>no evidence for Exodus
>no evidence for Purim
>no evidence for the Battle of Jericho
>no evidence for the cities mentioned in Joshua being inhabited at the time
What is this thing even
RICH, METAPHORICAL SYMBOLISM
>>764622
A compilation of a shitton of different accounts of varying validity and literary merit from across several centuries
An yes, the "Argument from ignorance".
But it goes both ways; it isn't rational to make a sure claim, positive or negative without evidence or counter evidence.
Empiricism includes such subcategories such as negativism, positivism, etc.
There are many things that have been reported to have been myths that had later turned out to be true; ie: Troy.
Is it rational the believe in the claims?
No.
Is it rational to claim everything is a lie?
No.
As to you questions as to what it is?
It's a collection of Bronze age recordings from the middle east.
>>764634
You mean Iron Age senpai
>>764634
Most of that stuff was considered sound history until recently, as more archaeology work has been done, the more those stories have become suspect
>>764622
>>no evidence for Exodus
Brooklyn slave list, at one time they were there second, gone.
ohr.edu/838
>no evidence for the Battle of Jericho
Because there was no battle, archaeology.about.com/od/jterms/qt/jericho.htm
>>764967
>Brooklyn slave list, at one time they were there second, gone.
>ohr.edu/838
Really? Using the Ipuwer Papyrus as evidence for Exodus? The one that talks about how Asiatics are invading, mummy-cloths are speaking, poor people have all become rich, rich people have all become poor, Elephantine and Thinis are rebelling, people are learning the priests' secret spells, and corpses are being thrown out of tombs? The one where Hebrews are never once mentioned?
The only thing even close to Exodus is that is says the river is blood, and that people are dying. Beyond that, all the details are completely different.
>>765025
Well, and the generic fire-and-famine stuff.
>>765025
The site provides the very details one needs, in fact the only dispute I heard from the professionals is the dating of the parchment.
>>764625
Muh we get to pick which passages are symbolical and which ones aren't. The ones that are embarassing and proven false by science are usually the ones that are symbolical, but that's just a coincidence.
>>765056
The site is some nice cherry-picking that conveniently leaves out all the details that don't fit, including all the ones listed above. "Professionals", if you're referring to actual Egyptologists, pretty much universally reject the association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with Exodus. See the descriptions in John Tait's "Never Had the Like Occurred", or Roland Enmarch's "The Reception of a Middle Egyptian Poem: The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All", which specifically notes:
>It is noteworthy that all these approaches read Ipuwer hyper-literally and selectively. Even if a literal interpretation of Ipuwer as an eyewitness account of historical events were to be accepted, several of the its laments would contradict the Biblical account, and imply that they described different occasions.
>>765086
And for reference, here's a translation of the entire papyrus, making all the differences perfectly visible to anyone who wants to read:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm
>>765025
Oh, I forgot to mention Brooklyn book has similar names in Hebrew and some in exodus: Exodus 1:15-21. It seems fitting to, at least, think that the Assyrians (or Hyksos if you were) which traveled to Egypt around and after the time of Joseph.
I do understand, the book doesn't get much in similarities, but evidence is evidence.
>http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm
Yes, I've seen this before. But understand that Ipuwer's perspective from the writer of exodus, and at the time writing down the same events. Of course, they aren't going to be exactly identical.
>much universally reject the association of the Ipuwer Papyrus.
The reason why has to do with the time scale.
You'll have to watch this documentary how this is explained in relation to each subject.
putlockerr.me/tt3464018-watch-Patterns-of-Evidence--The-Exodus-online-putlocker.html
I still like to think that the Exodus did actually happen, or something like it.
The Flood story is based on a real great flood that happened in the Middle East. Why shouldn't there be a historical basis for the Exodus story? Maybe it wasn't quite as the Bible says it is, but surely something must have been its inspiration if the Jews took it as history for so long.
>>764622
It's one of those things that's always in motel-hotel drawers that no one ever reads
>>764622
this is your argument: SO FAR, there is no evidence for (insert here).
just because there hasn't YET, does not mean we won't, or we will never.
>>766428
So until then, you take it for granted?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
>>766444
not necessarily.
until then, the believe in (x) is a choice. Until then, I am not obligated to choose one or the other.
>>764622
>>no evidence for Exodus
Exodus
>>no evidence for Purim
Esther
>>no evidence for the Battle of Jericho
Joshua
>>no evidence for the cities mentioned in Joshua being inhabited at the time
Joshua
Did you even read it?
>>766458
It depends on your heuristic.
If evidence is used to derive truth, then in the absence of evidence, it is safer to disregard unsupported claims.
>>766444
You mean your way around?
The the bible is completely false until each little aspect of it is proven true to you, personally?
>>766481
So, throw out the bible as evidence of the claims, and then state that there is no evidence of the claims.
Brilliant.
>>766487
The bible is the claim itself, not evidence.
That's like me claiming "I am always right", then you ask me to support my claim, I reply "Because I just said so".
Why do you think a book of faith would have lying in it? Isn't that an oxymoron?
>>766490
Except that is me, and the bible is completely true.
If anyone is interested, they can actually google things like the Illwur papyrus, and the monument Solomon erected on the other side of the al aqaba, and the actual finds of two actual Jerichos, one with three walls blown outward, and one corner remaining intact. The harlot's corner, presumably.
These things are out there.
>>766560
To develop a mythos to explain traditions.
Pretty much every religion is based on exaggerations.
>>766502
What nonsense. Is Gibbons' the claim Rome fell, or the evidence?
>>766585
We have archaeological evidence for Rome having existed, bruh
There ain't no caravan parts or human remains showing evidence for six hundred thousand people living in the Sinai for forty years
>>766584
I didn't want you to answer that question. It was rhetorical.
>>766770
You wanted silence and you got a real answer instead, lol.
>>766582
Mate. Listen here, I'm a Christian but Jericho has never had any archaeological finds corroborating the bible story.
There have been stories within the bible, and accounts of cities that later turned out to be true despite it initially appearing as if it wasn't. But the battle of Jericho either was a misnamed city or a total exaggeration.
>>765071
literally autism
TIME TO BREAK DOWN THE THREAD;
Some idiot is claiming that claiming that a tiny piece of the bible being wrong isn't a big deal.
He also says that the bible is infallible and the direct word of god.
That's it. continue posting.
>>766878
That's literally every Christian on 4chan ever
Having even the slightest doubt about the Bible being completely accurate, completely true and literally the most ethical and best book ever written = you are fat, ugly, wear a hat and will never get laid
It's like an Axe commercial, only instead of a body spray, it promotes a completely misguided version of a certain religion
>>764622
The Bible isn't supposed to be a historical text.
It isn't even internally consistent.
>>766914
Yeah but come on, everyone's sick of hearing Babby's first question in Sunday school bullshit like "how did Adam and eve populate the earth without resorting to incest lmao". They're autists who take everything too literally
>>767194
Examples pham?
>>767399
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw
>>767518
>Did Jesus exist
Oh come on, people debated these things like a hundred years or so ago and didn't get anywhere.
>>766588
And we have archaeological evidence for everything in my post, including most definitely Jericho.
But you're not interested in evidence.
You want the bible to be wrong, because by the bible, you're not winning.
>>766806
Believers Score in Battle Over the Battle of Jericho
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: February 22, 1990
After years of doubt among archaeologists, a new analysis of excavations has yielded a wide range of evidence supporting the biblical account about the fall of Jericho. It may well be true that, in the words of the old spiritual, ''Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and the walls come tumbling down.''
A study of ceramic remnants, royal scarabs, carbon-14 dating, seismic activity in the region and even some ruins of tumbled walls produced what is being called impressive evidence that the fortified city was destroyed in the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 B.C.
The prevailing view among scholars has been that the city was destroyed some 150 years earlier and thus did not exist at the time of the Israelite invasion, which is believed to have occurred no earlier than 1400 B.C.
New York Times, February 22, 1990.
>>767528
This talk shows internal inconsistencies between the gospels and acts. He has better talks on the issue, with a good argument for the non-existence of Jesus.
>>764622
>no evidence for the Battle of Jericho
Footnotes
Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, London, Ernest Benn, pp. 261–62, 1957.
Thomas A. Holland, Jericho, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 3, pp. 220–24, ed. Eric. M. Myers, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 223, 1997.
Bryant G. Wood, Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?, Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2):44–58, March–April 1990.
Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, Jericho die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Osnabrück, Otto Zeller Verlag, p. 58, 1973 (reprint of the 1913 edition).
The root of the word tahteyha in Joshua 6:5, 20 is tahath, meaning “underneath,” “below” with a reflexive 3rd feminine singular pronominal suffix ha referring back to hômah, “wall.”
Kathleen M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, 3:110, London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1981. Return to text.
Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, Jericho die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Osnabrück, Otto Zeller Verlag, p. 58, 1973 (reprint of the 1913 edition).
The Hebrew phrase in Joshua 2:15 is beqîr hahômah. Usually qîr means a small wall, but can also indicate the vertical surface of a wall. Brown, Driver and Briggs” lexicon suggests this for Joshua 2:15 (p. 885), and in this case the preposition be would mean “against’(p. 89). Thus, literally, “her house [was built] against [the] vertical surface of the [city] wall.”
Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, 3:370.
>>764622
>no evidence for Exodus
Wrong.
>no evidence for Purim
Wrong, but nobody cares about the book of Esther anyway. I thought this was about the Israelite conquest of Canaan?
>no evidence for the battle of Jericho
Glaringly wrong.
>no evidence for the cities mentioned in Joshua being inhabited at the time
What time? 1250 BCE? When the building of the First Temple came to pass "in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel". Conventional date for the beginning of Solomon's reign is 970 BCE, so that means that the building of the temple was 480 years before 974, or 1454 BCE.
Your dates are shit, and everybody's dates are shit. There is no evidence of certain cities in Joshua being inhabited in 1250 BCE because they got destroyed 200 years earlier. The archaeological record of Jericho shows destruction of the walls that corroborates the Biblical story of the conquest, just not the 1250 bullshit date.
>>767560
The lies and misunderstandings of godless men do not effect the bible.
You do not judge the bible; the bible judges you.
>>767604
Not only destruction, but fire. Lots and lots of fire. It's pretty obvious the people built a second Jericho, because the first one was fried.
>>767604
>>no evidence for Exodus
>Wrong.
Do go on
>>767664
>Do go on.
>reads over the entire rest of the post
If you're looking for an Exodus at 1250 BCE, you won't find it. There were a Semitic, Asiatic people in Egypt that were dislodged 1550. How is it not at all plausible that the Semitics came into Egypt because of the very same famine described in the Bible that led the Hebrews in, and the Hebrews were part of this group that entered Egypt? Perhaps they were subjugated either by the Hyksos or by the native Egyptians.
>>764622
>>767607
You just refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't share your worldview.
