For those who want proof of the exodus

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

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

Then the text is factually inaccurate, QED.  Why do you feel that the exodus, for example, is not an example of precisely the same sorts of inaccuracy and misconception?  Perhaps the exodus was one guy, his brother...and their wives and goats. How about Jospeh..and his coat of many colors...this is biographical?

[athrock]

1. Based on your next to last paragraph: what is the basis for the conventional assumption that the Exodus HAD to occur during the reign of Rameses? IOW, if the skeptics are right, and the Exodus is PURE FICTION, then why do they insist that this fictional event had to occur during his reign? If the Exodus never happened, why do skeptics insist on dating it in the Middle Kingdom? But if they are insistent upon placing it in the reign of Rameses, aren't they admitting that the Exodus did occur???

No more so than dating and placing the events in Bram Stokers Dracula as having occurred in turn of the century London is admitting that a vampire actually set sail from carpathia on a ship which floated into harbor with all hands dead or missing.

2. Based on your last paragraph: Let's see...we have a non-king or pharaoh living in a palace in the Land of Goshen inhabited largely by Semites, and this palace has 12 colonnades, 12 tombs found on the grounds, and the one shaped like a pyramid (reserved for VERY important people) has a statue of a man with mushroom shaped haircut (semitic), yellowish-skin (used to depict northerners), a throw-stick (reserved for men of importance) and traces of a multi-colored coat (like the one mentioned in the Bible belonging to Joseph). When the archaeologists discovered this pyramid, they saw that it was not broken into violently but opened carefully, and ALL OF THE BONES WERE REMOVED as one might expect to have occurred if Moses honored Joseph's request to be buried in Canaan. Then, we find a tomb of Joseph in Shechem which indicates that his bones were ultimately moved and interred there centuries after Joseph died.  And all of this is just a coincidence?

Well, it's possible I suppose...

Joseph is your Dracula, in this instance..., and there are plenty of crypts, abbeys, and asylums from turn of the century London.  In point of fact, the locations in the novel existed and still do.  

So...see above.  The narratives you're discussing are considered to be establishment legends, myths, or epics.  The connection between Joseph expressed in these comments (and in the documentary) and any existent ruins are tortured beyond belief...but that's irrelevant, we actually do expect those narratives to refer to something.  If the authors had placed the events in a specific time, they would use details that they knew of that time (or, more accurately in this case..details that they -thought- they knew of the time) to provide a context for their narrative.  This appears to be -exactly- what the authors did...mistakes and all, when settling upon the narrative.  That it is placed within a timeframe that will not allow it is simply an effect of their ignorance as to chronology and the details of the world in which they placed the narrative.  If it happened some other time (slide the timeline)..then the details in the account are still plainly wrong and we are still discussing a non-factual narrative.

Squirm all you want, but Mahoney has identified six key features of the Exodus account which can be archaeologically supported from evidence in the ground. The only dispute seems to be about when these six events occurred and whether they are, in fact, related to the Exodus or merely coincidental.

Given that scientists have begrudgingly admitted their errors in other disciplines, I feel confident that archaeologists will sort it all out eventually.

And as I pointed out previously, archaeology has been VERY kind to Jews and Christians thus far.

[The Grand Nudger]

You may have pointed it out..but it was as bold faced a lie then as it is now while you repeat it. The same is true of the biblical narrative...ironically.

[athrock]

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.

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

Then the text is factually inaccurate, QED.  Why do you feel that the exodus, for example, is not an example of precisely the same sorts of inaccuracy and misconception?  Perhaps the exodus was one guy, his brother...and their wives and goats.  How about Jospeh..and his coat of many colors...this is biographical?

You mean other than the fact that I've actually read the text? 

The flood story is clearly talking about a LOT of water...but whether it was enough to cover the ENTIRE earth is another matter.

The Exodus story is clearly talking about a LOT of Israelites...more than one guy, his brother and their wives.

[athrock]

You may have pointed it out..but it was as bold faced a lie then as it is now while you repeat it.  The same is true of the biblical narrative...ironically.

Sure it is, Rhythm. Sure it is.

[Minimalist]

Let me get this straight....

You said the Bible is "shit".

I said "prove it" by showing that ANY archaeological evidence has proved that the Bible has been wrong.

Now, if you want to get into the problems with Richard Carrier's stupidity, we can (I did a quick search of this forum, and it's been covered extensively in the past, btw).

But the issue at hand presently is whether you have hard, empirical evidence that the Bible is shit. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

Hey, asshole.  YOU brought up Carrier and made some bullshit claim that YOU could disprove it.  I'm waiting.  Personally having read Carrier's work and seen your lame efforts I know that Carrier has nothing to fear but the ball is still in your court.  Admit you are a bullshit artist or put up your claims to the test.

[Drich]

Atheism uses a shared a methodology all of you have in common that leads to a shared singular belief about God, even if their isn't any formal organization to it. that you can not deny (Unless you simply don't understand how what i saidvdescribes and identifies all of you 'snowflakes.')

Oh, do tell! What is this shared methodology?

The worship of all aspects of science, (including theoretical "science" Ie, big bang) as if it were gospel truth.

[Minimalist]

Those things have evidence, you dumb fuck.  Your buy-bull has morons like you insisting it is true.

Sucks to be you, drippy.

[Drich]

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.

Do you have a problem with evidence based reasoning?  You don't use it?  I can tell you that I didn't reason my way into atheism, personally.

You misunderstand sport. Evidence based reasoning make you like everyone else. Nothing wrong with that, unless you fancy yourself a unique snowflake. One can't be a snow flake if they were force down a common thought process and came to a common conclusion.

[Simon Moon]

And as I pointed out previously, archaeology has been VERY kind to Jews and Christians thus far.

When you pointed this out, did you do so with specific examples and citations?

Because, while some of the OT and NT contain some archaeological accuracies, they also contain many inaccuracies. 

And not just minor inaccuracies, major ones.

For example: the vast majority of archaeological evidence points to the Hebrews arising from the Canaanites, not invading from another land. 

[/quote]