For those who want proof of the exodus

[Angrboda]

As a former Hindu, I can only say that this is simply wrong.  I lack a belief in the existence of 'god', of 'gods', and I'm also mute on the subject of 'God'.  I did not arrive at the same position as a former Christian might have by a "shared methodology".

So out of a complete vacuum you just stop believing in the hindu god or and God.

If this is the case then you are correct. You are a unique snowflake the world has never seen the likes of and shall never see again.

However if you used evidence based reasoning to come to a conclusion their isn't any god(s) then you are a conformist like your non hindu brethern.

Blah blah blah.   What you've said amounts to a whole lot of nothing.  Evidentialism had little to do with my rejection of belief in god, and even if it had, saying that it is a shared methodology is nothing but playing with words.  That would be like saying I'm a kangaroo because we both breath air.  The general is too general to be a meaningful complaint, as most people use evidentialism to an extent.  And the specificness of this 'methodology' to atheism isn't specific enough for it to be diagnostic.



You fail again.

[athrock]

My point is simply that the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the bedrock of mainstream thought tomorrow.

No, the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the crackpot ideas of tomorrow.  The key word there being 'often'.  Crackpot ideas don't often turn out to have merit.  Period.  If you meant to say that they sometimes turn out to have merit, you would have been on firmer ground, the only question being how often is 'sometimes'.  I would argue that it is rarely.

Actually, no.

What I was trying to illustrate is that good ideas which go against the grain of the generally accepted views are often dismissed early on. They are called "crackpot" until they aren't.

There are lots of examples of this found here. This is one:

The Big Bang. Today the instantaneous emergence of the cosmos from a singularity known as the Big Bang is the preferred theory of the origin of the universe. But when this concept evolved as an explanation for Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the galaxies were moving rapidly away from each other, the Big Bang seemed unscientific, almost religious. This was in the 1920s when the orthodox view, held by most astronomers and physicists, was that the universe had existed in a “steady state” forever; there was no beginning.

The notion of the universe springing from nothing was immediately ridiculed by leading astronomers including Fred Hoyle, who originated the term “big bang” as a pejorative. Hoyle followed up with a very public radio tirade against the theory. Other physicists, including Einstein, opposed the Big Bang, even when their equations implied an abrupt beginning of the universe. It became the theory of choice only gradually, and only because no other explanation could explain the cosmos that scientists were beginning to study in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, other theories of the universe’s origin exist, but have not gained widespread support. Advanced methods and technology are expected to confirm or reject the Big Bang theory in the near future.

http://www.scienceforthepublic.org/blog/...-new-ideas


So, if Einstein can oppose the Big Bang, I'm okay with the possibility - possibility, mind you - that archaeologists can have resistance to ideas like those proposed by Mahoney.

[athrock]

If you look closely, you will see that the six markers are currently positioned so that the exodus occurs in the reign of Ramesses. However, Mahoney argues that these six events:

1. Arrival
   
2. Multiplication
   
3. Slavery
   
4. Judgment
   
5. Exodus
   
6. Conquest
   

can be sequentially found earlier which places the Exodus in the Middle Kingdom as opposed to the New Kingdom as is commonly held.

There is archaeological evidence which supports an early dating of each of these six markers, and this evidence places these events in the proper sequence as recorded in the Bible. So, in order to disprove Mahoney's theory, it seems to me that the skeptic has to either prove that Mahoney has misinterpreted (or fabricated) the archaeological data or show that other STRONGER evidence places the event in question later on the timeline. But I don't see skeptics wanting to argue for any of these events, period. To argue that they occurred later is to argue that they actually happened! Something skeptics are loathe to admit.

IOW, Mahoney is saying:  

1. There are six events that appear in the biblical account of the Exodus.
2. The record of these events tells us that they occurred in a specific sequence.
3. The occurrence of these events can be supported by archaeological evidence. 
4. This physical evidence reveals that the proper dating of these events should be in an earlier time period than the reign of Ramesses II.

All I seemed to hear from the skeptics in the film (and in this thread) is: "Oh, no...that's much too early for the Exodus. We know it had to occur much later."

But folks, if there is "NO EVIDENCE" for the Exodus (as is commonly claimed), then why do skeptics quibble over WHEN it didn't happen? 

[Wyrd of Gawd]

how so?

I never said the movie did not provide alternitive dates, nor did i say it offered evidence to dispute those dates. I simply offered the information that the movie presents as the best canidate for the exodus.

Not to meantion I did indeed say that the dating of the exodus was only one aspect of this movie and that the movie provided much much more evidence than just the date.

So again how am I wrong? or is this just another vain attempt to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger?

Do you have proof that the jews were ever slaves in Egypt?

Do you have proof of moses splitting the red sea?

Do you have proof that Ramses II was alive during the account? 

Can you answer any of those questions with historical evidence?

As I mentioned before, Egypt is used as a metaphor for sin living.  

In John 8:34 (CEV) the Jesus character said:  "Jesus replied: I tell you for certain that anyone who sins is a slave of sin!"  

When Jacob and his thug family went to Egypt they were essentially pagans, living in slavery to sin.  The exodus story has Moses rescuing them from the slavery of sin by imposing his hundreds of rules on them.  The story is just a long complex parable.  It is not based on any historical event.  The splitting of the sea symbolizes the birth of the people into a new life of what turned out to be oppressive rules designed to eliminate sin from their lives.  It was a break from their past life, although it story says that some wanted to return to a life on Egyptian welfare.  They had given up their freedom to live as they pleased.  Now they had to live by someone's delusions and they hated it.  Moses killed off the more vocal malcontents.

[Minimalist]

Listen, asshole.

When you have a PH D in Egyptology then you can tell them what they have to consider.  Rohl's hypothesis is not new.  He trotted it out over 20 years and was instantly dismissed as a fucking crackpot.  His evidence then was laughable and he hasn't gotten much better.

These are people who have devoted their lives to studying these issues and in many cases are right down in the dirt digging up the artifacts.  Some dilettante showed up with a camera and a fucking bible and I think the professionals were quite tolerant of his stupidity while telling him that he was barking up the wrong tree.

I feel no such urge to be polite.

Waving a fucking bible around is not impressive.

I could take these same sentences, substitute a few words, and turn them around into a devastating case against Richard Carrier and your silly belief in Jesus Mythicism.

Go to it.  Before you waste your fucking time remember all you have is the pious blather of believers in your silly-assed gospels.  They are shit.

[athrock]

I could take these same sentences, substitute a few words, and turn them around into a devastating case against Richard Carrier and your silly belief in Jesus Mythicism.

Go to it.  Before you waste your fucking time remember all you have is the pious blather of believers in your silly-assed gospels.  They are shit.

Prove it.

Can you give any legitimate (not the "blather" of some Internet bloggers) examples of hard, physical, archaeological evidence that has EVER disproved a single Biblical account - whether it is from the Old or New Testament?

As best I can tell, unlike Islam or Mormonism, archaeology has been very, very kind to the bible believer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh boy, we got another one who thinks he has a magic book. If your understanding of archeology comes from "documentaries" like this one...I can see why you might think it had been kind. I think that you're impressively credulous.

[Angrboda]

"Missing."

[Cyberman]

Oh boy, we got another one who thinks he has a magic book.  If your understanding of archeology comes from "documentaries" like this one...I can see why you might think it had been kind.  I think that you're impressively credulous.

Not to mention not understanding the burden of proof.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Missing:



Boru