Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
old man emu

Keep your Theist/Atheist arguments here

Recommended Posts

One-track, thank you for sharing your beliefs with us.

It doesn't fit with my view of a believable universe. But I respect your choice.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched an interesting documentary on Sunday night. Its subject was the Exodus and was there any archaeological evidence for it. It is accepted that the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, so there should be records of things equivalent to the plagues and the drowning of Pharaoh's army. Given these disasters, there should also be records of economic turmoil after Exodus.

 

It is the prevailing belief that the Exodus occurred during the reign of Ramesses ll around 1250 BC(E) in the 19th Dynasty. However, no records of these events or expected results exist from that time. The documentary suggests that the biblical reference to Ramesses  is not meant to be an accurate reporting of who the pharaoh was, but simply a pointer to a location, as in "over there near the Jones' place". The Bible confirms that the Israelites were to build “supply cities, Pithom and Ramses, for Pharaoh.” However excavations of the place known in biblical times as Ramses, have uncovered an earlier city beneath it.

 

That city shows signs of rapid abandonment towards the end of the 13th Dynasty (around 1640 BC(E)). The pharaoh at that time was Sobekhotep IV. Other cities in Egypt, known to be occupied mainly by "People from the East" also show abandonment at that time. There is much archaeological evidence coming to light that parallels the history of the Israelites as recorded in the Bible. Even the biblical story of the capture of Jericho is reflected in the archaeology of the site. The conclusion to be drawn from the archaeology is that what is recorded in the bible is supportable historical fact in relation to the Exodus. 

 

After the Exodus, the bible moves onto a bit of theological turf when it deals with the handing down of the Ten Commandments. But consider Moses' logic. He has just removed the Israelites from a polytheistic society. He believes in mono-theism, so he sets down some rules that would stifle poly-theism. Next he has a society to organise and keep the peace, so he sets down rules that he hopes will limit the typical causes of conflict in a community. Then to convince the people that they have to live by these rules, he tells them that they were given to him by the god who made their Exodus possible.

 

The Isrealites go on to establish themselves in the Holy Lands, and live a relatively peaceful life unto around 580 BC(E) when the Babylonians march them off into slavery. During  that post-Exodus period, the Israelite religion evolves and gets all the spiritual trappings that many modern people classify has fairy tails and hokum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onetrack, there are a few books by Dawkins which explain your difficulty with evolution theory. " River out of Eden " is just one.

Evolution explains a lot of things. Like how come our eyes are so badly "designed " that the wiring is on the inside where it interferes with the receptors.

And OME, I find the most amazing thing about the old Egyptians to be that they never sought the source of the Nile. They could have sent an army to do this but never did...  why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Which Bible

Actually the Jewish Torah, the Koran, and the Christian bible in its many evolutions.

 

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I find the most amazing thing about the old Egyptians to be that they never sought the source of the Nile. They could have sent an army to do this but never did...  why not?

You raise an intriguing point.

 

The Ancient Egyptian civilisation spanned about 3000 years before it became absorbed into the Mediterranean civilisations. For a civilisation that lasted that long, it does seem to have had little interest in expanding outside the Nile valley. In ancient times, Upper Egypt extended from the Nile Delta to the first cataract near Aswan. Further upstream, in what is modern Sudan, the land was later controlled by the Kingdom of Kush. The Kingdom of Kush was an ancient kingdom in Nubia, centred along the Nile Valley in what is now northern Sudan and southern Egypt.

220px-Nubia_today.pngimage.jpeg.1dfc05530bdd67898df325a6948c6cee.jpeg

 

Maybe the gods were so kind to the Egyptians and they were satisfied with what the gods had given them, that they did not feel the need for empire building.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@onetrack, I owe you an apology.

 

My post starting "WT absolute F" was rude and condescending.  You have the absolute right to believe anything you want to, and while I may disagree intensely with the underlying logic, I should have done so far more civilly.

 

Sorry!

 

Marty

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, my idea of why they never discovered the source of the Nile is that they didn't want any facts getting in the way of their very profitable religious  notions.

Another related question is how come the ancient Chinese never discovered Australia. Similar answer I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know the Chinese didn't discover Australia.

The Dutch discovered it before the English and decided they didn't want it. Maybe the Chinese did the same.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the Macassans,  from the port town of Makassar in southern Sulawesi, were frequent visitors to Northern Australia. There are some words in Aboriginal languages of that area that are of Macassan origin. The trade in trepang, between Macassans seafarers and the aborigines of Arnhem Land, to supply the markets of Southern China is the first recorded example of trade between the inhabitants of the Australian continent and their Asian neighbours.

 

Since the Aborigines didn't produce anything that the Chinese would consider as trade goods, then it's probable that the Chinese were not interested in establishing trading posts here.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It was another marketing failure...

 

Would you like flies with that? They're free!

Edited by nomadpete
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, nomadpete said:

It was another marketing failure...

 

Would you like flies with that? They're free!

I just got that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...