Man on Pink Corner: "What's XD mean?"

It's a laughing face, sideways. ASCII emoticons are a bad habit of mine that I usually manage to repress.

GilRuiz1

The point is not "does a single counter-example destroy it" but "how do you address is?"

There are many such examples, but you have been skirting around the edges of analyzing even one such example. How do you address it? How do you analyze the scale of error, gauge its importance within the scripture, etc.?

Orson Scott Card has written six books so far in his "Alvin the Maker" series, which takes place in an alternate history America of the 19th century. Certainly we can't find every character in the book individually from our own history books, but there ARE plenty who do exist. Washington, Franklin, Napoleon... Most major historical figures we know of from the time period make an appearance. Oh sure, not every geographic border is correct, not every battle from the American Revolution happened, the colonies themselves don't QUITE resemble the outcome of the Revolution as we recognize it... But hey, not EVERYTHING has to be exact, right? Who are we to doubt Alvin's knacks as a powerful Maker, the battles the stopped with his powers, the people he healed with them, or the existance of the crystal city he was building with his bare hands?

To put it another way, say I find a scholastic textbook regarding the American Revolution. Everything seems exactly in place, but it says that somewhere before the Siege of Yorktown, General LaFayette was succumbed to the poison of a traitor, which would cause quite the commotion among his troops and call the outcome of the battle into question. Privately to his generals, Washington revealed he had the ability to raise the dead, and did so to General LaFayette, his men none the wiser. None of the witnesses wrote about this event in their private letters, and nothing else like this occurred again in the annals of history. The author claims that there was an oral history passed down among the families of the eyewitnesses themselves, however, which is how he knows.

How do you judge the veracity of that LONE supernatural claim? The entire rest of the volume makes nothing other than claims we already accept as true, being vetted among multiple sources, included in most every historian's notes of the era, studied and restudied among historians since... In short, everything "is as it is" except for that one claim. Do we take it at face value because all the rest of the author's claims line up, why or why not?

Just Stumbled across this, and it seemed eerily appropriate. ;-)

Man On Pink Corner: You eventually discovered the lie, and instead of becoming more skeptical as a result, you became less skeptical.

Absolutely. As you could tell from my story, I became even more sure and more firmly established on my foundations than ever before, and began doubting things much, much less.


Zamboro: GilRuiz1: "I outlined very carefully what would, and I was sincere."

I don't think so. As mentioned above the Egypt example was a dishonest one and the evidence I did provide very much met the criteria you put forth.

Wow, you frequently accuse me of misunderstanding the things you write, and now it appears I also can't even understand the things I myself have written. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep on insisting on playing Calvinball.


Zamboro: You originally said "The equivalent of Egypt not existing". One such Jewish kingdom would have been, if described accurately, every bit Egypts equal. The fact that hindsight is 20/20 and we know Egypt to exist doesn't constitute an excuse. It would be like if I were to choose something that's already been settled as the sort of proof I'd need to assent to theism (such as discovering via fossil records that animal remains are distributed in patterns that suggest a mass exodus from Mount Ararat. We already know this isn't true, so choosing it as a condition would be dishonest. Much like choosing "proof that Egypt doesn't exist" as a condition for assenting to atheism.)

Okay, so let me ask you this. This Jewish kingdom thing, it can't be a new discovery only just now noticed. Has anyone addressed this before? Jewish scholars have had about 3,000 years to discuss it; what has their opinion been? How about historians; they like lists of kingdoms, particularly missing ones. What do they say? Biblical commentaries, what have their opinions been? Do the critics have a counterpoint? Is there an answer to that? And an objection to that answer? And so on and so forth?

If this is an issue that's been hashed to death for centuries, then it's one of those problems that I characterized as being old hat that only has ever gotten us back to square one. It's not what I'm looking for.


Zamboro: I'll consider it. In the meantime I home you enjoyed the little comic I posted. =]

It was funny, but it needs a bit of polishing, IMO. The character on the right never actually explains his reasoning behind his dismissal of the problems of scientism and logical positivism. He does that hand motion to express his scorn for them, but the comic does not get across why the criticisms don't apply to him, nor the intellectual process by which he arrived at his conclusion.

Man On Pink Corner: Don't be disingenuous. Your own account describes how you felt betrayed by one belief that turned to be wrong, and how you responded by turning to another, equally-unsupportable one.

No, please re-read what I wrote.

I had two beliefs that turned out to not be as solid as I originally had thought, and I responded by realizing things aren't as black-and-white as I thought they were.

I didn't use to trust in science, found out it wasn't bulletproof, and became a Christian in my despair. I already had confidence in both science and Christianity beforehand. It was my degree in the ironclad certainty of both that diminished.

/Actually, it turns out most everything in life, not just science or religion, is less certain. But that's something for another discussion.

GilRuiz1: "Okay, so let me ask you this. This Jewish kingdom thing, it can't be a new discovery only just now noticed. Has anyone addressed this before? Jewish scholars have had about 3,000 years to discuss it; what has their opinion been? How about historians; they like lists of kingdoms, particularly missing ones. What do they say? Biblical commentaries, what have their opinions been? Do the critics have a counterpoint? Is there an answer to that? And an objection to that answer? And so on and so forth?

If this is an issue that's been hashed to death for centuries, then it's one of those problems that I characterized as being old hat that only has ever gotten us back to square one. It's not what I'm looking for."

Fallacious. The fact that it's an old issue and apologists predictably have a slew of excuses for it doesn't make it any less of a problem for those asserting the historicity of the Bible.

Even if I were to produce entirely original research to the effect that some other historical claim of the Bible were provably wrong, apologists would not be long in crafting an excuse for that as well. It's what they do. They don't provide legitimate counterargument; They cannot, as they're defending falsehoods. What they do is spin.

GilRuiz1: "Wow, you frequently accuse me of misunderstanding the things you write, and now it appears I also can't even understand the things I myself have written. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep on insisting on playing Calvinball."

You accuse me of playing Calvinball after you set forth conditions for being disconvinced and then fail to make good on your promise when those conditions are satisfied? Of course I see where you've graciously excused yourself by dismissing the example because it is old and has been discussed already, but then the creation/evolution debate rages on and most every disproof of Creationism is quite old and has been "addressed" by Creationists in the same way that instances of historical errancy in the Bible have been "addressed" by apologists.

GilRuiz1: "I didn't use to trust in science, found out it wasn't bulletproof, and became a Christian in my despair."

So because science could not offer you all of the answers, you turned to religion, which cannot offer you any?

Zamboro: Fallacious. The fact that it's an old issue and apologists predictably have a slew of excuses for it doesn't make it any less of a problem for those asserting the historicity of the Bible.

Even if I were to produce entirely original research to the effect that some other historical claim of the Bible were provably wrong, apologists would not be long in crafting an excuse for that as well. It's what they do. They don't provide legitimate counterargument; They cannot, as they're defending falsehoods. What they do is spin.

You still don't get it. Look, let me give you an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for.

Mormonism. It claims to be based on historical events that really happened. The book of Mormon says that all native Americans were actually Jews who fled Israel in boats. When they got here, they formed various nations called the Lamanites, the Jaredites, and the Nephites. It gives descriptions of wars, events, and other history.

What do historians think of it all? They think it's all complete fiction. Skim the Wiki page on it and see. DNA studies prove native Americans aren't descended from Jews. None of the preColumbian civilizations match anything resembling the Lamanites, the Jaredites, or any others. It describes animals and technology which we know to not have existed in the New World, and so on ad infinitum.

There are Mormon apologists, as would be expected, who try to make it fit. But what do the veredict of peer-reviewed historical journals, historical societies, and historical academia? The Smithsonian pretty much sums it all up by saying they've found "no archaeological evidence to support [the book's] claims." As far as scholars of history are concerned, nothing fits and it was all fabricated by Joseph Smith.

This is the sort of thing I'm looking for. Unanimous agreement among the historians of the world that the "history" never happened and it's all fiction.

In the case of Christianity, there is plenty of history and archaeology that everyone agrees on. Civilizations of historical record, cities we can all go see, artifacts, corroboration from other sources, and so on. The historical record is incomplete, to be sure, just as the fossil record hasn't been all discovered. But for me, neither one of those circumstances cause me to abandon either Christianity or evolution.

What I'm looking for is something that debunks Christianity just as decidedly as it does Mormonism.


Zamboro: GilRuiz1: "I didn't use to trust in science, found out it wasn't bulletproof, and became a Christian in my despair."

So because science could not offer you all of the answers, you turned to religion, which cannot offer you any?

No, I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me restate that sentence to be more explicit:

It was not the case that when I was a kid, I was irreligious and had my whole faith in science, and then when I grew up, I learned that science wasn't bulletproof, so in response, I then caught religion and became a Christian. This is what did not happen.

GilRuiz1: "You still don't get it. Look, let me give you an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for.

Mormonism. It claims to be based on historical events that really happened. The book of Mormon says that all native Americans were actually Jews who fled Israel in boats. When they got here, they formed various nations called the Lamanites, the Jaredites, and the Nephites. It gives descriptions of wars, events, and other history."

Yes, I'm familiar, in fact I thought I had used that as an example. Guess not.

GilRuiz1: "What do historians think of it all? They think it's all complete fiction."

Careful now. Which historians? Likely not Mormon ones. No doubt they regard these disproofs as "hashed to death for centuries", and "one of those problems that's old hat" and which "only has ever gotten us back to square one."

GilRuiz1: "Skim the Wiki page on it and see. DNA studies prove native Americans aren't descended from Jews. None of the preColumbian civilizations match anything resembling the Lamanites, the Jaredites, or any others. It describes animals and technology which we know to not have existed in the New World, and so on ad infinitum.

There are Mormon apologists, as would be expected, who try to make it fit. But what do the veredict of peer-reviewed historical journals, historical societies, and historical academia? The Smithsonian pretty much sums it all up by saying they've found "no archaeological evidence to support [the book's] claims." As far as scholars of history are concerned, nothing fits and it was all fabricated by Joseph Smith."

Yes, and yet as you say there are a litany of excuses provided by Mormon apologists, just as there are excuses provided by Biblical apologists for the instances of historical errancy I mentioned. You're evidently among them, your chief excuse being that my example is "old" and has been "hashed to death for centuries". Well no shiat. Mormon apologetics has been going on for as long as the religion has existed in an organized form. Disproofs of the historical claims in the Book of Mormon have been "addressed" by Mormon apologists since shortly after they were raised. Does this invalidate the disproofs?

GilRuiz1: "This is the sort of thing I'm looking for. Unanimous agreement among the historians of the world that the "history" never happened and it's all fiction."

You seem to assert knowledge of which issues are unanimously agreed upon by "the historians of the world" and which are not. Specifically which historians do you mean? Can you support your claim that they unanimously agree that the DNA and archaeological evidence discredits the aforementioned claims in the Book of Mormon? I ask because equally concrete archaeological evidence proves that the kingdoms and wars I mentioned were (in the case of the involved soldiers) gross exaggerations and (in the case of the grand desert kingdoms) outright fabrications. It is every bit as conclusive as the disproofs for the Mormon claims, and any archaeologist that specializes in the area, any historian who is not himself firmly religious and ignorant of the archaeological evidence will agree.

GilRuiz1: "In the case of Christianity, there is plenty of history and archaeology that everyone agrees on. Civilizations of historical record, cities we can all go see, artifacts, corroboration from other sources, and so on. The historical record is incomplete, to be sure, just as the fossil record hasn't been all discovered. But for me, neither one of those circumstances cause me to abandon either Christianity or evolution."

That the cities mentioned in the Bible did historically exist in the past (and some in the modern day) is no more to the point than the fact that the Iliad and Homer's Oddyssey (or hell, even any fictional film set in the modern day) contains real people, places and events. Nonetheless the same is true of the Book of Mormon; it references many factually extant places and historical individuals, but of course you concede that even some of the more mundane, natural claims (regarding the Jewish refugees and their American war with the Romans) are evidently fabrications, as are Biblical claims regarding Jewish kingdoms established following the exodus from Egypt and the related wars.

GilRuiz1: "What I'm looking for is something that debunks Christianity just as decidedly as it does Mormonism."

I've provided evidence which disproves a Biblical historical claim every bit as concretely as modern DNA and archaeological evidence disproves the previously mentioned claims in the book of Mormon. If you consider the DNA and archaeological evidence you mentioned sufficient to "decidedly debunk" said Mormon claims, there is no good reason why the archaeological evidence that said Jewish kingdoms never existed shouldn't be equally damning for Christianity. Except of course that you're applying a double standard.

GilRuiz1: "No, I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me restate that sentence to be more explicit:

It was not the case that when I was a kid, I was irreligious and had my whole faith in science, and then when I grew up, I learned that science wasn't bulletproof, so in response, I then caught religion and became a Christian. This is what did not happen."

Nah, I didn't misunderstand. You said very clearly that you were religious well before the incident, I understand that. In light of this you might re-read what I wrote and perhaps it will make more sense. I did not mean that you supplanted science entirely with religion, just that your disappointment stemming from your distorted expectation of what science can provide led you to the wrong conclusion; rather than adopting a more conservative and accurate understanding of what science provides and being satisfied with answers which are as firmly proven as is possible, you decided that such answers weren't sufficiently "solid" for you, as though there is some greater degree of solidity that might be achieved through other means. There isn't.

Wait, do you mean that the Mormon claims are foundational to Mormonism, and the Biblical claims I mentioned are not? If that's the vital distinction I have no issue with it. All I'm saying is that the two instances of errancy are on an equal scale. You didn't specify that the examples of errancy involve foundational claims, only that they be "big".

Zamboro: Yes, and yet as you say there are a litany of excuses provided by Mormon apologists, just as there are excuses provided by Biblical apologists for the instances of historical errancy I mentioned. You're evidently among them, your chief excuse being that my example is "old" and has been "hashed to death for centuries". Well no shiat

The chief difference, which you don't want to acknowledge, is that historians agree there's no evidence for Mormon history, and there's plenty of evidence for Biblical history.



Zamboro: I ask because equally concrete archaeological evidence proves that the kingdoms and wars I mentioned were (in the case of the involved soldiers) gross exaggerations and (in the case of the grand desert kingdoms) outright fabrications. It is every bit as conclusive as the disproofs for the Mormon claims, and any archaeologist that specializes in the area, any historian who is not himself firmly religious and ignorant of the archaeological evidence will agree.

You're joking, right? Are you seriously claiming that historians agree that the Bible is just as fictional as the book or Mormon?


Zamboro: That the cities mentioned in the Bible did historically exist in the past (and some in the modern day) is no more to the point than the fact that the Iliad and Homer's Oddyssey (or hell, even any fictional film set in the modern day) contains real people, places and events.

This is two issues that you're conflating. Let's separate them.

The first is that at the very least you seem to concede that we can go and walk the streets of Jerusalem and Babylon. But since we can't go walk the streets of the book of Mormon's Jershon and Zarahemla, then can you also concede that there is at the very least more history and archeology in the one book than in the other?

The other issue is to then test all the other religions and fictions that exist and see. Conceding the Mormon thing doesn't mean throwing up your hands and saying that everything is lost and we can't ever decide anything. One at a time.


Zamboro: I've provided evidence which disproves a Biblical historical claim every bit as concretely as modern DNA and archaeological evidence disproves the previously mentioned claims in the book of Mormon. If you consider the DNA and archaeological evidence you mentioned sufficient to "decidedly debunk" said Mormon claims, there is no good reason why the archaeological evidence that said Jewish kingdoms never existed shouldn't be equally damning for Christianity. Except of course that you're applying a double standard.

Or a perfectly sound standard, which is to say, as I have already said many, many, many times in this thread, that you're talking about a single fossil. In the case of Christianity, we have a missing links, but plenty of fossils to be had. In the case of the book of Mormon, we don't have a single trilobyte.

Can you not see the this?


Zamboro: just that your disappointment stemming from your distorted expectation of what science can provide led you to the wrong conclusion; rather than adopting a more conservative and accurate understanding of what science provides and being satisfied with answers which are as firmly proven as is possible, you decided that such answers weren't sufficiently "solid" for you

Uh... no. What I did do was adopt a more conservative and accurate understanding of what science provides and I was satisfied with answers which are as firmly proven as possible. What that doesn't do is debunk Christianity, which is what you want it to do.

Zamboro: Wait, do you mean that the Mormon claims are foundational to Mormonism, and the Biblical claims I mentioned are not? If that's the vital distinction I have no issue with it. All I'm saying is that the two instances of errancy are on an equal scale. You didn't specify that the examples of errancy involve foundational claims, only that they be "big".

Ah, perhaps you've hit on the way you and I can resolve this. Can you explain what you mean by "foundational claims" a little more, please?

GilRuiz1: "The chief difference, which you don't want to acknowledge, is that historians agree there's no evidence for Mormon history, and there's plenty of evidence for Biblical history."

#1. Who are these historians, specifically?
#2. Much of Mormon history is Biblical history, as it was the material that Joseph Smith drew from in writing the Book of Mormon.

GilRuiz1: "The first is that at the very least you seem to concede that we can go and walk the streets of Jerusalem and Babylon. But since we can't go walk the streets of the book of Mormon's Jershon and Zarahemla, then can you also concede that there is at the very least more history and archeology in the one book than in the other?

The other issue is to then test all the other religions and fictions that exist and see. Conceding the Mormon thing doesn't mean throwing up your hands and saying that everything is lost and we can't ever decide anything. One at a time."

No no no, my argument was to the effect that the (imperfect) historicity of the Bible is nothing special as there are a number of other holy texts which also contain a wealth of accurate historical information, and presumably you don't believe that this lends credence to their supernatural claims as you don't believe in their gods.

GilRuiz1: "Or a perfectly sound standard, which is to say, as I have already said many, many, many times in this thread, that you're talking about a single fossil."

By your arbitrary measure, perhaps. You requested a disproof on the same scale as the nonexistence of Egypt. I provided evidence of the nonexistence of a kingdom of comparable size, wealth and military power.

GilRuiz1: "In the case of Christianity, we have a missing links, but plenty of fossils to be had. In the case of the book of Mormon, we don't have a single trilobyte."

Instances of factual history don't count as missing links because the fact that valid history made it into the Bible has no bearing on its supernatural claims, as I've explained several times now with the Illiad and Homer's Odyssey comparison. The best way to put a lie past someone is to mix it into a large volume of truth. That the authors of the Bible were able to competently commit to paper the known history of the region and the state of affairs at the time does not suggest that their religious beliefs, which they also put forth as a factual part of that history, were actually true. The same argument applies to historical accounts written by the ancient Romans which accurately record the occurrence and related statistics of battles, but claim divine involvement for instance.

GilRuiz1: "Ah, perhaps you've hit on the way you and I can resolve this. Can you explain what you mean by "foundational claims" a little more, please?"

I'd like to know what you actually meant, not give you an easy out. Did you or did you not intend "big" to mean "claims which, if untrue, would invalidate much of the basis of a holy text"?

Zamboro: I'd like to know what you actually meant, not give you an easy out. Did you or did you not intend "big" to mean "claims which, if untrue, would invalidate much of the basis of a holy text"?

Yes, that is what I meant. A crucially important historical claim on which a great deal hinges, like when the Mormons say that native Americans are all Jews. For them, if the American indians weren't Jews, then the whole thing falls completely apart because everything depends on it. I mean something of this sort, yes.


Zamboro: Instances of factual history don't count as missing links because the fact that valid history made it into the Bible has no bearing on its supernatural claims, as I've explained several times now with the Illiad and Homer's Odyssey comparison. The best way to put a lie past someone is to mix it into a large volume of truth. That the authors of the Bible were able to competently commit to paper the known history of the region and the state of affairs at the time does not suggest that their religious beliefs, which they also put forth as a factual part of that history, were actually true. The same argument applies to historical accounts written by the ancient Romans which accurately record the occurrence and related statistics of battles, but claim divine involvement for instance.

You are absolutely correct. Having true history doesn't automatically prove that the supernatural stuff in it was also true.

But let's finish with the history first. I think we're almost to a point of agreement here.

GilRuiz1: "Yes, that is what I meant. A crucially important historical claim on which a great deal hinges, like when the Mormons say that native Americans are all Jews. For them, if the American indians weren't Jews, then the whole thing falls completely apart because everything depends on it. I mean something of this sort, yes."

Odd, as that bears little resemblance to how you described your conditions.

Here's a compromise; Would a number of independent historical studies to the effect that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians in significant numbers meet your conditions for disproof? Please answer before determining through research whether this is actually the case as I'd rather you make the decision without the benefit of hindsight, for reasons I laid out earlier.

Zamboro: Odd, as that bears little resemblance to how you described your conditions.

Perhaps I thought the implications were clear when I qualified that the historical hole would have to be HUGE. But apparently I assumed too much. No matter, now I think we're closer.


Zamboro: Here's a compromise; Would a number of independent historical studies to the effect that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians in significant numbers meet your conditions for disproof? Please answer before determining through research whether this is actually the case as I'd rather you make the decision without the benefit of hindsight, for reasons I laid out earlier.

Alrighty, I agree to this compromise. I haven't ever actually looked this up in history texts so I don't know, and I won't look anything up before answering your question; I'll just let you know what occurs to me.

Yes, it is foundationally important that the Jews were enslaved peoples in Egypt. Let me give you a few thoughts on the topic.

First, since you mentioned significant numbers, if it turned out that the total number of Jews wasn't in the millions or whatever number Moses gives, but instead was smaller, that wouldn't bother me.

Second, if it turned out that the Jews had been in Egypt, but only a subset of them were enslaved, then that wouldn't bother me in the least. Like if some Jews were part of the free class, and other Jews were the enslaved class, I wouldn't be surprised.

A related thought is that the Biblical account begins with the Jews being a favored group in Egypt, with Joseph being viceregent over the whole country and his people enjoying prestige in the kingdom. After a couple of centuries, they descended into slavery. If we had found evidence of the first, but had not yet found evidence of the second, then that wouldn't surprise me much either because it would make sense to me that as aristocrats they would leave monuments and mansions behind, but as slaves they'd only leave hovels and garbage.

What would pose a problem would be conclusive evidence that they weren't enslaved ever at any time at all. I'm not talking about lack of evidence of their second stage, but instead tangible evidence that actually proved the second stage never happened. Like a tablet that said "no Jews were enslaved here." Or an old text from the Jews that said "we were actually all free the whole time."

Something else that would pose a problem would be if the Jews had never been in Egypt in the first place. Like if we could find evidence that instead of being in Egypt, they actually sat at home the whole time or had been in Italy instead or something.

So yeah, if historians could prove that conclusively and it was accepted as undeniable by the historical establishment that I mentioned, then yes, that would really bother me.

Do you know of Ze'ev Herzog, the Israeli Archaeologist? Finkelstein is held in higher regard, as Herzog is in the habit of using gonzo sensationalist language even though he's an extremely competent archaeologist and researcher. Think Arnie Lerma levels of enthusiasm). At any rate both have done solid archaeological research which has enormous Biblical implications and either would be a good place to start.

In order for us to proceed I'll need to know whether you consider either of these archaeologists to be sufficiently reputable.

Zamboro: In order for us to proceed I'll need to know whether you consider either of these archaeologists to be sufficiently reputable.

I know nothing about them. I don't know how the historical establishment views them, whether they're seen as sensible, as controversial, or anything else.

That being the case, the way that I could judge to what degree I should put my confidence in them would be to see if their opinions and theories have been accepted by historical academia at large.

BTW, do you happen to know the opinion of the historical establishment of the whole Egypt-enslaved-Jews thing? What do they say about the issue? What is the scholarly consensus?

GilRuiz1: "I know nothing about them. I don't know how the historical establishment views them, whether they're seen as sensible, as controversial, or anything else.

That being the case, the way that I could judge to what degree I should put my confidence in them would be to see if their opinions and theories have been accepted by historical academia at large."

I supplied their Wikipedia pages, which include offsite references.

GilRuiz1: "BTW, do you happen to know the opinion of the historical establishment of the whole Egypt-enslaved-Jews thing? What do they say about the issue? What is the scholarly consensus?"

There is a great deal of dissent from theologians, but such is to be expected. That is the only sense in which a controversy could be said to exist. There is good evidential support for the claim that Jews were not the ethnic group enslaved by the Egyptians nor were they used to build the pyramids. I'd rather not say anything beyond this as you're supposed to stand by your prediction without the benefit of hindsight, and I do not know yet whether you will honor your commitment as you've not conceded the credibility of either of the archaeologists I've supplied. If you'd like more, I'd be happy to provide, but please do not set me about what you privately intend to make into an endless task.

Zamboro: I supplied their Wikipedia pages, which include offsite references.

Fair enough, I shall read them and their references.


Zamboro: There is a great deal of dissent from theologians, but such is to be expected.

True, which is why I asked not what the theologians thought, but the historians. No worries, though.


Zamboro: There is good evidential support for the claim that Jews were not the ethnic group enslaved by the Egyptians nor were they used to build the pyramids.

Oh, everybody knows about the Jews not making the pyramids. As I remember, they were built centuries before, right?

As to everything else:


Zamboro: I'd rather not say anything beyond this as you're supposed to stand by your prediction without the benefit of hindsight, and I do not know yet whether you will honor your commitment as you've not conceded the credibility of either of the archaeologists I've supplied. If you'd like more, I'd be happy to provide, but please do not set me about what you privately intend to make into an endless task.

Well, what I was expecting was that you would say something like "these two historians have incontrovertibly proven that it wasn't the case and historical academia agrees with them." Then what I was going to do was to go to the library, check out a few history and archeology books, find some archeology journals, read the subject over thoroughly, and weigh the different opinions before making up my mind.

I don't intend to make you do all the work which, in any case, I was going to go double-check for myself. I also understand your hesitance to believe me when I say that I will take the established opinions of the historical community seriously. If it turns out things are proven to be like we discussed earlier, I fully intend to change my mind. I said I would, and I will.

Thanks for pointing me to the two guys, Zamboro. I'll go take a look.

GilRuiz1: "Oh, everybody knows about the Jews not making the pyramids. As I remember, they were built centuries before, right?"

Again with the hindsight. Had you not known this before I might likely have gotten you to agree to make it a condition for disproof.

I've thought of another approach we might pursue at the same time; Unless I'm mistaken you've conceded that the Genesis creation story was intended as historical narrative by scholars who were working with what was widely believed in their region at the time, as with the creation myths in other religious texts. The genesis account also supplies the reason for Christs death in the form of original sin. Without a literal garden of Eden, without a literal Adam and Eve, whence cometh original sin?

GilRuiz1: "If it turns out things are proven to be like we discussed earlier, I fully intend to change my mind. I said I would, and I will."

Providing that you're being truthful I don't seriously expect you to lose your religiosity over this as I said before the veracity of historical claims in the Bible has no bearing on the truth value of the supernatural claims. Asking you to deconvert overnight because of evidence that I myself wouldn't consider legitimate disproof wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. As I said earlier my real goal is not to make you an atheist, it's to push you into reconsidering your reasons for being a theist and abandoning the pretense of evidential support.

GilRuiz1: BTW, do you happen to know the opinion of the historical establishment of the whole Egypt-enslaved-Jews thing? What do they say about the issue? What is the scholarly consensus?

From the little I have read (and it's starting to fascinate me more and more, I just haven't spent much time at the Library of late) there is much evidence supporting many of the general claims of many events in the Scriptures, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, things often end up being exactly the opposite. Of course, my public library is quite poor, and many of the books are 30 years old or more, so being up to date is sometimes difficult.

This particular page on Ze'ev Herzog's Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho looks like a great starter.

The paper/article itself is pretty damning in its assertions, but the page include links to a number of reviews which argue against Herzog. If anything, you can at least get a grasp on the controversy regarding that issue.

Personally, I've never really thought too much about it because even if the story of some Jewish slaves who escaped Egypt is true, you've got 10 plagues, 40 years lost in a desert, the parting of a large body of water, earthquakes which swallow dissenters, snake/staff which cures onlookers and a population density completely unheard of - not to mention that the time period in which this is all supposed to have taken place is damn near impossible to pin down.

Problems abound.

Zamboro: I've thought of another approach we might pursue at the same time; Unless I'm mistaken you've conceded that the Genesis creation story was intended as historical narrative by scholars who were working with what was widely believed in their region at the time, as with the creation myths in other religious texts.

Evidence suggests Genesis is a three part narrative, with events conflated between the Judaic and the... Ephram? Edom? The J text, the E text, and the P text. Most notably, the first book of Genesis is purportedly a P revision, written during the time of the Priests controlling the government some ~800 year after the J and E versions were written. It's complicated, I suggest simply reading the book about it.

It reads like a novel, very gripping, yet very educational.

Who Wrote the Bible? - by Richard E. Friedman

Zamboro: I've thought of another approach we might pursue at the same time; Unless I'm mistaken you've conceded that the Genesis creation story was intended as historical narrative by scholars who were working with what was widely believed in their region at the time, as with the creation myths in other religious texts. The genesis account also supplies the reason for Christs death in the form of original sin. Without a literal garden of Eden, without a literal Adam and Eve, whence cometh original sin?

Well, I've never really given this issue any thought in the historical sense because I figured that any archeological remains of anything that ancient would be long gone by now, particularly if we're talking about an actual garden that only had trees and plants and no buildings or monuments. Heck, if some of the old earth creationists are right, the whole Garden of Eden thing would have taken place, oh, I don't know, 200,000 years ago or so 'cause that's when Homo Sapiens appeared (ergo that's when God created him, thereafter the garden, etc). That's a long time for a grove to have lasted.

What's the real story on that and how does it all really play out? I don't know, but if it truly was a historical event, I reeeeeeally doubt archeologists are ever going to find anything left.


Zamboro: Providing that you're being truthful I don't seriously expect you to lose your religiosity over this as I said before the veracity of historical claims in the Bible has no bearing on the truth value of the supernatural claims.

Well, at the very least it would cause me to seriously reconsider what I think about the Biblical record. Who knows?


ninjakirby: From the little I have read (and it's starting to fascinate me more and more, I just haven't spent much time at the Library of late) there is much evidence supporting many of the general claims of many events in the Scriptures, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, things often end up being exactly the opposite.

Now that is odd! Evidence generally seems to support X, but then you look at it closely and it actually seems to indicate Y. Very unexpected. I wonder what gives?

I agree that the whole topic is doggone fascinating. I've never really pursued it, but I reckon I'm going to start. It's probably going to take me a long while Zamboro, I normally like to research things meticulously to an exhaustive degree. Might take years, particularly since I'm running a startup videogame company right now. Well, you're in game school, so you know what the work is like. But yes, I will get to it.

GilRuiz1: "Might take years, particularly since I'm running a startup videogame company right now. Well, you're in game school, so you know what the work is like"

More than you know. Two unrelated sets of childhood friends with similar aspirations have founded legit companies, tax shelters and the whole shebang, and have been developing cell phone and flash games by commission for a few years now. I'm privileged in that I've got a choice of positions waiting for me at either company once I've graduated, although the salary will cover little more than my basic living expenses until the company has grown a bit. Then again I'd work for ramen and shelter if it meant not having to take a job on the EA asset creation assembly line.

Zamboro: GilRuiz1: "Might take years, particularly since I'm running a startup videogame company right now. Well, you're in game school, so you know what the work is like"


... Then again I'd work for ramen and shelter if it meant not having to take a job on the EA asset creation assembly line.

wtf is this, Disneys Small World ride?

/Personal aquaintance of EA Maxis Art Director
//Highschool w/ his son, one of my best friends.

Zamboro: More than you know. Two unrelated sets of childhood friends with similar aspirations have founded legit companies, tax shelters and the whole shebang, and have been developing cell phone and flash games by commission for a few years now. I'm privileged in that I've got a choice of positions waiting for me at either company once I've graduated, although the salary will cover little more than my basic living expenses until the company has grown a bit.

Oooh, that is so sweet! You lucky dog, you! Do you happen to have the URLs handy, please?


Zamboro: Then again I'd work for ramen and shelter if it meant not having to take a job on the EA asset creation assembly line.

Oh, I did that for a few months. It wasn't so bad. Lots of work, lots of crunch time, more chaos and lack of direction than I would have expected from an established company. But they paid well, so it worked out in the end.

It was at EA Salt Lake City, so everything was very Mormony. Gave me a chance to study Mormonism. And to get a cool necktie 'cause Mormons looooooooove neckties! Every mall has at least one or two necktie stores!

ninjakirby: wtf is this, Disneys Small World ride?

/Personal aquaintance of EA Maxis Art Director
//Highschool w/ his son, one of my best friends.

Now I know what Fark looks like: