood waters covered the entire earth because a flood of some magnitude may have covered a significant but local portion of it. For example, the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927 covered 27,000 square miles to a depth of up to 30 feet. That would probably seem like the whole world to someone in Noah's day.

Alternatively, he may have been speaking metaphorically when he stated that the waters covered the whole earth.

---

Quote:Neither scenario undermines the possibility that Noah built an Ark and rode out a local flood, does it?

That's the funniest joke I've read all day.  Floods are generally unexpected.  Noah would have been a working fool to have built a giant boat and loaded it when he was in a local flood.

As a Biblical character Noah is kind of a fool by default.

That's the redneck on a chicken coop theory of the deluge, right thur Wyrd. Always good for a laugh.

Can you reconcile Exodus 21?

Simple question really.

God said you could beat your slaves as long as they didnt die within a few days, pass them down to children, how to trick a fellow jew in to becoming a slave permenantly, and other horrific things.

And since you're so quick to jump to all of Exodus being correct, you should have no problem with this.

By the way, don't give me that law of the land bullshit or indentured servitude, it specifically states to "Buy slaves from the heathens around you", that is not "Oh you have some debt come work it off", that is Slave Trade.

(January 11, 2016 at 10:32 pm)Evie Wrote: As a Biblical character Noah is kind of a fool by default.

Which makes Ken Ham the Prince of Fools.




Fucker kind of looks like a neanderthal.

(January 9, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 2:35 pm)athrock Wrote: Good.

I look forward to your hearing your thoughts after seeing it!

Ok, surprise, surprise, just finished watching the film a short while ago. So here's what little I have to say:

The maker of the film, Tim Mahoney, tries to come off as a guy simply looking for the truth but, knowingly or not, had already made his conclusion even before examining the evidence: Exodus must have happened despite the mainstream scholarly consensus stating otherwise. Never throughout the film was he ever willing to accept the possibility of it never happening. So for him, it was not a matter of whether the event actually occurred, but when the event occurred. One of his biggest mistakes to make as this means, if Exodus never happened, then he was not open to such a truth. And that's the opposite of caring about the truth.

Another thing is that there was a severe lack of counterarguments to the revisionist theory proposed in the documentary. We only really hear one side to the debate. Sure, the filmmaker interviews experts who hold to the scholarly consensus, but we never really get to hear what they have to say about the "new" timeline proposed by Tim. All we ever hear the opposing side talk about is that the currently accepted timeline is the foundation for their position that Exodus never happened. But that does not seem to be the fault of the opposing side, but rather the documentary makers omitting all the important things they had to say. So for me, the editing was unfair and probably took a lot of critical words and phrases out of context.

Tim Mahoney's search for the "truth", by the way, is mainly based on Rohl's theory. Make no mistake about it, this was really a film about Rohl's view, not some new idea that started to emerge only recently.

Another big flaw in the documentary is that no attempt is made to try to negate the "theory" proposed and agreed with by Mahoney. Mahoney seems to think that a good theory is one that can be confirmed or supported by various pieces of evidence, but that is only part of what makes a theory a good one. A good theory should normally be one that potentially is falsifiable, and more importantly, has successfully passed challenges and tests multiple times before becoming accepted as a good theory. This obviously could not have been established by some documentary, so no expectation there, but they could have at least tried to challenge their own proposed timeline somewhat.

Of course, the meat of the argument in the documentary is that apparently there are multiple pieces of evidence that the Exodus did happen ... but only if you assume that the Exodus occurred way before Ramesses the II. But all that really means nothing if they are never challenged or put to the test.

The time line represented 1/3 of the discussion, even so it was down played by the statement "If the current time line does not support the exodus during the new kingdom, then let us look for a time the evidence does indeed support the events of the exodus."
Of which 2/3's of the movie is dedicated. Is it your opinion that the evidence provided for the earlier semetic people were simply a people who just mirrored the Jews in everyway but were defiantly not the Jews because of the time line issue you have?

Quote:One of the pieces of evidence is that a statue of some Asiatic person can be found in Avaris, and somehow the documentary reckons it must have been Joseph, but they don't consider that it may not have been a statue of a Jew but rather of some Hyksos person (which makes sense given that the Hyksos during that point rules over Egypt). This is just one example of how they make inferences that aren't parsimonious and aren't in line with the current accepted conclusions that, by the way, have been converged upon by multiple perspectives and not just one line of reasoning.

The problem with that is the tomb contained a statue of a Semitic man, holding a "Jewish version of a boomerang" with light skin, and red hair, wearing a robe of many colors. surrounded by 12 more traditional Semitic tombs (one for each of his brothers/leaders of the tribes of Israel. And if I remember correctly the structure and court yard was dated to the middle kingdom not sometime after the second darkage. Also why would one rule egypt in a farming community/city, and not honor one's self in the capitol city that is right around the corner? Then also why be buried in a semetic/egyptian tradition rather than in line with their own Asiatic tradition?

(January 9, 2016 at 5:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Page comparing the sayings in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, and the corresponding passages in Exodus.

http://ohr.edu/838

Actually their is quite abit more:
Here is a translation of the complete text.

http://raseneb.tripod.com/Ipuwer.htm

(January 9, 2016 at 5:43 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Funny they ignore this part.

Indeed, the desert is throughout the land, the nomes are laid waste, and barbarians from abroad have come to Egypt.
Indeed, men arrive [. . .] and indeed, there are no Egyptians anywhere. 


Ipuwer Papyrus III


Gee.  I wonder where people get the idea of 'blood in the water' during a battle?

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM612...itary_Park


Perhaps the exodus was in 1862 in Tennessee?

Not to mention nothing is said about the Israelites being responsible for the horrors mentioned in Ipuwer.

Because israel was not a identified nation at that point!!! They were Egyptians/Slaves

From Chapter1:
"the tribes of the desert have become Egyptians everywhere."

Chapter 2 tells us who is pillaging the egyptians:
http://raseneb.tripod.com/Ipuwer.htm

(The slaves and servants)

(January 9, 2016 at 6:18 pm)robvalue Wrote: Just out of interest, has Drich said anywhere what difference it makes if the Exodus was shown to be historically accurate? (Minus the supernatural bullshit, obviously.)

If the exodus account can be verified it simply maintains the historical accuracy of the bible. Something those who write our science and history wants to disprove. So in effect if you want your science and history to 'kill God' then it will have to be done another way.