Dawkins to arrest Pope

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]So a group of slaves up and left Egypt unmolested by their captors and traveled to the Red Sea just in time for low tide so they could cross?

Well, there isn't really any evidence a group of Jewish slaves did leave Egypt at all...but that's what I've heard some suggest.

Er...um...that is not correct.

http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

There may be no PROOF, but there definately is some evidence. In fact, Hebrew inscriptions on Egyptian cave walls have been found as they cried out to "L", one of first letters indicating the Hebrew God was prayed to in Egypt. In addition, one of Joseph's court seals has been found in Avaris. There are other tid bits on the web site that gives evidence for the Israeli presence in Egypt such as chariot tracks and actual chariots found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Then again, perhaps the Israelis and Egyptians were just buds until they decided to pack up and go to Israel? 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Er...um...that is not correct.

http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

There may be no PROOF, but there definately is some evidence. In fact, Hebrew inscriptions on Egyptian cave walls have been found as they cried out to "L", one of first letters indicating the Hebrew God was prayed to in Egypt. In addition, one of Joseph's court seals has been found in Ava ...[text shortened]... the Israelis and Egyptians were just buds until they decided to pack up and go to Israel? 😛

I've read about some of these and I think it's up to interpretation. Of course, those who believe it's the literal truth don't really need evidence... just faith.

Chariot tracks on the bottom of the red sea? Please... how can you tell a chariot track specifically? You can count me as skeptical for all of the above.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I've read about some of these and I think it's up to interpretation. Of course, those who believe it's the literal truth don't really need evidence... just faith.

Chariot tracks on the bottom of the red sea? Please... how can you tell a chariot track specifically? You can count me as skeptical for all of the above.

I think this is double talk. In fact, I interpret what you have just said to mean that you believe every word I have spoken.

Thanks!! 😵

Originally posted by whodey
I think this is double talk. In fact, I interpret what you have just said to mean that you believe every word I have spoken.

Thanks!! 😵

I'm sure you have a wonderful filter that converts anything anyone says into something that just confirms your own views.

I'm sure you think you're very open minded too.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I'm sure you have a wonderful filter that converts anything anyone says into something that just confirms your own views.

I'm sure you think you're very open minded too.

Well that is where you are wrong. I think we are as open minded as our beliefs allow us to be. That is why beliefs are so important. Your belief structure is how you make sense of the world around you. For example, if you don't believe in God and study science you are more than likely going to use that data to correlate how life evolved without divine intervention and not be open to data that would point to divine intervention. Conversely, those who believe would be more likely to be open to data that might point to divine intervention. They would be more apt to spot it as well as pursue such data as where the other may be more apt to surpress such data or ignore it or not miss it altogether. Of course, the inverse would be true as well.

Of course, the million dollar question is what forms or destroys our belief system? Needless to say, when this occurs it is a life changing event that alters the direction of our lives. The road we will travel and the things we will accomplish is directly proportional to our belief system.

Having said that, it is part of what erks me about those who talk of those who felt inspired by God to write down his word, they disbelieve, hence, they say that there words should not be taken literally. How could it be since they don't believe in a God? I just wish they could be afforded the respect due them for taking them at their word. Of course, that does not mean you have to believe it.

Originally posted by whodey
Well that is where you are wrong. I think we are as open minded as our beliefs allow us to be. That is why beliefs are so important. Your belief structure is how you make sense of the world around you. For example, if you don't believe in God and study science you are more than likely going to use that data to correlate how life evolved without divine int ...[text shortened]... due them for taking them at their word. Of course, that does not mean you have to believe it.

I actually agree with much of what you're saying here believe it or not.

I'm not sure what you're really getting at with your last paragraph though.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I actually agree with much of what you're saying here believe it or not.

I'm not sure what you're really getting at with your last paragraph though.

For example, trying to make sense of the Red Sea opening up and allowing the Israelites to cross. You have nonbelievers read this and wonder about whether it could have actually been true to any degree. So what you wind up with are "explanations" as to how this could have happened absent a miraculous God. I suppose it is understandable because the Bible is known for its historical accuracy. What really erks me, however, are people who try to take God out of the Bible altogether. For example, you have people like Rwingett try to say that Christ's goal was "social justice" and not a mission ordained by his Father in heaven to save us from our sins. Or you have people questioning the prophetic intent of prophecy and then smile and say it is merely nice poetry. Why not give the people who wrote such texts the respect of taking them at their word? You are then free to reject or accept it or even take bits and peices that tickle your ears if you like.

Originally posted by whodey
For example, trying to make sense of the Red Sea opening up and allowing the Israelites to cross. You have nonbelievers read this and wonder about whether it could have actually been true to any degree. So what you wind up with are "explanations" as to how this could have happened absent a miraculous God. I suppose it is understandable because the Bible is ...[text shortened]... free to reject or accept it or even take bits and peices that tickle your ears if you like.

because the Bible is known for its historical accuracy.

Which parts? by whom?

Why not give the people who wrote such texts the respect of taking them at their word?

This sounds like you're essentially saying why not just assume everything that was written in the bible was true.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b] because the Bible is known for its historical accuracy.

Which parts? by whom?

Biblical archaeologists. These are not a bunch of religious zealots, rather, they are a culmination of scientists who recognize the historical validity of scripture and use it to aid their studies. For example, only the Bible recorded that the Philistines existed. There were no other texts to indicate they existed. So what did they do? They read about them and studies where exactly the Bible said they lived and they went there and started to dig. And guess what, there they where. Go figure?

Why not give the people who wrote such texts the respect of taking them at their word?

This sounds like you're essentially saying why not just assume everything that was written in the bible was true.[/b]

Not at all. For example, I don't expect you to believe everything I say, but at least take what I am saying at face value instead of assigning another value to it.

Originally posted by whodey
Not at all. For example, I don't expect you to believe everything I say, but at least take what I am saying at face value instead of assigning another value to it.

What do you mean "at face value" then? How much value is that?

Originally posted by whodey
Biblical archaeologists. These are not a bunch of religious zealots, rather, they are a culmination of scientists who recognize the historical validity of scripture and use it to aid their studies. For example, only the Bible recorded that the Philistines existed. There were no other texts to indicate they existed. So what did they do? They read about th ...[text shortened]... hey lived and they went there and started to dig. And guess what, there they where. Go figure?

These are not a bunch of religious zealots, rather, they are a culmination of scientists who recognize the historical validity of scripture and use it to aid their studies.

So they assume the historical validity first and go from there. Doesn't sound scientific at all.

For example, only the Bible recorded that the Philistines existed. There were no other texts to indicate they existed. So what did they do? They read about them and studies where exactly the Bible said they lived and they went there and started to dig. And guess what, there they where. Go figure?

How do they know they were philistines and not some other people?

There were people all over that area...were they wearing an "I'm a philistine" t-shirt? 😛

All kidding aside, I know there is some truth in the bible and I never denied that. I just seriously question and doubt just how absolutely historically accurate it actually is. The fact that it mentions the existence of a people and they existed is pretty small confirmation.

After all, whales exist. That doesn't make Moby Dick a true story.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
These are not a bunch of religious zealots, rather, they are a culmination of scientists who recognize the historical validity of scripture and use it to aid their studies.

So they assume the historical validity first and go from there. Doesn't sound scientific at all.

[i] For example, only the Bible recorded that the Philistines existed. small confirmation.

After all, whales exist. That doesn't make Moby Dick a true story.

All I can say is that you should do a little investigaing on your own regarding Biblical Archaeology and get back to me. Fair enough?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What do you mean "at face value" then? How much value is that?

Whatever value I assign to what I am saying. You are then free to evaluate what I am saying to whether it is true or not.

Originally posted by whodey
Whatever value I assign to what I am saying. You are then free to evaluate what I am saying to whether it is true or not.

So I should give what you say whatever value YOU put on it? Ummm.. no, that doesn't make sense.

It especially doesn't make sense when talking about the bible. I should assume that the bible is the holy word of god at face value and then try to evaluate it after giving it that value?