Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists

Careful with that reasoning, Mike. I had that same exact attitude. Then when the evidence became too overwhelming to continuing believing in Genesis creationism, my entire Christian faith was lost. I know of many others who were led to believe that their faith had to depend on the inerrancy of the Bible and who are now, like me, atheists.

Thanks, but when the thorns choke the sprouts of your faith, remember the thorns are the weeds of Biblical literalism.

You're probably right. You'll have to spend the rest of your life with your fingers in your ears, refusing to acknowledging any fact, regardless how obvious, that the Bible is simply a haphazard collection of writings intended for long dead people with no relevance for today, except for what you wish to read into it. It sounds hard to me, but I know of plenty of people who have done this successfully.

You only quoted part of my sentence. If you quote the entire sentence and think about it, you might see that it is not so naive, and even a positive statement about the Christian Bible. Well, not so positive to those who insist on a literal reading, of course.

quote:

---

It's a shame your conclusions on God were so severe.

---

I have said nothing about God, only ridiculing the notion needing to accept the Bible literally. It is a shame you don't see the difference.

quote:

---

In all honesty I really do see no need for it.

---

My last few posts were simply to goad you. You are right. There is no need for that, and I apologize.

I would never dispute that "why" is an important question. I just don't believe that the answer can be found in any single religion or religious work. It must be answered by each individual in her own way.Added: And I don't expect science to answer "why". I only expect it to tell me "how".[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-20-2003]

quote:

---

Your assumption of Biblical accounts to be myth exposes your bias against the Bible.

---

There is no assumption that the Bible is all myths. I am sure that many Old Testament people, places, and events existed and took place essentially as described. But since most of the Bible are second hand accounts written well after the events they describe (even Gospels, I'm afraid to say) it is reasonable to want to verify them with more evidence.

quote:

---

myth slander was created by christian hating atheists.

---

It is a fact that Genesis describes the world being created in but 6 days in the historic past. It is a fact that many continue to believe that this is an accurate description of the past. It is a fact that mountains of scientific and historical data exist to show that this story simply cannot be true. It would appear that the Exodus story is yet another example of a myth, that had an important religious and sociological purpose, that has no basis in reality. That is why some of us insist on verification - the Bible has a poor track record in regards to accuracy.

quote:

---

No one can explain the sudden departure of Egypt from being a world power, except the Biblical account of the Exodus.

---

The sudden departure of Egypt as a world power occurred well after the supposed Exodus event. And many world powers declined without Exodus-like events.

quote:

---

But this can't be because it violates your starting position that the Bible is wrong.

---

I couldn't care less whether the Bible is accurate or not on any given point. While I do snicker when I read of yet another Biblical story refuted by archeology or biology or physics, it has nothing to do with the Bible but with the conniptions I know the Bible-worshippers are going to go into.

Isn't Ron Wyatt the dude who claims he found with ark of the covenant? Underneath Jesus' crucifixion site? With Jesus' blood all over the mercy seat? And you're a whole 99% convinced of his discoveries?Edited to add:
I'm sorry, AdminBrian, but I couldn't resist pointing out the irony:

quote:

---

I really feel sorry for you PaulK, you know that? You are a perfect example of a real sucker.

---

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 05-31-2004 03:33 PM

Here is a better description of Wyatt's discovery of the ark of the covenant.Since we are discussing the "evidence" in favor of the Exodus, and evidence from Wyatt was presented, I think it is relevant to present this is show that Wyatt may not be the most reliable source for evidence.

quote:

---

If you are not going to be open to the facts I have presented, I do not know what more I can do for you.

---

I hate to quibble, but you haven't presented any "facts". You have repeated a bunch of assertians by someone even other Biblical literalists admit is a nut.

Blood on the mercy seat, jar. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.