Show Us The Direct Evidence

[Bubbahotep]

In the "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?" Ken DeMyer wrote:

"There is ample direct evidence that God delivered the Jews and that Moses parted the sea via divine help."

He also wrote:

"There is direct evidence that the Exodus occurred and that Moses lead the Jews via God's sovereign power (parting of the sea and the supernatully caused plagues, etc)."

Ken has been in the habit for years now of asking his opponents to support direct assertions they have made and then ignoring everything else. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So, Ken, please support your claim. Provide us with the direct evidence that God delivered the Jews, that Moses parted the sea via divine help and that supernaturally caused plagues afflicted the Egyptians during the 15th century B.C. Please remember that your claim was that there was "direct evidence" for these events. Thus, only direct evidence can be accepted. Anything else is irrelevant to your claim.

Now, Ken has claimed that the Bible constitutes direct evidence. Apparently Ken is unaware of what direct evidence is. The Bible can only be considered "direct evidence" once you have established that the author (or authors) of the Bible were contemporary witnesses of the events under discussion. That is, Ken will have to prove (not merely assert) that the author of Exodus was a witness to the Exodus and not merely a much later Jewish storywriter.

However, the Bible cannot be considered direct evidence in the case of the Exodus because the Bible is the one making the original claim of the Exodus. You can't be your own supporting witness! So the Bible cannot be considered direct evidence in the Exodus case. Which means that Ken is left holding an empty bag in his claim for direct evidence supporting his Exodus claims. Can he pull some real "direct evidence" to support his claims? I know I'm not holding my breath but he's on the hotseat now.

And please, Ken, stay on topic and don't add anything, anything at all, that is extraneous to the subject of this thread. You love to dish this kind of thing out so now let's see you take your own medicine. Let me warn you again, Ken (since you are notorious for avoiding answering questions posed of you), do not post anything to this thread except the direct evidence you claimed exists. If you do decide to post extraneous information or your own commentary that will be a tacit agreement that in the future whenever you, on your own threads, ask for people to remain on subject, none of us need heed your own requests. So think long and hard before posting anything here. You know the rules, these are the ones you yourself insist everyone else play by. Time for you to show us you can do more than just post long series of links.

[James Peter]

Just out of interest what would 'direct evidence' look like? I mean, hypothetically? A videotape? An egyptian note saying "Aggh! Everyone got killed! Maybe Pharoah isn't God but Yahweh is!"? I mean, I'm with you in saying that there is no direct evidence to support the parting of the sea but I'm not quite sure what sort of direct evidence it is reasonable to expect... Then again I guess your point is that the claim is false because it is so ludicrous - direct evidence is hard to imagine let alone to have actually survived and been found. Lets face it, we don't even have direct evidence of the Exodus let alone of the parting of the sea...

I'll shut up now.

[Bubbahotep]

Well,

I admit the point of this post was nothing more than to hoist Ken on his own petard. That said, direct evidence for the Exodus could be in the form of genuine ancient inscriptions that talk about Moses and the actual plagues. (Note, I mean that clearly refer to the plagues, not just generally similar "bad times" such as we see in the infamous Ipuwer papyrus). We could have an actual tomb of one of the dead Egyptian first born with historical texts referring to the event. As for such events like the parting of the Red Sea, there can't be any "direct evidence" of this as far as I can see. Ken needs to be far more careful about what he claims, especially as he regularly chastizes others for doing this.

[James Peter]

Ok, that makes sense. Although I'd expect any inscriptions to be rather vague - excuses will be made to explain what happened. Its like Shalmaneser - his version and the Jewish version of the siege of Jerusalem are understandably very different. But something like that is theoretically possible, it just hasn't been found yet (assuming it still exists, and indeed that it ever did.)

I really wish that christian books about OT archaeology would be less selective and more accurate though; maybe I'm being too nice but I think the problem is more bad sources combined with good intentions (and little training in method) than deliberate malice. I hope that is the case anyway. Anyway, continue you lynching...people should be more accurate in their claims or retract them.

[Bubbahotep]

The troublesome thing for me is that if God expects us to believe the Bible (and to be a Christian you pretty much don't have a choice in the matter) he should have provided us with the evidence to support such a belief. The fact that such evidence is absent is a very strong reason to disbelieve in Christianity because it is entirely illogical and unreasonable to expect belief in fantastic, uncorroborated stories.

[Meh_Gerbil]

The troublesome thing for me is that if God expects us to believe the Bible (and to be a Christian you pretty much don't have a choice in the matter) he should have provided us with the evidence to support such a belief. The fact that such evidence is absent is a very strong reason to disbelieve in Christianity because it is entirely illogical and unreasonable to expect belief in fantastic, uncorroborated stories.

Do you find it instructive that the Pharisees didn't believe despite witnessing miracles? Do you find it instructive that all throughout Scripture, in spite of incredible wonders many people chose not to believe?

I do.

From Adam and Eve down to Paul from the Bible's perspective evidence plays a role but evidence is also easily dismissed. It is pretty much impossible to imagine evidence that would convince those that refuse to be convinced.

[James Peter]

But there are plenty of people who are willing to be convinced, even want to be convinced, but there simply isn't the evidence to do it. Everyone who tries to defend that the Pentateuch is historically accurate is working from a bias, most of the people who conclude that it isn't are working not to disprove it but rather to discover what actually happened. Most of them would have been quite happy if at least the general outline of Israel's history was correct (the details would be hard to demonstrate) but the evidence didn't support it so alternative theories were put forward. It isn't a malicious conspiracy, it is a quest for the truth. The only place with a record of hiding away evidence that doesn't support her position is the Vatican. Most archaeologists would love to find new evidence to publish and become famous for - whatever that evidence proved.

[Bubbahotep]

Do you find it instructive that the Pharisees didn't believe despite witnessing miracles? Do you find it instructive that all throughout Scripture, in spite of incredible wonders many people chose not to believe?

I don't believe those miracles ever took place. Not as described in the Bible, at least. I have no reason to and plenty of reason to believe that those types of events have never actually occurred. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible authors, who clearly wanted to believe in miracles, would try and explain why people wouldn't believe. The early Christians were probably also mocked for their inability to produce miracles that they claimed their leaders had performed. So they had to explain away the fact that many people that actually had been witnesses to Jesus' ministry didn't believe in him or his miraculous powers. Now, if you can demonstrate a real miracle to me I'm more than willing to concede my error. But until you come up with some real evidence, I remain honestly skeptical of your claims and those of the ancient book you think was inspired by a spiritual power.



From Adam and Eve down to Paul from the Bible's perspective evidence plays a role but evidence is also easily dismissed. It is pretty much impossible to imagine evidence that would convince those that refuse to be convinced.


And what kind of evidence would you accept to make you believe that Christianity is not true? What kind of evidence do you think is reasonable to expect if Christianity were true? Or if it were false? Look at the epistemology you follow. Could it be leading you to believe in falsehoods? If Christianity were not true would you be able to figure that out or do the arguments/rationalizations you accept make a false belief seem reasonable?

[Meh_Gerbil]

I don't believe those miracles ever took place. Not as described in the Bible, at least. I have no reason to and plenty of reason to believe that those types of events have never actually occurred. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible authors, who clearly wanted to believe in miracles, would try and explain why people wouldn't believe. The early Christians were probably also mocked for their inability to produce miracles that they claimed their leaders had performed. So they had to explain away the fact that many people that actually had been witnesses to Jesus' ministry didn't believe in him or his miraculous powers. Now, if you can demonstrate a real miracle to me I'm more than willing to concede my error. But until you come up with some real evidence, I remain honestly skeptical of your claims and those of the ancient book you think was inspired by a spiritual power.



And what kind of evidence would you accept to make you believe that Christianity is not true? What kind of evidence do you think is reasonable to expect if Christianity were true? Or if it were false? Look at the epistemology you follow. Could it be leading you to believe in falsehoods? If Christianity were not true would you be able to figure that out or do the arguments/rationalizations you accept make a false belief seem reasonable?

I'm not an apologist or anything - or a theologian - but the Biblical approach to truth seems to be different than the 21st Century man's approach. For a brief moment, let's consider everything in the Bible to be absolutely true.

Throughout the Bible the 'strongest' form of evidence to our way of thinking isn't seen as having any more impact than the weak forms of evidence. If you tossed a miracle into a crowd about half would believe and the other half would reject. All through the OT the Jews saw miracle after miracle but even with that they'd set out and worship a golden calf in no time.

When G_d allegedly came to earth all the people in the know rejected him outright. He'd show them a miracle and they wouldn't believe it. This carries throughout the entire book starting with the fall of Satan who disbelieved G_d even though he stood in G_d's presence.

Now I know you are an empiricist, a scientist - you want solid proof. But stop and consider if you are even asking the right question - because from the perspective of the Bible there isn't any proof that would do you any good - even if G_d Himself were to stand in your presence. Do you understand? The Bible's perspective seems to be that what you'd consider to be even the strongest form of proof would do you no good.

Perhaps you've been deceived into a type of thinking - and approach to truth that is wrong. It is so wrong that the Bible doesn't even bother addressing you in your condition. While you may still reject all of it, it should give you pause and cause you to ask why.

[serapha]

Hi there!

:hi:


ummm...

You forgot to post at the beginning of the thread that this was a personal vendetta posting and that it would behoove everyone else to just watch the character assination.


I'm not participating, it's personal... not professional.


~serapha~

[HRG_new]

Do you find it instructive that the Pharisees didn't believe despite witnessing miracles? Do you find it instructive that all throughout Scripture, in spite of incredible wonders many people chose not to believe?

Alternative scenario: they saw more clearly that the alleged miracles weren't miracles at all.


From Adam and Eve down to Paul from the Bible's perspective evidence plays a role but evidence is also easily dismissed. It is pretty much impossible to imagine evidence that would convince those that refuse to be convinced.
Easy. 10 million digits of pi at the beginning of Genesis, plus a 65536-byte CRC at the end of Revelations. This would tell us at the same time whether Maccabees etc. are part of the Bible or not.

[Bubbahotep]

I'm not an apologist or anything - or a theologian - but the Biblical approach to truth seems to be different than the 21st Century man's approach. For a brief moment, let's consider everything in the Bible to be absolutely true.

Well, first off, that last request is impossible because the Bible as a whole contains contradictions and a contradiction, by definition, cannot be true. We can consider parts of it to be true, but not the whole can. Now, if the Biblical approach to truth is different from the 21st century approach to truth ... well, all the worse for the Biblical approach because the scientific methodology we follow in our search for the truth has been demonstrated to be the most reliable epistemic approach out there. So, what is the Biblical approach to truth, Meh Gerbil, and how is its approach to truth more reliable than our modern approach?


Throughout the Bible the 'strongest' form of evidence to our way of thinking isn't seen as having any more impact than the weak forms of evidence. If you tossed a miracle into a crowd about half would believe and the other half would reject. All through the OT the Jews saw miracle after miracle but even with that they'd set out and worship a golden calf in no time.

You are accepting the Bible's testimony as supporting evidence for its own claims. That doesn't work. You need to approach the Bible in a critical manner. That doesn't mean you just criticize the Bible. It means that you look at the Bible and analyze it to see if it is telling the truth. You don't just believe it is the truth on "faith". That doesn't work. Regarding Biblical miracles, there isn't evidence that even a single one ever occurred as the Bible described. All you have is an ancient document that claims a bunch of miracles occurred. Why should we believe it? Why should we believe those miracles took place rather than that the author(s) of this document made up these stories or recorded legendary versions of events that have had miraculous elements grafted onto them? If miracles don't take place, then one of the things that any religion that proposes miracles has to contend with is the fact that many people aren't going to believe in them (because they never occurred!). So the fact that a religious text from a group that proposes the existence of miracles mentions that many didn't believe who witnessed the miracles isn't surprising. However, look at how many people believe in "miracles" that are subsequently shown to be frauds. How many people want to to believe in Jesus' face showing up on a tortilla or that a statue of Mary sheds tears? Many people believe despite the evidence against these miracles. On the other hand, if a deity wanted to make me believe in his presence he would have no problem doing so. He'd have to take corporeal form as that is the only form that I as a human can recognize but if the God is omnipotent that should be no problem. So, I dispute your claim that skeptics myself would not believe if a miracle genuinely occured. I simply demand some real evidence as if I do not maintain a rigorous epistemology I would become gullible and believe a lot of things that just aren't true. And I, at least, am not prepared to do so.


When G_d allegedly came to earth all the people in the know rejected him outright. He'd show them a miracle and they wouldn't believe it. This carries throughout the entire book starting with the fall of Satan who disbelieved G_d even though he stood in G_d's presence.

Where in the Bible do you get the idea that Satan doesn't believe in god? I think you are forgetting your own Bible. James 2:18-20: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."


Now I know you are an empiricist, a scientist - you want solid proof. But stop and consider if you are even asking the right question - because from the perspective of the Bible there isn't any proof that would do you any good - even if G_d Himself were to stand in your presence. Do you understand? The Bible's perspective seems to be that what you'd consider to be even the strongest form of proof would do you no good.

That is simply false. Now, let me ask you, how do you know when God is standing in your presence? Ask yourself how you really can know that. Is it possible that God is not standing in your presence? Is your own epistemology such that you could think that he was in your presence when that is not the case?



Perhaps you've been deceived into a type of thinking - and approach to truth that is wrong. It is so wrong that the Bible doesn't even bother addressing you in your condition. While you may still reject all of it, it should give you pause and cause you to ask why.


If you are correct then you should have no problem showing me how my approach to truth could be leading me to be making false conclusions. Care to try?

[Bubbahotep]

Hello serapha,


You forgot to post at the beginning of the thread that this was a personal vendetta posting and that it would behoove everyone else to just watch the character assination.

I'm not assasinating anyone's character. Ken made a claim and I am simply asking him to defend it. That can't be too much to ask because Ken regularly insists on others doing the exact same thing. If he fails it will not be because I "assasinated" him; it will be because he crumpled under the very same pressure he tries to push on others.

[serapha]

Hello all,

:smile:


I really am appreciating the 500 articles that are presented in the New Archaeological Study Bible, it does include an article supporting the early dating of the Exodus, and a sensible statement....

"Unfortunately, no single theory completely harmonizes archaeological evidence with Biblical claims. Until more definitive interpretations of archaeological finds are forthcoming, it is best to hold, as most historians do, to an earlier date for the exodus on the basis of the Biblical chronoogy described above..."

Wise words to put into print.


~serapha~

[Bubbahotep]

Serapha,

you just finished chastizing me (unjustly) on another thread in this forum for straying from the point of the thread as revealed by the OP. And here you go doing exactly that! This thread is not about your Archaeological Study Bible nor is about dating the Exodus. Please reread the OP again. Thank you.

[shunyadragon]

Hi there!

:hi:


ummm...

You forgot to post at the beginning of the thread that this was a personal vendetta posting and that it would behoove everyone else to just watch the character assination.


I'm not participating, it's personal... not professional.


~serapha~

Is this the best you can do?

I'm glad to see you put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on yourself, making it a personal issue, because you are unable to make a coherent professional defence.

[serapha]

Is this the best you can do?

I'm glad to see you put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on yourself, making it a personal issue, because you are unable to make a coherent professional defence.

Hi there!

:hi:

Let's do place the responsibility where it belongs... the thread addresses issues posted by a member who hasn't been on this forum in over two months, and it demands a response from that person. I don't think that provoking a former member will get a response. :pot:

I can't speak for that member, and apparently he has no desire to post here since his last posting was January 10.

~serapha~

[Ryokan]

I'm not an apologist or anything - or a theologian - but the Biblical approach to truth seems to be different than the 21st Century man's approach. For a brief moment, let's consider everything in the Bible to be absolutely true.

Throughout the Bible the 'strongest' form of evidence to our way of thinking isn't seen as having any more impact than the weak forms of evidence. If you tossed a miracle into a crowd about half would believe and the other half would reject. All through the OT the Jews saw miracle after miracle but even with that they'd set out and worship a golden calf in no time.

When G_d allegedly came to earth all the people in the know rejected him outright. He'd show them a miracle and they wouldn't believe it. This carries throughout the entire book starting with the fall of Satan who disbelieved G_d even though he stood in G_d's presence.

Now I know you are an empiricist, a scientist - you want solid proof. But stop and consider if you are even asking the right question - because from the perspective of the Bible there isn't any proof that would do you any good - even if G_d Himself were to stand in your presence. Do you understand? The Bible's perspective seems to be that what you'd consider to be even the strongest form of proof would do you no good.

Perhaps you've been deceived into a type of thinking - and approach to truth that is wrong. It is so wrong that the Bible doesn't even bother addressing you in your condition. While you may still reject all of it, it should give you pause and cause you to ask why.
Gerbil, the problem is you are saying "The Bible is absolutely true. It says people ignore miracles. Do you want to be one of those people, Bubba?" But we are starting with your assumption, which he doesn't accept. In fact, I am not sure why you accept that. Evidence? Emotion? Spiritual revelation? Without some sort of experiential or revelational evidence in its favor, especially given all the evidence for problems with a literal, inerrant bible, it seems like you are practicing fideism here.

[kendemyer]

Serapha,

Bubbahotep also failed to provide a link to kendemyer's post in question so we could see the context and the full post easily. I think it is common courtesy to provide a quote box with a link.

[bandecoot]

Serapha,

Bubbahotep also failed to provide a link to kendemyer's post in question so we could see the context and the full post easily. I think it is common courtesy to provide a quote box with a link.


Try looking at post 1 dimwit.

[kendemyer]

TO: Bandecoot

Thank you for your rude and errant post.

I looked at the initial post. I still see no quote box with a link and the thread cited with no link is a very long thread.

Here is what I saw from Bubbahotep:


In the "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?" Ken DeMyer wrote:

"There is ample direct evidence that God delivered the Jews and that Moses parted the sea via divine help."

He also wrote:

"There is direct evidence that the Exodus occurred and that Moses lead the Jews via God's sovereign power (parting of the sea and the supernatully caused plagues, etc)."

quoted from: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73515&page=1



Again, common courtesy calls for a quote box with link so readers can see the whole post in question when the thread is a long thread.


Here is the whole quote of kendemyer in context and I do think it provides the direct evidence for the traditional date for the Exodus.





3. I do believe there is direct evidence that the Exodus happened in 1446 B.C. That direct evidence is the Bible (for the date according to the Bible see: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=41 ).



Why should the Bible be considered direct evidence?

Here is why:

1. It has many amazing and detailed prophecies which has come true

Peter Stoner's, Science Speaks, Prophetic Accuracy
http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c8

Bible prophecy - Nothing compares
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184

2. It contains much Bible scientific foreknowledge much of it contained in the first five books of the Bible.

Bible scientific foreknowledge
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_foreknowledge

3. Excellent arguments having been put forth by eminent legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery and others claiming that Western legal standards argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. (see: http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm and http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm and http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html ).

In addition, the former Chief Justices of England Lord Darling and Lord Caldecote stated there was overwhelming amount of evidence for the resurrection of Christ (See: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm).

Also, historians such as Thomas Arnold (see: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html), A. N. Sherwin-White (see: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html and http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html ), and Michael Grant (see: http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/resurrec.htm and http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/ and http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/origins.html ) have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection.

There is also excellent evidence for the historicity of the New Testament as a whole.

Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Dr. Gary Habermas
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html



4. There is excellent archaeological evidence for the Bible

Bible archaeology
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185

quoted from: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=4&pp=16



Here is what direct evidence is according to a law website:


DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

quoted from: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm




I believe Professor Stoner showed via his statistical analysis that the Bible's prophecies cited are detailed and remarkable. Given that those same prophets (who have no real comparison outside the Bible) consider the Torah authorative I see that as the Bible being able to be used as direct evidence. I also believe the other evidence given above further cemented the Bible being able to be used as direct evidence.


Lastly, Bubbhotep wrote the following and gave no support to his contention:


Well, first off, that last request is impossible because the Bible as a whole contains contradictions and a contradiction, by definition, cannot be true.

quoted from: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73515




Now given that the whole thread is accusing another member of not giving support to his contention, one would expect Bubbahotep out of common courtesy to cite alleged examples of the Bible having contradictions with exegetical support (Hebrew/Greek for important words, historical/cultural context, grammatical considerations, contextual issues, etc. ).

[Bubbahotep]

timestar,

my mistake; you ARE Ken DeMyer! Haha. Why are you trying out another guise here, Ken? Seriously, how on earth did you ever think you could get away with something like this? You are a very "unique" individual, Ken, whose style in posting is clear and unmistakeable. What really proved it for me, Ken, was the fact that you started off your post here with:

TO:

Only Ken DeMyer does that, and then for you to try and support yourself ... that's just pathetic, Ken. It's also against board etiquette. The guidelines on multiple screen names are:

"We highly discourage the use of multiple registered screen names to any one single member, unless approved by an administrator. Screen names may be transferred and changed but we will request that the member choose only 1 name to post with, all other aliases will be removed."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_screennames

Why are you doing this, Ken? Were you banned? Or was this just a really poor attempt to make it look like at least one person out there supported you? Thanks for the laughs, Ken. Sorry to have busted you but you're just not that good at pulling the wool over people's eyes.

[shunyadragon]

timestar,

my mistake; you ARE Ken DeMyer! Haha. Why are you trying out another guise here, Ken? Seriously, how on earth did you ever think you could get away with something like this? You are a very "unique" individual, Ken, whose style in posting is clear and unmistakeable. What really proved it for me, Ken, was the fact that you started off your post here with:

TO:

Only Ken DeMyer does that, and then for you to try and support yourself ... that's just pathetic, Ken. It's also against board etiquette. The guidelines on multiple screen names are:

"We highly discourage the use of multiple registered screen names to any one single member, unless approved by an administrator. Screen names may be transferred and changed but we will request that the member choose only 1 name to post with, all other aliases will be removed."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_screennames

Why are you doing this, Ken? Were you banned? Or was this just a really poor attempt to make it look like at least one person out there supported you? Thanks for the laughs, Ken. Sorry to have busted you but you're just not that good at pulling the wool over people's eyes.

Every Troll has to have their fan club.:bow:

[James Peter]

I believe Professor Stoner showed via his statistical analysis that the Bible's prophecies cited are detailed and remarkable. Given that those same prophets (who have no real comparison outside the Bible) consider the Torah authorative I see that as the Bible being able to be used as direct evidence. I also believe the other evidence given above further cemented the Bible being able to be used as direct evidence.

Doesn't that really beg the question? Most scholars would date the core of the prophetic books to before the final form of the Torah. What they consider authoratitive is the 'Teaching' or 'Guidance' which certainly doesn't have to be understood as the 'Books of Moses'. The problem with the prophecies being used as proof is that we have no certainty about their date. If Isaiah is a unity and dates from before Cyrus was even born then yes it is very remarkable. If modern scholarship is believed though then Deutro-Isaiah is a lot less remarkable.

The Bible can't be used as direct evidence because we don't have a consensus about its origins. Its like claiming that an anonymous note saying "I saw Jack kill Lucy" is direct evidence that it was Jack who killed Lucy. Until we have demonstrated that the person who is making the claim is both reliable and would have been in a position to make the claim it is almost worthless.

Thats why the bible needs other evidence to support its story - because we don't know who wrote it and when. You can say you believe that Isaiah wrote 'Isaiah' and that Moses wrote Numbers but you certainly can't even come close to proving it - and until you prove that you can't claim that the books are what you (and I) would like them to be. The 'experts' are too divided to be certain about anything in this field but almost all would agree that there have been several levels of redaction at the very least and so the texts we have today are not the 'originals' - which means we have to handle them very carefully (at the very least!)

[serapha]

Serapha,

Bubbahotep also failed to provide a link to kendemyer's post in question so we could see the context and the full post easily. I think it is common courtesy to provide a quote box with a link.


Hi there!

:hi:

Just for the record, I'm out of the fray.

Duel on.... :fencing:

But without me... and BTW... welcome back! <I think...>


~serapha~

[Bubbahotep]

Ken, now that you are back, in your old guise, and posting away despite apparently being on a "long break from TWEB", I'd like you to actually support your contention that "[t]here is direct evidence that the Exodus occurred and that Moses lead the Jews via God's sovereign power (parting of the sea and the supernatully caused plagues, etc)." Now, you did reply with the following:


I believe Professor Stoner showed via his statistical analysis that the Bible's prophecies cited are detailed and remarkable. Given that those same prophets (who have no real comparison outside the Bible) consider the Torah authorative I see that as the Bible being able to be used as direct evidence. I also believe the other evidence given above further cemented the Bible being able to be used as direct evidence.

I'll gladly take you on regarding the accuracy of Biblical prophecy but that is an entirely separate topic and rightly belongs on another thread. I warned you in the OP, Ken, that I would not allow you to sidetrack this thread. You made a bold claim and you are going to support that claim here or be seen to be the beaten, toothless "bulldog" that you are, with your tail between your legs. So, since Bible prophecy does not constitute direct evidence that the Exodus and its associated miracles actually occurred lets drop the subject.

Now, I already pointed out in the OP that the Bible cannot be considered direct evidence for your claims. Let me repost what I said there as apparently you didn't read it the first time round:


Now, Ken has claimed that the Bible constitutes direct evidence. Apparently Ken is unaware of what direct evidence is. The Bible can only be considered "direct evidence" once you have established that the author (or authors) of the Bible were contemporary witnesses of the events under discussion. That is, Ken will have to prove (not merely assert) that the author of Exodus was a witness to the Exodus and not merely a much later Jewish storywriter.

However, the Bible cannot be considered direct evidence in the case of the Exodus because the Bible is the one making the original claim of the Exodus. You can't be your own supporting witness! So the Bible cannot be considered direct evidence in the Exodus case. Which means that Ken is left holding an empty bag in his claim for direct evidence supporting his Exodus claims. Can he pull some real "direct evidence" to support his claims? I know I'm not holding my breath but he's on the hotseat now.


The Exodus and the miracle stories appear in the book of Exodus. Therefore, that constitutes the original claim. Now, where is the "direct evidence" Ken has claimed? There is no physical evidence and he has not brought forth any evidence that anyone was a first hand witness for these events, let alone evaluated the credibility of such a claimed witness. Can Ken demonstrate that the writer of Exodus was a first hand witness of the events in question? Highly doubtful since even he can't even establish a firm date for the event. Anyway, we eagerly await Ken's presentation of actual "direct evidence" in support of his claims.