Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Challenge to Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,528
    Amen (Given)
    222
    Amen (Received)
    602

    Challenge to Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus

    This is a notice that I am challenging Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus.

    I propose a four round set up, with Mike as the affirmative (the Exodus did happen) and myself as the negative (the Exodus did not happen). There will be no argument by weblink, and there will be no suggestion to read other sources (though they may be referred to). The information both sides provide will the information that is argued with.

    Mike, the ball is in your court now.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    This is a notice that I am challenging Mikeenders on the historicity of the Exodus.

    I propose a four round set up, with Mike as the affirmative (the Exodus did happen) and myself as the negative (the Exodus did not happen). There will be no argument by weblink, and there will be no suggestion to read other sources (though they may be referred to). The information both sides provide will the information that is argued with.

    Mike, the ball is in your court now.
    No not quite yet. this is not what we agreed to and this is NOT what you claimed you could show. Your claim was that it was a fact that the exodus did not happen as the bible states. So ball is back in your court

    I Propose a four round setup where you actually defend the claim you actually made. I will affirm that there is sufficient cause not to consider as a fact the exodus did not happen and you can defend your claim that the matter as to the exodus not having happened has been proven -as to use your words "blatantly obvious"

    Second I will need clarification as to what "no argument by weblink" means. Any activity of Christians should have as its basis the search for real truth. Mere affirmations to facts that cannot be verified is just an exercise in argumentation not truth what Paul might categorize as "vain janglings". So please clarify. I AM assuming that a debate would actually include some facts and not just argumentation

    P.S. I should add that I know proving a negative (something did not happen) is an uphill climb but it was the claim made. At the minimum the standard would have be closer to your "blatantly obvious" claim (or we would never have had much contention on the issue to being with)
    Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015 at 11:18 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    Incidentally I am open to a second follow up which has been a point of contention in which I would be happy to debate - the validity of modern Biblical scholarship. You i presume would be pro and I would gladly be the con
    Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015 at 11:14 PM.

  4. #4
    Child of the One True King Raphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Middle Earth, New Zealand
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,858
    Amen (Given)
    2394
    Amen (Received)
    2780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeenders View Post
    Second I will need clarification as to what "no argument by weblink" means. Any activity of Christians should have as its basis the search for real truth. Mere affirmations to facts that cannot be verified is just an exercise in argumentation not truth what Paul might categorize as "vain janglings". So please clarify. I AM assuming that a debate would actually include some facts and not just argumentation
    From our campus Decorum http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette :
    Source: Campus Decorum

    Debates (points for your position) made via weblink are not allowed. Weblinks may be used when a substantive summary of the point being made is posted on the board with a link given for further information regarding your position. Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Basically you need to include your own analysis of your sources.

    Once you chaps have agreed to your terms one of the area mods will setup the formal debate thread and the commentary.
    TheologyWeb Needs YOU! - Please Help Us Upgrade Tweb! Click here for more info


    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

  5. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,528
    Amen (Given)
    222
    Amen (Received)
    602
    Generally, when I say "the Exodus did not happen," it means the Exodus didn't happen as the OT records it. However, I can see how that looks like equivocation. I will agree to argue the Exodus did not happen as the OT states. Yes, I will agree to Mike's definition of the terms. When I say "argument by weblink," I mean what Gary does, where he'll post a long article as though it somehow refutes some important point. Outside sources are fine, as long as we refer to them directly and make the salient points in the post.

    As for the followup debate, I'm interested, but I'd really want to narrow the scope. Biblical scholarship is absolutely massive, so what in particular were you thinking? Otherwise, we could argue completely past each other.

    My first post will presumably be tomorrow afternoon/evening, if Mike agrees.

    I assume there's some word limit on posts...?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Generally, when I say "the Exodus did not happen," it means the Exodus didn't happen as the OT records it. However, I can see how that looks like equivocation. I will agree to argue the Exodus did not happen as the OT states. Yes, I will agree to Mike's definition of the terms.
    Still not there Stein. You are smart enough to know my position since we discussed it three or four times in the last thread (the whole reason you came to start this thread). Like I said you are going to have to up the ante to your previous claims because to me you are still equivocating. PLease address this

    I Propose a four round setup where you actually defend the claim you actually made. I will affirm that there is sufficient cause not to consider as a fact the exodus did not happen and you can defend your claim that the matter as to the exodus not having happened has been proven -as to use your words "blatantly obvious"
    Second "as the OT records" is way too vague. You Could take exception to the numbers of the exodus. You could take exception to the parting of the red sea. You could take exceptions to things I would not even expect there to be evidence of

    SO to put them together you need a statement of certainty that the exodus did not happen and what that refers to similar to what you made in the thread you made the grandiose claims of certainty you did - because right now saying your challenging me to a debate in which you have changed the claims that created our contention is more than a little disingenuous.

    My position on the exodus was that we still have more to learn and nothing had yet been proven even with some interesting new finds supporting the exodus and your contention was no - its obvious and proven as blatantly obvious that it never happened . You refused to provide that proof for weeks and said you would start another thread to show the proof that made it certain and voila - all mention of your claims to certainty vanishes from your alleged "challenge".
    Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-14-2015 at 05:53 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphael View Post
    Basically you need to include your own analysis of your sources.

    Once you chaps have agreed to your terms one of the area mods will setup the formal debate thread and the commentary.
    thanks for the clarification. seems fair enough to me

  8. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,528
    Amen (Given)
    222
    Amen (Received)
    602
    This is how I would define the Exodus:

    1. The entire Jewish nation is enslaved in Egypt
    2. After a series of plagues and other odd occurrences, they leave Egypt under the guidance of Moses.
    3. They then cross the Sea of Reeds (Yam Suph) and follow the route described in the OT
    4. They sojourn for a long period of time in Sinai.

    Mike, how would you define the Exodus? Maybe if you describe it, I can say particularly what I find objectionable, and we can go from there.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    We can start with the certainty argument you made that it is blatantly obvious the Exodus did not happen (then discuss scope)

    A) that was the major source of contention between us that you promised you would back up and I waited weeks and it never happened
    B) I've now mentioned it twice and you have skirted it

    IF you think you are going to wiggle your way out of a level of certainty debate as a major if not the main component of a debate with me - in contradiction of your previous claims that is just not going to happen

  10. #10
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,528
    Amen (Given)
    222
    Amen (Received)
    602
    It is blatantly obvious that the Exodus as described in the OT did not take place. That is the statement I will defend.

    If an exodus dissimilar to the one in the OT took place, why call it the Exodus?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •