Parting of Red Sea Really Happened

[SteveGrenard]

I am posting this in science but it can also be in entertainment, religion and skepticism. Its from today's Pakistan Christian Post which is a newspaper I never realized existed until today and will be sure not to miss in the future. Apparently there is geologic evidence that a volcanic eruption could have actually parted the red sea when mosaes and his gang needed to get across:



Volcanic eruption “triggered biblical parting of Red Sea”



The greatest story ever told has acquired a Hollywood twist. James Cameron, the director of Titanic, is the executive producer of a new documentary that claims to have uncovered fresh evidence confirming one of the most dramatic episodes in the Old Testament — the parting of the Red Sea and the Jewish exodus from Egypt.



http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/articledetails.php?artid=367 (http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/articledetails.php?artid=367)

[Belz...]

I am posting this in science but it can also be in entertainment, religion and skepticism. Its from today's Pakistan Christian Post which is a newspaper I never realized existed until today and will be sure not to miss in the future. Apparently there is geologic evidence that a volcanic eruption could have actually parted the red sea when mosaes and his gang needed to get across:




That's assuming that anything of the sort actually happened in the first place. Heck, no one's even sure the hebrews made the trip, anyway.

[pmckean]

A very interesting read, although all hugely improbable and highly speculative, of course.

What I can't discern from the piece, though, is whether they think that the bible merely contains a records of a series of natural disasters and geological anomalies which happended to help the jews, or whether the omnipresent hand of God is suggested - tweaking the earth to give them a hand.

After all, there's nothing there that's supernatural. Could this be a new trend - reinterpreting biblical miracles not as spontaneous magic, but as rare, but possible, occurences?

[Meffy]

The trend's not new. I've seen similar stuff for decades. Asimov thought a mistranslation was to blame, and that Moses parted the "Sea of Reeds" -- a vast marsh -- which, needless to say, wasn't a great place for Pharaoh's chariots to go into. I've also heard that this theory had been discredited but can't tell you whether that's so or what evidence there might be against it. My point is that it's quite possible that some of the Bible's "miracles" are just things that happen... dramatized or misinterpreted.

[Mojo]

I am posting this in science but it can also be in entertainment, religion and skepticism. Its from today's Pakistan Christian Post which is a newspaper I never realized existed until today and will be sure not to miss in the future. Apparently there is geologic evidence that a volcanic eruption could have actually parted the red sea when mosaes and his gang needed to get across:But have they found a tunnel under it yet? ;)

[StewartP]

Which parts are natural and which parts are miracles. "If it was ALL a miracle, why the silly charade of having a flood, a boat and a dramatic rescue? Easier to kill all but a few humans and animals with God’s laser-beam eyes"

It's been posted on the Skeptics circle - http://skepticscircle.blogspot.com/

and its an excellent read:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-part-fits-in-which-slot-again.html

[Beady]

My own woo-ish idea is that the Santorini eruption caused a super-low tide (I know, the Med doesn't have tides, but work with me). The two events were approximately contemporary and, if you allow for temporal margins of error...

[SphereGuy]

A very interesting read, although all hugely improbable and highly speculative, of course.

What I can't discern from the piece, though, is whether they think that the bible merely contains a records of a series of natural disasters and geological anomalies which happended to help the jews, or whether the omnipresent hand of God is suggested - tweaking the earth to give them a hand.

After all, there's nothing there that's supernatural. Could this be a new trend - reinterpreting biblical miracles not as spontaneous magic, but as rare, but possible, occurences?

Worlds in Collision proposed that the planets at one time in human history were knocking about like pool balls and one such knock parted the Red Sea. Or something like that.

Personally, I think Moses built a land bridge across the sea, then tore it down just before the troops came. All the materials were then used to build pyramids in South America.

[Meffy]

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Moses knew special effects people in Hollywood.

[Hellbound]

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Moses knew special effects people in Hollywood.

It was controlled demolition. The Red Sea had a concrete core.

3" reeds on 4' centers!

:D

[Meffy]

Ha. Reeds don't come in three-inch diameter, and that's three-cubit centers.

[Bradk3]

I wonder what the explanation is for the other accounts of prophets parting rivers in the Bible (Elijah and Elisha spring to mind)? Volcanos everytime? Really?

[Phaycops]

Trying to find natural explanations for bible miracles misses the point, because it starts from the flawed premise that the bible accurately records historical facts.

[Bradk3]

It may not have come across in my post, but I completely agree.

[SteveGrenard]

Trying to find natural explanations for bible miracles misses the point, because it starts from the flawed premise that the bible accurately records historical facts.

This is not just a question of accurately recording history, its a case of
recording an observation. The people who wrote the bible may have been aware of volcanic activity (not calling it that, of course), for example causing waters to recede and then attribute natural phenomenon to a fictional event (Moses leading his gang across the red sea e.g.) and they undoubtedly attributed things like that to supernatural causes, e.g. god.

[Phaycops]

This is not just a question of accurately recording history, its a case of
recording an observation. The people who wrote the bible may have been aware of volcanic activity (not calling it that, of course), for example causing waters to recede and then attribute natural phenomenon to a fictional event (Moses leading his gang across the red sea e.g.) and they undoubtedly attributed things like that to supernatural causes, e.g. god.

Steve,
You missed my point. The stories in the bible aren't recording either observations OR reality -- they're stories. Made up. Myths. Not real. So trying to find "natural" explanations for them is pointless.

[Hellbound]

Steve,
You missed my point. The stories in the bible aren't recording either observations OR reality -- they're stories. Made up. Myths. Not real. So trying to find "natural" explanations for them is pointless.

I'd agree that the stories likely do not correlate to any specific events.

However, there is ample evidence that natural phenomena can shape myth. Various flood myths are a good example; these tend to arise in civilizations that experience flooding (primarily river valley cultures). So, the idea of a volcanic eruption causing a reduction of the Red Sea, while not actually corresponding to any actual event of the Isrealites walking out of Egypt, could well have been inspiration for the creation of the myth.

[Phaycops]

I'd agree that the stories likely do not correlate to any specific events.

However, there is ample evidence that natural phenomena can shape myth. Various flood myths are a good example; these tend to arise in civilizations that experience flooding (primarily river valley cultures). So, the idea of a volcanic eruption causing a reduction of the Red Sea, while not actually corresponding to any actual event of the Isrealites walking out of Egypt, could well have been inspiration for the creation of the myth.

Or it could just be a myth. Your starting premise is still that the events recorded in mythology have some kind of real-world counterpart. I disagree. Many, if not all, of the stories that have been told over the ages are just stories. I mean, nobody's standing around trying to come up with a naturalistic explanation of a cow jumping over a moon, or an explanation of what someone saw that looked like a god giving birth to a goddess out of his forehead.

It's a fun excersize, but one that lends undue legitimacy to the very ancient myths of a bunch of desert herders.

[grayman]

It was controlled demolition. The Red Sea had a concrete core.

3" reeds on 4' centers!

:D

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Red Sea?

[Meffy]

@Phaycops: Some of what's in the Bible is pure myth. Some is myth based on dim, distorted recollections of actual occurrences. Some is crude history disguised as genealogy, or so Asimov says. And some could well be fact.

That some of it is certainly mythical doesn't mean it all must be, any more than the discovery of evidence that backs up some Biblical narratives means the whole thing is true.

[SphereGuy]

I'd like to see an explanation for the parting of the Red Hair. I've been combing the internet but people just brush me off.

[grayman]

@Phaycops: Some of what's in the Bible is pure myth. Some is myth based on dim, distorted recollections of actual occurrences. Some is crude history disguised as genealogy, or so Asimov says. And some could well be fact.

That some of it is certainly mythical doesn't mean it all must be, any more than the discovery of evidence that backs up some Biblical narratives means the whole thing is true.

I know it's true because it's in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God and God doesn't lie!

Have you heard that argument before?

:rolleyes:

[Meffy]

Yes, but I don't see how that relates to what I've said. I don't believe there's any supernatural force in the world. All such stories I discount as either completely mythical or creatively embellished after the fact.

Take the example used in the "tunnel discovery" thread and look at it the other way: Just because we know the Harry Potter stories are fantasy doesn't mean London doesn't exist, nor trains, nor buses.

[Thomas]

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Red Sea?
Moses lie #1 "Then God spoke all these words".

[grayman]

Yes, but I don't see how that relates to what I've said. I don't believe there's any supernatural force in the world. All such stories I discount as either completely mythical or creatively embellished after the fact.

Take the example used in the "tunnel discovery" thread and look at it the other way: Just because we know the Harry Potter stories are fantasy doesn't mean London doesn't exist, nor trains, nor buses.

I was joking and being sarcastic. Please do not think I actually take everything in the Bible as a literal fact. We must have lost something in our beast to beast translation.

:)

[Meffy]

Gotcha. So who ya think in this year's Quidditch World Cup? =^_^= (It's in the Bible -- "you could look it up."*)
_____________
* Shout out to Thurber!

[Hellbound]

Or it could just be a myth. Your starting premise is still that the events recorded in mythology have some kind of real-world counterpart. I disagree. Many, if not all, of the stories that have been told over the ages are just stories. I mean, nobody's standing around trying to come up with a naturalistic explanation of a cow jumping over a moon, or an explanation of what someone saw that looked like a god giving birth to a goddess out of his forehead.

It's a fun excersize, but one that lends undue legitimacy to the very ancient myths of a bunch of desert herders.

You're misreading. I'm not assuming that everything in the Bible has a real-world counterpart; that isn't my starting premise. My starting premise is that mythological stories are reflections of the culture that creates them, and natural disasters are a part of what shapes culture. This, I think, is fairly obvious and should not be contentious. All I'm stating is that the idea of a lowering of water in the Red Sea (due to natural causes, such as a volcano) could be an inspiration for a story created that used the phenomena. The problem comes in in trying to equate natural disaster to mythological story, which is really what you're talking about. And I agree there.

To take my flood cultures example, the vast majority of flood myths come from river valley cultures, that experienced seasonal floods and similar. This shows a tie between the natural phenomena (floods) and the mythology (global flood). However, this in no way supports the idea that a global flood actually occurred, or that an ark (or whatever) was ever built, etc.

Hopefully that makes my position clearer :)

@Phaycops: Some of what's in the Bible is pure myth. Some is myth based on dim, distorted recollections of actual occurrences. Some is crude history disguised as genealogy, or so Asimov says. And some could well be fact.

That some of it is certainly mythical doesn't mean it all must be, any more than the discovery of evidence that backs up some Biblical narratives means the whole thing is true.

A lot of biblical myth was copied almost whole from earlier Babylonian stories, as well. Look at Gilgamesh vs. Garden of Eden, or Untapishtim vs. Noah for examples. Considering that the first written texts uncovered for the Old Testament date from a period after the Isrealites had been ruled by the Babylonians (The Babylonian Cpativity, IIRC), this makes sense.

Of course, IANAE, so standard disclaimers apply ;)

[Correa Neto]

You know, every now and then I see someone trying to correlate Santorini's eruption with the alleged parting of the Sea of Reeds and then using it to "prove" the Bible's God.

What sort of omnipotent God would need to kill all those persons from the Minoic civilization that had nothing to do with the Hebrews or the Egyptians? I find such a God and those who defend it to be deeply immoral.

[Meffy]

A lot of biblical myth was copied almost whole from earlier Babylonian stories, as well. Look at Gilgamesh vs. Garden of Eden, or Untapishtim vs. Noah for examples. Considering that the first written texts uncovered for the Old Testament date from a period after the Isrealites had been ruled by the Babylonians (The Babylonian Cpativity, IIRC), this makes sense.
Yup, lots of borrowing of older myths. Utnapishtim is one of my favorites, makes a lot more sense as a description of a mundane flood than in the exaggerated version most people are familiar with.

And the name Utnapishtim reminds me of an old Yiddish joke... :-}

[Thomas]

Yup, lots of borrowing of older myths. Utnapishtim is one of my favorites, makes a lot more sense as a description of a mundane flood than in the exaggerated version most people are familiar with.

And the name Utnapishtim reminds me of an old Yiddish joke... :-}
The biblical cosmology is my favorite example of borrowing. It's almost a true copy of Babylonian cosmology, and at the same time the reason why I didn't make it to page two when I tried to read the bible as a kid: I realized that the author thought the universe consisted of water.

Edit: forgot a word.

[Beady]

Trying to find natural explanations for bible miracles misses the point, because it starts from the flawed premise that the bible accurately records historical facts.

Yet, there is always the possibility, maybe even probability, that biblical events are a corrupted version of actual events. In fact, it is highly unlikely that a claim of complete biblical inaccuracy is justified; it is exceedingly seldom that someone is wrong about everything.

In any event, it does no harm to speculate for recreational purposes.

[Badger]

Yup, lots of borrowing of older myths. Utnapishtim is one of my favorites, makes a lot more sense as a description of a mundane flood than in the exaggerated version most people are familiar with.

And the name Utnapishtim reminds me of an old Yiddish joke... :-}

Derailing here, but I was wondering if there's some english compilation of these babylonian myths, kind of like Grimm's Fairy Tales, or compilations of Greek mythology.

Anything you could recommend? (and if you say "Well, ya, there's the bible...." I'll come over there and slap ya!)

[Beady]

The big one is the Epic of Gilgamesh. Available in all bookstores; it's a surprisingly thin volume, not at all like Homer. I've had a copy for years, but have never got around to reading it. It is purportedly humanity's oldest known story.

[Thomas]

You could do what Beady says, but the Epic of Gilgamesh is also available online (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/) (like most ancient writings).

Here's some parallels to the bible (http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Appx08.html). I don't know how justified I consider some of those.

[Meffy]

There are a number of good fictional stories based on the Gilgamesh saga or set in the same era and place.

Robert Silverberg wrote "Gilgamesh the King" and "To the Land of the Living," in which elements that have come down to us as supernatural have causes we can recognize as natural (some readers find this to be a let-down but I enjoyed GtK; haven't read TtLotL yet).

Harry Turtledove's "Between the Rivers" is all about the emergence of writing and commerce as humans begin to escape the control of the gods who have held them in slavery. Gilgy isn't in there AFAIR but there's plenty of fantastic adventure and tension.

Many of Samuel Delany's stories involve, directly or indirectly, the earliest of historical times and the development of what we think of as civilization in Mesopotamia. Deep works. I'm sure I've barely scratched their surfaces.

[Phaycops]

But without knowing which stories are pure myth and which are dim and distorted rememberances, speculation that climatic conditions caused a plague of frogs or the eruption of a volcano caused the parting of the Red Sea are just idle speculation. I am having a hard time with why someone would bother trying to correlate real events with bible stories unless they had an underlying agenda to "prove" the bible. If you wanted to try to correlate what you know happened with many different folkloric traditions, you're getting a little closer to science. Paleoclimatologists do this all the time -- use human records to correlate with the proxy records of climate change. I remember a couple of interesting examples from college involving fur trading records and records of mahongany harvests, but that's not quite the same as what I think the OP was talking about.

[Beady]

But without knowing which stories are pure myth and which are dim and distorted rememberances...are just idle speculation.

So? What's wrong with idle speculation? Some bloody-good literature, among other things, has come out of idle speculation.

I am having a hard time with why someone would bother trying to correlate real events with bible stories unless they had an underlying agenda to "prove" the bible.

Well, that's your personal hang-up. There are very good scientific reasons for attempting the correlation. Destructive testing, if nothing else.

If you wanted to try to correlate what you know happened with many different folkloric traditions, you're getting a little closer to science.

This is where your objections break down. The Bible is a folkloric tradition, and things like Santorini are "what we know happened." Why can't we do with the Bible what you say is valid in other traditions?

[Hellbound]

Phaycops:

Well, no, I'm not coming at it from the same angle the OP was. My statement was simply a response to your statement "Your starting premise is still that the events recorded in mythology have some kind of real-world counterpart. I disagree. Many, if not all, of the stories that have been told over the ages are just stories." I would say that almost all have a real-world root, but that it's likely not a specific event. As an example, areas with frequent flooding produce global flood myths. Areas with volcanic activity often end up with the volcanos as gods or homes of gods, etc.

I was just pointing out that most myth has some basis in fact, but it's most often a tenuous thread, more of an inspirational link than anything else.

Like I said, I think we're saying the same thing, I just obfuscated with my attempted to clarify :)

[Darth Rotor]

My own woo-ish idea is that the Santorini eruption caused a super-low tide (I know, the Med doesn't have tides, but work with me). The two events were approximately contemporary and, if you allow for temporal margins of error...
Really? The Med does have tides, albeit in narrower ranges than Atlantic tides.

Check here.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=627

A tidal surge caused by a seismic event is a rational idea to hold. It might be worth looking into whether or not Etna's various shakes and eruptions ever caused, or at least correlated to, surges in local tidal activity.

DR

[Meffy]

Beady's reply says most of I would've, so I'll let it stand.

[edit] Except this: If you wanted to try to correlate what you know happened with many different folkloric traditions, you're getting a little closer to science.
As it happens, that's just what I do want. I don't treat the Bible differently from other ancient texts on principle, just based on its content -- which I consider to be largely dubious but still worth examining.

[edit edit] Besides, without examination and inquiry, how will anyone ever know (or at least gain a more reliable idea) "which stories are pure myth and which are dim and distorted rememberances?"

[Darth Rotor]

What sort of omnipotent God would need to kill all those persons from the Minoic civilization that had nothing to do with the Hebrews or the Egyptians? I find such a God and those who defend it to be deeply immoral.
I am sure that the God you are so disappointed in will take your weighty opinion into consideration the next time He decides to eradicate a civilization. :rolleyes: You may just have saved millions of lives.

Of course, if you are Chinese, or follow their proverbs, you are now responsible for all of them.

Better get on that grocery shopping.

DR

[andyandy]

But without knowing which stories are pure myth and which are dim and distorted rememberances, speculation that climatic conditions caused a plague of frogs or the eruption of a volcano caused the parting of the Red Sea are just idle speculation. I am having a hard time with why someone would bother trying to correlate real events with bible stories unless they had an underlying agenda to "prove" the bible. If you wanted to try to correlate what you know happened with many different folkloric traditions, you're getting a little closer to science. Paleoclimatologists do this all the time -- use human records to correlate with the proxy records of climate change. I remember a couple of interesting examples from college involving fur trading records and records of mahongany harvests, but that's not quite the same as what I think the OP was talking about.

of course you can investigate events depicted in the bible without having to have an agenda to "prove the bible (and by implication "prove" God)." It's an important historical resource - just because it's used for religious purposes by some does not negate its academic value.....

[davefoc]

Based on the book "The Bible Unearthed" and miscellaneous other reading I am of the opinion that the Moses stuff is at least as bogus as the Noah stuff.

Not only is there zero evidence of it in the Egyptian hieroglyphs, there is zero evidence of large numbers of people wandering in the desert for 40 years in any of the time frames that have been postulated for Moses.

The authors of "The Bible Unearthed" go farther. There is no evidence of a sudden large movement of people into Canaan. The archeological evidence does not support any of the theories that have been proposed relating to conflict between an immigrating population and the canaanites. What seems to be the case is that a population that would later identify itself as Hebrew gradually coalesced in and around the area known as Israel today.

The simple answer here and I think the right one is that much of the bible (particularly the stuff about the patriarchs) was put together by people who were writing a collection of old mythology and pure fiction at a time when they realized nobody could do any fact checking. There is every reason to believe that some of it was written for the simple expedient of promoting one group of priests and/or king over other leadership. It is sad and intriquing how this roughly 2500 year old collection of mostly lies has been used to generate so much pain and suffering in the world.

IMHO, Cameron does the world no service when he works to promote the idea that the biblical stories concerning the patriarchs are anything but fiction.

There are a few facts that bare some likeness to the biblical story. One of them was the Hyksos expulsion, another was the existence of a large settlement in Egypt that seems to have been populated by a population that could possibly be identified with the Hebrews. And of course one of the Pharoahs, Ramses, had a name something like the name of a city referenced in the story. But the stories as told in the bible just didn't happen and all that can be said about the few facts that are consistent with a few elements of the story are that they may have served as some sort of inspiration for the historical fiction that they were injected into long after the supposed events depicted in the bible.

ETA:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

[Phaycops]

Beady's reply says most of I would've, so I'll let it stand.

[edit] Except this:
As it happens, that's just what I do want. I don't treat the Bible differently from other ancient texts on principle, just based on its content -- which I consider to be largely dubious but still worth examining.


~shrug~ Ok, but the bible is just ONE text out of many. Like I said, if you want to correlate lots of different traditions with what happpened, that's valid. But using just one text kind of smacks of trying to "prove" that one particular text true.

Certainly natural disasters can be the inspiration for myths, and no, nobody is debating that. What my problem is with is trying to find one single event in the "real" world that "explains" one myth from one religous tradition's sacred text. Researching how different mythologies come to be and how they are similar and different is a valid line of inquiry. Trying to prove that one of them is true really isn't.

Davefoc summed up my position rather well, actually.
But the stories as told in the bible just didn't happen and all that can be said about the few facts that are consistent with a few elements of the story are that they may have served as some sort of inspiration for the historical fiction that they were injected into long after the supposed events depicted in the bible.

[Hellbound]

Phaycops:

Yeah, that's pretty much my position as well. My only point was that the inspiration for some stories are likely based (loosley) on real events. I like to think of Bible stories as the "Made-for-TV" what-if scenario movies. Very loosley based in reality, and more for show than anything else.

[Meffy]

@Phaycops: Since I don't recall ever claiming to be interested only in one text, I can't imagine that what you say above applies to me.

By studying this we can learn rather a lot about how people have altered stories over time to fit their own purposes, don't you think? That seems like a valid concern to me.

[Beady]

Based on the book "The Bible Unearthed" and miscellaneous other reading I am of the opinion that the Moses stuff is at least as bogus as the Noah stuff.

(shrug) Probably.

Not only is there zero evidence of it in the Egyptian hieroglyphs, there is zero evidence of large numbers of people wandering in the desert for 40 years in any of the time frames that have been postulated for Moses.

To begin with, only a fool, arguing pro or con the Bible, is going to lean on "40." It shows up several times throughout, from Noah to Pentecost, and is plainly some sort of metaphor that was understood by virtually all pre-Jesus Israelites and Judeans.

The authors of "The Bible Unearthed" go farther.

That's fine, if this is a book report. What are some of your other sources, what is their credibility, and what do they say?

It is sad and intriquing how this roughly 2500 year old collection of mostly lies has been used to generate so much pain and suffering in the world.

Careful, your bias is showing. What is your evidence that the Bible is a collection of intentional misrepresentations, told for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering, over the course of more than two millenia? Are you truly claiming this is evidence of an ancient conspiracy?

By the way, what are your qualifications?

[Beady]

What my problem is with is trying to find one single event in the "real" world that "explains" one myth from one religous tradition's sacred text.

Yes, that is a big problem, but not the kind you mean. If you're looking for a one-to-one correspondence, then you most certainly aren't going to find it. Myths and tales usually combine elements of several different sources, a little from here and a little from there. They are the sum of their parts and, rarely, they are greater than the sum of their parts. Interpreting and analyzing myths isn't a treasure hunt, it's the careful and methodical deconstruction of a jigsaw puzzle.

Anyway, I think that, at the absolute least, the Bible is a reasonably accurate picture of how the Israelites and Judeans viewed their world and their own place in it.

[Darth Rotor]

1. Not only is there zero evidence of it in the Egyptian hieroglyphs, there is zero evidence of large numbers of people wandering in the desert for 40 years in any of the time frames that have been postulated for Moses.

2. The simple answer here and I think the right one is that much of the bible (particularly the stuff about the patriarchs) was put together by people who were writing a collection of old mythology and pure fiction at a time when they realized nobody could do any fact checking. There is every reason to believe that some of it was written for the simple expedient of promoting one group of priests and/or king over other leadership. It is sad and intriquing how this roughly 2500 year old collection of mostly lies has been used to generate so much pain and suffering in the world.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm
1. I am not sure if you are accurately portraying the "wilderness" as "desert." The land is estimated by some as having been considerably more fertile, albeit unsettled, and better watered in those days. Desertification has been a long process in Northern Africa and the Levant. (note: over the past 10 years, there have been some great Dicsovery and Nova shows presenting satellite photo evidence that Northern Africa was well rivered and far better watered some millenia BCE.)

Lebanon used to be a heavily forested land. It isn't anymore, partly due to a lot of ship building, and perhaps due to poor conservation practices over a few dozens of centureis.

2. You infer malicious intent on the part of the authors. The process of transferring the oral (aural?) tradition of passing down clan history and legend in to written form is not inherently tied to falsehood. I do not understand your insistence that a deliberate intent to lie was on the agenda of the authors of those ancient texts. If subsequent "keepers of the books" have used or abused those writings to perpetrate falsehood or fraud, that is an entirely different matter than the character of the original writers.

Of note, the move to greater scientific method in history is rather recent. (Thanks, Hagel and others) There are thousands of old texts, letters and references the predate the currently accepted methodology. (Hmm. Thucydides seems to stand out as a progressive writer, for those times.).

Applying the "modern writing standard and method" to the authors of the texts from which the OT is derived is not only non contextual, it overlooks the rarity of writing as a skill then.

There is no question that the fusion of history, story, myth, legend, and metaphor, not to mention symbolism, makes any ancient text or work very difficult to bring up to date and "get."

That challenge keeps scholars in beer and pretzels, if nothing else. :D

DR

[davefoc]

I am leaving in a few minutes and look forward to more complete answers but let me respond to a few things.

What are your qualifications?
I have had an interest in biblical history for a few years and am a casual reader of various articles and the book I mentioned.

The evidence that the exodus didn't happen as related in the bible is close to overwhelming from a secular point of view.

got to go. sorry

[Correa Neto]

I am sure that the God you are so disappointed in will take your weighty opinion into consideration the next time He decides to eradicate a civilization. :rolleyes: You may just have saved millions of lives.

Of course, if you are Chinese, or follow their proverbs, you are now responsible for all of them.

Better get on that grocery shopping.

DR

Do you consider the "interpretation" as sonething worthy of a omnipotent deity?

[Beady]

The evidence that the exodus didn't happen as related in the bible is close to overwhelming from a secular point of view.


I am aware that there is very little evidence that the exodus happened, but this is the first time that I've heard there was overwhelming evidence that it didn't happen.

[davefoc]

Beady wrote:
I am aware that there is very little evidence that the exodus happened, but this is the first time that I've heard there was overwhelming evidence that it didn't happen.]
To some degree this is a semantics question. What is the minimum amount of correlation between fact and the Biblical story before it can be said that it happened? The theory put forth in "The Bible Unearthed" is that the Hyksos expulsion may have served as an inspiration for the migration from Egypt portion of the story, but that the actual story is written about 600 bce. This idea is based on a theory by Donald Redford. Redford observed that most of the place names and the political situation are roughly consistent with that time frame and that is the time frame that evidence for the writing of the bible first appears.

The following is based largely on a summary of some of the arguments put forth in "The Bible Unearthed". I looked up most of the references in the Bible to verify that the claim was consistent with what the Bible actually said. I didn't include the relevant sections from the Bible because it made the post too long.

Hyksos expulsion
1. Date is 1570 bce instead of 1440 bce date calculated from 480 years after Solomon’s temple
2. No archeological evidence of a large population (600,000 men according to Bible) moving through the desert.
3. No archeological evidence of a large population (600,000 men according to Bible) at any of the locations named in Bible in this time
4. Well before any evidence of a Hebrew people. First mention in Egyptian Hieroglyphics in roughly 1200 bce
5. No evidence of a mass murder of children by Egyptians
6. Incident involved the forced expulsion of a people and not the escape
7. The city of Ramesses would not be built for hundreds of years after this period

Arguments for it
1. There is evidence for a people believed to come from Canaan at the Tell ed-Daba site where habitation began about 1800 bce and ended at about the time of the expulsion documented in Egyptian hieroglyphics
2. The name of the Pharaoh was Ahmose which is close to Moses

Exodus under Ramesses II
1. Date is about 150 years after the date calculated based on 480 years after Solomon’s temple
2. No evidence for mass migration through the desert
3. No evidence for habitation of any of the sites mentioned as stopping points in the Bible
4. No evidence at this time for the mass expulsion or escape of a large population
5. At this time the Egyptians had an organized system of border guards document both through hieroglyphics and archeological evidence. A mass escape of a portion of the Egyptian population could have been resisted by them and would have been noted by them. There are no records or evidence of such a confrontation.
6. The first mention of Israel does not occur until Ramesses II son has taken over

General comments that apply to both theories for the Exodus
1. The bible does not mention a pharaoh by name. This is strange given that later pharaohs are mentioned and the major importance that the pharaoh plays in this story.
2. The stories have the clear tone of a propaganda piece designed to give a population a puffed up sense of their own place in history. By modern standards the stories might be judged as racist.
3. The story is vague when it comes to details that can be verified and is at least somewhat anachronistic with regards to the likely possible time frames.

ETA: site that discusses the Hyksos expulsion theory
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/03/did-israels-exodus-from-egypt-actually.php

[Beady]

To some degree this is a semantics question.

No, it's not. It is exactly the same difference as between "There is no God," and "I have seen no compeling evidence for the existence of God." They are two substantially different statements, with different evidentiary requirements.

The following is based largely on a summary of some of the arguments put forth in "The Bible Unearthed".

I went down through your list, and didn't see anything that couldn't be found in a good encyclopedia, or that I didn't learn in high school (40 years ago!). Your claim that this is "overwhelming" remains unsubstantiated, and it is certainly not revelatory. As a matter of policy I distrust arguments that quote a single source, but I accept yours in this case because it conforms to what is already known.

There is evidence for a people believed to come from Canaan at the Tell ed-Daba site where habitation began about 1800 bce and ended at about the time of the expulsion documented in Egyptian hieroglyphics

So, it seems possible that the exodus did happen, if you are willing to grant the same leeway as is normally granted to other folk tales and memories. This pretty much conforms to what I, Meffy and others have been saying.

I really can't tell where you're coming from. If you are arguing that the Bible is historically inaccurate, my reply is, "Big Deal." If you are arguing that the Bible is historically worthless, you're going to have to haul out a lot more compelling evidence than you have, so far.

BTW, we are still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the Bible is "mostly lies."

[davefoc]

Beady,
I don't have time for a long post right now.

I was surprised at what seems to be some animosity in your response.

If the basic facts of the Hyksos expulsion meet your criteria for a close enough correlatatiion to the biblical exodus story then for you the biblical story has been confirmed.

It doesn't meet my view of what would be enough correlation to consider it the biblical story and hence I do not see it as evidence for the story. I see it as evidence of what might have served as a source for a cultural memory about an immigration from Egypt. I think the contradictory details of the Hyksos expulsion are proof that it is not the Exodus story.

This seems to be a case where our conclusions hang on a subjective idea about what constitutes sufficient correllation, a difference of opinion that I used the term semantic to describe.

As to this

BTW, we are still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the Bible is "mostly lies."
That is my opinion based on my understanding about how the old and new testament came to be. There are of course two issues here:
1. To what degree are the biblical stories false
2. To what degree did the people that were writing down these stories know they were false.

As to the first one I think almost the entire old testament that covers events up to and including David is false. To some degree you seem comfortable with this conclusion since you used the term folk tales in your response above. I do not disagree that some paralells between actual events and biblical events in that period can be found. But based on plausibility arguments and empirical data arguments I think it is reasonable to conclude that the preponderance of the details from the biblical stories are just made up.

As to the second issue about the intent of the authors to deceive:
My understanding and view of the situation is that the stories were created and manipulated to promote a particular point of view and to the degree that this is true I see the authors as simple self promoting liars. But I also agree that this is a highly subjective area and it will never be possible to reliably infer the actual intent of the individual writers.

Although, my post of above deals with the old testament, it is my view that much the same can be said of the new testament except that there is more evidence of actual intentional lying there and the stories have been even more carefully manipulated to forever hide what the underlying truth is.

[Beady]

I was surprised at what seems to be some animosity in your response.

Apologies. I've been told I come across that way. I try not to, but... We're all flawed, and this is one of mine.

As to the second issue about the intent of the authors to deceive:
My understanding and view of the situation is that the stories were created and manipulated to promote a particular point of view and to the degree that this is true I see the authors as simple self promoting liars..

The OT "history" stories of the Pentateuch were primarily written/told during the Babylonian Captivity, as a means of holding the Israelites together by providing a common heritage known to all, as well as to try and provide a context for their tribulations. They were told neither to decieve nor to convince, but rather to explain. Does that make them lies? They are variations on folk tales, both their own and their captors', and I strongly doubt that the authors of the final written versions were working from recorded references.

Another way to look at it is, if Genesis is a bald-faced lie, what about the Iliad and the Aenead? Is the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree a lie, or a story? It is certainly an invention, and has an agenda; was Parson Weems a liar, or a story teller? I suppose they can all be called lies, if you want to take an absolutist approach. But then you'll have to show me an absolutist who is absolutely right.

Although, my post of above deals with the old testament, it is my view that much the same can be said of the new testament except that there is more evidence of actual intentional lying there and the stories have been even more carefully manipulated to forever hide what the underlying truth is.

Again, there is a difference between stories told to decieve, and stories told to convince. It could also be as inocuous as the fact that the standards of journalism were lower back then than they are now. Or, it could be nothing more than a rumor that took on a life of its own.

Tell me, on October 31, 1938, were all those people who reported Martians marching through New Jersey lying? Their stories were certainly untrue and utterly fantastic, but were they lying?

Getting back to the New Testament, one Gospel author, Luke, says right up front that he's reporting 2nd and 3rd-hand accounts. As for the other three, no one really knows who the authors were, but it's generally accepted that they were written decades after the purported events and are merely versions of the stories as they existed at the time of recording. Does that make them lies? It's as if you sat down and wrote your family history about the last four generations, relying mainly on stories told by your parents and grandparents. Would you be lying?

Enough. I'm tired and beginning to blather.

[davefoc]

Thank you for your response Beady,

I think we would both agree that organized religion develops through a series of misrepresentations on the part of the promoters. The misrepresentations vary by size, by intent and by motivation.
Often, probably, the misrepresentations are mistakes or small enhancements to existing lore. Perhaps the motivation of the teller is just to create a little better story for his audience or maybe just to combine two good stories into one. Perhaps, as you suggest, the misrepresentation is done intentionally for purposes of promoting what the teller believes is a greater good.

My view, based on a casual study of the history of Christianity over the last few years, is that often the misrepresentations are intentional, significant and done with a conflation of the greater good and the benefit of the story creator.

In modern times, even well known theologicians, have little trouble stone cold lying every now and then. The Reverend Schuller who was the founder of a large ministry in Orange County, California planned a missionary trip to China about thirty years ago and did fund raising based on the future trip. The Chinese government wouldn't let him in. But did that slow the guy down. Not for a second. He had a picture taken of himself standing in front of a picture of the great wall of China. He then sent out fund raising literature to the faithful telling them how much the local Chinese had appreciated the bibles he was handing out.

Of course Schuller didn't write the bible and maybe the biblical authors were more honest than this fellow. I doubt it.

You talked about the bible being put together during the Babylonian captivity. Even before that after the Assyrian conquest, King Josiah was firing up the faithful with newly found allegedly ancient biblical texts and the texts fit mighty well with a message that we're a great and mighty people who should unite under him to fight against the foreigners. It seems like somebody was fabricating false propaganda here for the purposes of garnering support for the current administration. When governments do that today we call it lying. Lying looks like a pretty reasonable thing to call it back then to me.

Beady wrote: Getting back to the New Testament, one Gospel author, Luke, says right up front that he's reporting 2nd and 3rd-hand accounts.
Did Luke do that? I didn't find anything like that when I read through the first few chapters quickly. I think the attribution of Luke and Acts to Luke happened much later. The attribution to the Luke that is referenced in three Pauline epistles (two of which are considered forged) is disputed. This article describes some of the problems with that attribution:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewluke.html#luke

And a little more on the subject of this thread. This is a nice article detailing some more of the problems with Moses story. The article deals a lot with the issue of the similarity of the story to other existing mythology.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/moses.html

An area that I didn't include in my list of problems with the Moses story above but that I might have if I had thought about it is the lack of archeological evidence for the nearly simulataneous destruction of numerous cities detailed in the biblbical Moses story at the possible times for the Exodus. In addition Jericho doesn't seem to have been a major city at that time and it certainly didn't have any walls to come tumbling down.

I continue to believe that the public, even the non-religious public, is wildly mislead about the nature of the Moses story, which is that the Moses story is almost entirely fiction. I think the various articles that I have linked to make a pretty good case that this is the situation.

[Beady]

Getting back to the New Testament, one Gospel author, Luke, says right up front that he's reporting 2nd and 3rd-hand accounts.

Did Luke do that? I didn't find anything like that when I read through the first few chapters quickly.

Luke 1:1-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=1&version=31)
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-24887a)] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

My emphasis. The "[a]" link takes you to an alternate translation, where "fulfilled" becomes "or been surely believed." If you take this latter translation, then even Luke isn't asserting the absolute truth of what he is reporting.

So, what else might you have missed?

My view, based on a casual study of the history of Christianity over the last few years...

Perhaps a little too casual, bearing in mind your "when I read through the first few chapters quickly." I also note that you've explicitly mentioned only a single source for your criticism. I don't doubt that there are others, but you appear to have done your studying in isolation, and very selectively. I would suggest that the quality of your opinions are measured, not by your familiarity with your own case, but by your familiarity with the opposing case. Perhaps a little formal study is in order, where you would be compelled to deal with sources and criticisms you wouldn't normally look at, in a structured method.

[davefoc]

Beady,
It appears that you have quoted a different version of the bible than I used. I still haven't found exactly your text but several versions of the bible are somewhat different from the part you quoted.

KJV
1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

New American Standard
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;

Worldwide English
1Many people have tried already to write down the things that have happened among us. 2These things were told us by men who saw them happen from the time they began to happen. And these men helped tell the good news.
3I have tried to find out all that has happened from the beginning. And so, Theophilus, great ruler, I myself will write you the whole story.

But if your point is that the author of Luke doesn't claim to be a first person eyewitness, then I agree and didn't mean to dispute that.

But there is the issue of whether he was a first person eyewitness of the travels of Paul. It is debated as to whether he claimed that or not and there seems to be considerable dispute as to whether he could have been the Luke that Paul referenced at least once in one of his Epistles that is widely accepted as having been written by him. If you disagree with that perhaps you could provide the basis of that disagreement.

As to my referencing only one source:
On the Moses story I have linked to articles on three different sites and produced a summary of arguments from a respected book. I do not make claims of great or original scholarship. It seems, at least with regard to the Moses story you are in substantive agreement with me. If not, perhaps you could explain what specific elements you think are likely to have been true or at least are still plausible.

I have presented the arguments in this thread based on fairly diverse reading for a person with a casual interest including the Catholic Encyclopedia. I presented my personal opinions on a for what they are worth basis. I am open to reasons as to why they are wrong and appreciate your responses.

[Beady]

Beady,
It appears that you have quoted a different version of the bible than I used. I still haven't found exactly your text...

Sigh. Click on the link.

And my point is that the Bible cannot and should not be taken literally. For that reason, neither should criticism of the Bible be based on a literal interpretation. All of which is a side-track from the original topic of whether you can ascribe motivation to the Bible's various authors (you can't, without postulating a centuries-long conspiracy).

[davefoc]

And my point is that the Bible cannot and should not be taken literally.


I think the relevant issue with regards to this discussion is the intent of the authors of the bible.


For that reason, neither should criticism of the Bible be based on a literal interpretation.
I suppose this is an area where we disagree a bit. I think the biblical stories were made up by people who intended that they be taken literally and they intended those stories to deceive people. So when it becomes clear that the biblical stories are just fiction it seems reasonable to criticize the bible for that just as one might criticize any other book which was put forth as a non-fiction work that was later shown to be largely ficiton.

Admittedly there were many people along the chain of custody of the biblical stories that attempted to preserve what they thought was truth as the stories were passed down, but throughout the chain in a lot of the biblical stories were people who were just making stuff up.

All of which is a side-track from the original topic of whether you can ascribe motivation to the Bible's various authors (you can't, without postulating a centuries-long conspiracy).
I suppose we disagree here a bit also. I think it is reasonable to infer what the motivation might be for people that make up religious stories in some situations. People tell lies for lots of different reasons. When people are making up religious stories they might be making them up because they want to impress people with their knowledge, they might be making up stories because they are trying to develop material that will convince people of the benefit of supporting a priesthood and they might be making up stories as a kind of propaganda to promote an action by the general population which is of benefit to the religious propagandists. If your point is that we can never know the motivation of the people making up religous stories then we are in agreement. But we can never know the motivation for any action religious or not, but we can make a reasonable estimate of what the motivation is for some actions when we understand who is benefited by those actions.

As to the issue of postulating a century's long conspiracy: I didn't think there was much doubt about it. My thought is that many Christian priests have at least a moderate understanding of the history of Christianity and they must be aware at least to some degree that the widely disseminated Christian story is bogus. Assuming Jesus was a real person he didn't found anything resembling modern Christianity. But that doesn't stop the vast majority of Christian priests from repeating the standard Christian mythology over and over.

Frankly, I don't quite understand what has gone on in this exchange between you and I. Your posts have been surprisingly hostile on a subject that I wouldn't expect to generate such a reaction.

My sense of it is that you have deep feelings for the bible that I don't share and you are pissed at me because I don't have your feelings about the bible. But that is frankly a wild ass guess and perhaps something in my style of posting or some other factor is pissing you off. Whatever it is is fine with me, you aren't going to piss me off, but perhaps if you could put it into words I might avoid whatever it is that you are reacting to.

[Diamond]

For me the way the parting could have happened was that there was a submarine landslide by the Horn of Africa, possibly caused by an earthquake in the Afar Triangle.

The landslide would cause large amounts of sediment to fall from the continental shelf downwards. The volume of sediment would be immediately be replaced by an equal volume of seawater causing the sea level to suddenly drop in large area.

Water from the Red Sea would flow rapidly into this hole like sparkling wine from a suddenly uncorked bottle. Further up the Red Sea the sea level would appear to miraculously drop for perhaps 30 minutes. Then a large highly destructive tsunami would come rolling back in.

I have not the slightest bit of evidence that my scenario actually happened, but it is allowed by the laws of physics and requires no supernatural component.

I think that if the parting of the Red Sea did happen, the description of a wall of water either side of the Israelites was an embellishment to give it a supernatural spin.

It would be interesting to know whether there is evidence of tsunami deposits in the Southern Sinai dating from the Bronze Age.

[Mojo]

The trend's not new. I've seen similar stuff for decades. Asimov thought a mistranslation was to blame, and that Moses parted the "Sea of Reeds" -- a vast marsh -- which, needless to say, wasn't a great place for Pharaoh's chariots to go into. There's evidence for this in the Geordie translation of the Bible (I think it may have been something to do with the Venomous Bede...): Noo the gaffer ov aal the Israelites was a chep caalled Moses and he fell oot wi' Pharoah whe woz the gaffer ov aal the Egyptians. So Moses sez to his lads, "Howway ower the Reed Sea". So they aall set oot wi' thor bairns and thor posstubs, whippets and galloways te plodge ower the watter. "Had on", sez Moses, "Had on". And he hoisted his deppity's stick up ahight. Whey men ye wadn't credit it. The watters parted. Thor wez a waall o' watter on one side and a waall o' watter on the other. So thor wez ne caall to plodge ower. (Scott Dobson, Larn Yersel' Geordie, p. 25)