We Should Thank Murderers, Here is Why

[Creed of Heresy]

While it is good to look at everything sceptically, you can't map specific things to probability. Olivia Lambert for instance died earlier this year. I never met the little girl, some of my friends were involved with the family - prayed with the family, throughout their battle. By the way, the family didn't just "rely on prayer" as you cynics probably think, they travelled overseas to seek experimental treatment. So if you want to say that prayer doesn't work, why not say that medicine doesn't work either?

Because medicine works far more than prayer. Here's the thing; prayer does nothing to affect your odds of survival. There've been double-blind studies that have shown this...and in fact in one of the more well-known studies involving patients with cancer, those who knew they were being prayed for actually had a slightly lower chance of surviving than the ones who either were being prayed for secretly or not at all.

Basically, if you remove prayer from the equation of medical treatment, nothing will change, but if you remove medicine from the equation of medical treatment, far more people are going to die or never recover or be maimed, paralyzed, etc etc etc, so your blunt-force attempt to validate prayer by equating its negation with the negation of medicine is really laughable.

[Creed of Heresy]

What level of evidence exactly, are you expecting?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A plague specifically targeting every single firstborn son of every Egyptian family in a single night, for example, is a rather extraordinary claim; I would require extraordinary evidence that it happened [nevermind that it's been accepted by historians and scholars as being allegorical anyways]. 2,000,000 slaves up and leaving Egypt all at once without a single shred of evidence to show that Egypt basically lost its entire base in slave-labor literally overnight.

Historians do typically go from one extreme to the other in terms of accepting some things with very little evidence, and rejecting others even in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence. My favourite example of the first point is Egyptian pyramids built by slaves, because historians based that belief on something written by a Greek in 450 BC. So they were "fooled" for 2400 years on what amounted to very weak evidence!

Coming from someone who believes in the bible that's a pretty hypocritical thing to say, you know. Don't you essentially believe the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is essentially considered "exact history," given how if it is flawed to enough of an extent it's basically bunk? You COULD say it's been translated improperly, of course, but that doesn't speak anything good of the bible, does it? Seems a terribly un-divine thing, for its supposedly universal meaning to be lost to something so trivial as the passage of time and simple language shift. Nevermind that most of these so-called "mistranslations" have actually been recorded in church history since almost back during the founding days of the Christian faith. Also, worth noting; the reason for the belief of the use of slaves actually makes quite a bit of sense. If you've got a bunch of slaves, why not use 'em, right? And there was a bit of circumstantial evidence showing that slaves might've built them. In light of there being nothing else to really say otherwise, everyone just figured "misewell follow this route." But then opinion changed in light of new evidence...which doesn't do much to back up your idea that historians continue believing things in light of new evidence when, heh, they stopped believing something specifically because new evidence showed otherwise... But no, do tell me more about how anyone of scholarly pursuit is going to never change their minds, Mr. Man of a Religion That Refuses to Change its Collective Minds.

Likewise working on dating the Exodus using the numbers given in the Bible strictly is wrong. Firstly, because the preserved text (the Masoretic Text) isn't perfect and numbers are its weak point, and secondly because not all numbers given in the Bible are literal even in the first place. 1 Kings 6:1 COULD represent an error in transmission. 1480 becomes 480, for example. 1 Sam 13:1 is one of the most obvious examples of corruption in the Hebrew text. And many translations incorrectly "fix it" using late LXX manuscripts.

Essentially you're stating that this can be excused because of a clerical error and/or ancient equivalent of a typo and nobody ever thought to proofread these texts that were basically the guidelines and rulebooks for the divinely-inspired one-true lifestyle?

As long as Christians are willing to accept the fact that the Biblical text today is not 100% perfectly preserved from the originals (which has been proven), then we have to accept that some numbers as we have them are in error.

If the biblical text is not 100% perfectly preserved from the originals than why claim it is divinely inspired at all? This becomes the slippery slope; picking-and-choosing starts becoming a problem. Where does it stop being accurate and start being inaccurate? And does this not call into question other supposedly accurate entries that from a rational and skeptical standpoint make no sense? However I can still give you that you're stating that the spirit, as it were, of the bible remains intact, so...you don't have to answer those questions since they're largely rhetorical and for people who've studied the history of the bible far more than I.

So I think this sums up perfectly the 600,000 figure (totalling about 2 million Jews) that evacuated Egypt in the Exodus. It's possible that the figure is correct anyway - at the time I've suggested the Exodus took place (the dawn of the Old Kingdom), historians estimate the population of Egyptians around 2 million people. 2 Million Jews would mean that there was one Jewish slave per Egyptian - an entirely possible figure.

No. Not even slightly possible. See, a slave economy tends to be dependent on, well, the slaves and them being there. Ok, see, we have about 300,000,000 citizens here in the US, right? LOTS of them work in retail, factories, clerical positions, construction. Imagine if everyone who worked those jobs just suddenly disappeared overnight. And everyone else still had jobs, better-paying ones, too. And, now, see, they were being paid, too, so the economic impact would be less since technically the companies and people paying them would not have to pay them. Slaves, on the other hand, work for free. They are a minor expense, whom you simply pay for upkeep, and consider that is not much at all. Suddenly your entire labor-force of unpaid workers who equal your population count vanishes. Suddenly you have to pay the new workers who come in, and realize too that the entire population is used to having slaves do this kind of work; they're not as experienced, they're softer, they demand wages, and they are rather unwilling to do the job slaves did anyway. The economy would be utterly annihilated. No such dramatic economic impact shows up anywhere in recorded Egyptian history, and let me be clear, we know quite a bit about Egyptian history. We know the specifics of Pharaohs and population consensuses, of plagues and famine and wars and rises and falls in their strength and size, who they traded with, where, and why. The entire slave economy vanishing overnight? Oh yeah. We'd notice that.

Unfortunately, there generally isn't a lot of information on the number of slaves that inhabit a region and Egypt is no different. Some historians even hold the view that there was never any slavery in Egypt. Yet, if the Jews were there and indeed marched off through the Red Sea towards the end of the Old Kingdom, then it fits with Egyptian chronology quite well - they were there in a period of economic prosperity when Egypt was known for wealth and building, and after they left the Egyptian empire quickly declined into civil war.

Except that the reason for that decline was actually that authority had for centuries been trickling away from the Pharaoh and into the hands of the Nomarchs, whose rule was hereditary. Then there's information of a very bad drought, leading to the Nile narrowing, ruining the irrigation systems and drying up farmlands. Then Pepi II died well after his potential successors died. Power struggle, topped with a delicious layer of famine, brought Egypt to its knees, but had it lost its slave economy at this time it would've been so severely damaged it would have fallen apart completely. There wouldn't have been any power struggles because nobody would've had any power to begin with. Remember that an empire is only as mighty as the engine of its war-machine, and the war-machine's fuel is the economy. But instead the aforementioned Nomarchs actually were raising their own armies. Egypt's power waned because of its political machinations and a famine, not an economic fallout. Alas, this was a dark age of Egypt; not much is known after these power struggles started breaking out.

The chronology of Egypt isn't a perfect science either. So just looking at Egypt itself, the evidence for the Exodus is there if you look in the right place, but even that doesn't give you the exact date or even the year of the Exodus. It simply gives you the period into which the Exodus fits correctly with their chronology.

In other words you have a "it may have happened at this time if it happened at all." The "if" is what keeps me skeptical, you understand.

The Sinai desert should have some indication that it once hosted nearly two million people. But hell there's not even evidence that it COULD have hosted two million people; water and food for two million nomads in a desert?

Try to stay focused on one issue. We're talking about the Exodus, not what happened after the Exodus.

But don't you see? It's all part of the big picture. There's a been a LOT of sifting of the sands between Egypt and Mt. Sinai but...nothing's come up. If 2,000,000 people had been walking the desert with each standing an arms-length to the side of the ones next to them and the ones behind and ahead of them, they would cover an area no less than 150 square miles. 150 miles of moving individuals. Think about that. Think of the logistics necessary to feed and water all of those people. In the desert. See, I attach this to the discussion because even if the Exodus happened, it seems strange that a very long clustered line of skeletons hasn't yet been discovered...which is the fate that would befall such a movement.

[quote]The Sinai desert is a different issue altogether. The evidence is more difficult to find because we don't know the correct path of the Israelites. We simply start looking wherever we can. You're correct, it should be littered with pottery that is inscribed with Hebrew writing. If we never found the Titanic would that mean that it never existed?

As I recall, the knowledge of the Titanic's existence was global worldwide news, conferred internationally nigh-instantaneously via radio. Far more witnesses, including some that survived, and archives of it can be found multinationally. The events of the Exodus are more insular, and yet are on a far more grand scale than the Titanic...150 miles of humans in the Sinai vs. 269 meter ship in the Atlantic Ocean. And heck, didn't we actually FIND the Titanic's wreckage?? An otherwise inconsequential moment in human history but we can prove it happened. But we're talking about the chosen people of god's flight from their oppressors and...we ain't got shit but a story.

The other thing is, that if you claim that the Exodus never happened then you have to explain what advantage it would have to invent the story. In other words, why would someone want to believe their identity comes from a period of slavery? What was the "real" origin of the Israelites?

Reality becomes story becomes legend becomes myth. Something interesting about a story; tell a very detailed story to someone, tell them to tell it as they can best remember it to someone else and tell them to retell it and so on. When the story hits its tenth person it's gonna be radically different [I've actually tested this myself and found to my amusement how true the claim actually can be]. Now imagine this story being told over centuries. The Israelites were well-known for their love of the oral tradition, after all. It's possible this story started out as a family and some friends escaping some Egyptian slavers. Maybe six families. But then it became sixty, to make the escape seem more vivid and impressive [lots of people love a little embellishment, especially if more people start paying attention to the story you're telling]. Then it became 600 people. And then 6,000. See where I'm going? It could very well have its basis in some truth, but if so, that's probably where it comes from.

Really now. Not to mention the population of Egypt in the ORIGINAL dating was around 3.5 million all-told. You now introduce a date of a thousand years going back...meaning that population count is likely going to be even lower.

So? Do you have evidence that only one in five Egyptians could own a slave?

Well we'd have to take into consideration wealth disparity and size of each Egyptian family so...yeah, this point kind of peters out here since it starts going into lots of unknowns.

So no, the biggest problem needing a solution isn't so much the Pharaoh who existed but rather why such a demographic and economic catastrophe such as the sudden departure of two million slaves never registers anywhere in Egypt's history and why two centuries of ardent archaeology spearheaded by the Israelis themselves has turned up absolutemente nada.

But it does! Aligning the Exodus with the end of the Old Kingdom means that their departure DID contribute a huge impact on the Egyptians. The Bible says they plundered Egypt before they left, so it is impossible that their departure wouldn't have been detrimental to Egypt.

Except again this has all been attributed to the division of power and dynastic struggles coupled with a famine as a result of the Nile's inundation. An economic shift on that scale would have been even more devastating in ways that would have pretty much meant the end of any kind of Egyptian civilization. Still, good try, at least.

[thesummerqueen]

Oh dear FSM.

You do realize that prayer has been studied time and time again and AT BEST has nothing more than a vague placebo effect?

[Aractus]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A plague specifically targeting every single firstborn son of every Egyptian family in a single night, for example, is a rather extraordinary claim; I would require extraordinary evidence that it happened [nevermind that it's been accepted by historians and scholars as being allegorical anyways]. 2,000,000 slaves up and leaving Egypt all at once without a single shred of evidence to show that Egypt basically lost its entire base in slave-labor literally overnight.

Well, that's if the number itself is correct. As I mentioned before, there are a known handful of errors in the text of the Bible (ie lost from the original), numbers and names are the most easy to corrupt in copying. Although the Jews preserved the OT very diligently, we do know that the authoritative text was lost or destroyed at least twice - both times when the Temple was destroyed; and both times it had to be reconstructed from the "best copies".

Coming from someone who believes in the bible that's a pretty hypocritical thing to say, you know. Don't you essentially believe the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is essentially considered "exact history," given how if it is flawed to enough of an extent it's basically bunk? You COULD say it's been translated improperly, of course, but that doesn't speak anything good of the bible, does it? Seems a terribly un-divine thing, for its supposedly universal meaning to be lost to something so trivial as the passage of time and simple language shift. Nevermind that most of these so-called "mistranslations" have actually been recorded in church history since almost back during the founding days of the Christian faith. Also, worth noting; the reason for the belief of the use of slaves actually makes quite a bit of sense. If you've got a bunch of slaves, why not use 'em, right? And there was a bit of circumstantial evidence showing that slaves might've built them. In light of there being nothing else to really say otherwise, everyone just figured "misewell follow this route." But then opinion changed in light of new evidence...which doesn't do much to back up your idea that historians continue believing things in light of new evidence when, heh, they stopped believing something specifically because new evidence showed otherwise... But no, do tell me more about how anyone of scholarly pursuit is going to never change their minds, Mr. Man of a Religion That Refuses to Change its Collective Minds.

As I said, historians can go from one extreme to another. Sometimes they believe things for which there is only one piece of evidence, and sometimes they don't believe things for which there is abundant evidence - it all depends on their engrained views on what the civilization in question was like. More often then not, they take sceptical views until they see enough proof. This was not the case with the Egyptian pyramids, however, and shows how sometimes they do exactly the opposite.

Essentially you're stating that this can be excused because of a clerical error and/or ancient equivalent of a typo and nobody ever thought to proofread these texts that were basically the guidelines and rulebooks for the divinely-inspired one-true lifestyle?

Actually what I'm saying is that scholars readily debate and reach conflicting conclusions as to how the original text was read.

If the biblical text is not 100% perfectly preserved from the originals than why claim it is divinely inspired at all? This becomes the slippery slope; picking-and-choosing starts becoming a problem.

The Biblical texts are still the best preserved ancient texts in the world. I've already explained the likely cause of textual corruption in the OT (the Temple scrolls being taken, and needing to be reconstructed). Numbers, and Names (especially names of places and obscure titles) are the main things you would expect to see error in. There's no picking and choosing.

No. Not even slightly possible. See, a slave economy tends to be dependent on, well, the slaves and them being there. Ok, see, we have about 300,000,000 citizens here in the US, right? LOTS of them work in retail, factories, clerical positions, construction. Imagine if everyone who worked those jobs just suddenly disappeared overnight. And everyone else still had jobs, better-paying ones, too. And, now, see, they were being paid, too, so the economic impact would be less since technically the companies and people paying them would not have to pay them. Slaves, on the other hand, work for free. They are a minor expense, whom you simply pay for upkeep, and consider that is not much at all. Suddenly your entire labor-force of unpaid workers who equal your population count vanishes. Suddenly you have to pay the new workers who come in, and realize too that the entire population is used to having slaves do this kind of work; they're not as experienced, they're softer, they demand wages, and they are rather unwilling to do the job slaves did anyway. The economy would be utterly annihilated. No such dramatic economic impact shows up anywhere in recorded Egyptian history, and let me be clear, we know quite a bit about Egyptian history. We know the specifics of Pharaohs and population consensuses, of plagues and famine and wars and rises and falls in their strength and size, who they traded with, where, and why. The entire slave economy vanishing overnight? Oh yeah. We'd notice that.

In Old Kingdom Egypt, they didn't even have currency of legal tender. No Egyptian was allowed to own his own land, he "worked it" for the King, and the King took whatever he wanted from the produce of the lands. Because Egypt was in the desert, they still had to trade for Timber and other resources they didn't have. By the way, we don't know why the Old Kingdom ended in turmoil, but it is possible that the Exodus event triggered it.

In other words you have a "it may have happened at this time if it happened at all." The "if" is what keeps me skeptical, you understand.

Well some things about this, even if they are likely, are still only a possibility. Assuming the Exodus didn't happen at all is incorrect, there's too much vivid information about it.

But don't you see? It's all part of the big picture. There's a been a LOT of sifting of the sands between Egypt and Mt. Sinai but...nothing's come up. If 2,000,000 people had been walking the desert with each standing an arms-length to the side of the ones next to them and the ones behind and ahead of them, they would cover an area no less than 150 square miles. 150 miles of moving individuals. Think about that. Think of the logistics necessary to feed and water all of those people. In the desert. See, I attach this to the discussion because even if the Exodus happened, it seems strange that a very long clustered line of skeletons hasn't yet been discovered...which is the fate that would befall such a movement.

Well it probably wasn't 2 million people. I already said that.

[festive1]

This is kind of off topic, but with all the discussion of medicine and prayer, I'm itching to ask:
Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous to do everything medically possible to prevent death? I'm not trying to say that extreme measures should never be taken, but subjecting young cancer victims to really invasive, debilitating procedures seems cruel to me. Everyone dies, we should accept it. Perhaps, it is better to simply enjoy the time one has left rather than undergoing treatments that turn one's remaining time into a living hell.

[Cyberman]

That's where the Hippocratic Oath comes in, I think, and why doctors can't (or shouldn't) simply stand by and let their patients die as long as there's something that might still be done. That's why the paramedics worked on my Sam for over an hour to resuscitate her, managing to restart her heart once before losing it again, they told me they worked far longer on her than they've ever done with any other patient.

[festive1]

That's where the Hippocratic Oath comes in, I think, and why doctors can't (or shouldn't) simply stand by and let their patients die as long as there's something that might still be done. That's why the paramedics worked on my Sam for over an hour to resuscitate her, managing to restart her heart once before losing it again, they told me they worked far longer on her than they've ever done with any other patient.

That's heartbreaking. I'm sorry for your loss. Kids, especially, can pull through some overwhelming medical odds, but I don't think that extreme measures should always be taken. It's also a personal decision and very dependent upon the individual circumstances. I would have a very difficult time if something were to happen to my kids.

[thesummerqueen]

The Biblical texts are still the best preserved ancient texts in the world.

...are you SERIOUSLY trolling?

[Cyberman]

That's heartbreaking. I'm sorry for your loss.

Thank you. It was only when I started thinking about the Hippocratic Oath that I remembered the events again for the first time in all these months. I thought it might add a bit of weight to the discussion.

I wasn't even there when the decisions were taken, so I can't really comment further on that point. All I know for certain is that there's nothing else that could happen that might even threaten to hurt me anything like as much.

Apologies for derailing the thread.

[festive1]

Apologies for derailing the thread.

It was I who derailed the thread, no apologies necessary :-)