Did Nothing Create Everything?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Hmm...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,236
    No idea, but some history buffs probably got an idea that you are not interested in. Do you know that there are other gods in the bible? How do you define your God, what books?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I would be interested in answers too.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    The following is only offered for your review.
    Please decide what you think about it for yourself.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    The Mountain of God Site in Saudi Arabia would have provided access to the Presence of God on the East side.

    The Tabernacle allowed access to the Presence of God on the East side. And in the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden on the East side. The East Garden Gate was then shut and guarded to prevent access to the Tree of Life (Eternal Life) and to the Presence of God.

    On the East side of this Mountain, East of the Presence of God (the blackened peak area), the Altar of Moses sits at the base of the Mountain as a symbolic East Entrance, an East Gate reopened, allowing access to the Presence of God once again. The Sacrifice of the Lamb at the Altar of Moses symbolizes the future Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Gate back to the Garden, to Eternal Life, and to the Presence of God.

    In my view...

    Unlike any other site on Earth, this Mountain displays the Gospel in how it is physically laid out. To me it appears that God left a picture of His Plan of Salvation on the Earth for the Nation of Israel and for all of us living now, over three thousand years ago. Over one thousand years before Christ. And it becomes especially plain and clear when viewed from the air in Google Earth.

    Here is what I see in symbolic form on the Mountain...

    WE ARE FAR AWAY FROM GOD IN OUR SIN…
    Far away from God’s Presence across from the Mountain to the East is the Golden Calf Altar, which represents Sin, open rebellion against God, idolatry, and demon worship.

    THE WAGES OF SIN...
    Without faith and repentance we will be judged for the evil and sin that we have chosen to do in this life. And the consequence of our evil will be the same state we have chosen to live in, a state of spiritual death. This is symbolized by the Mass Graveyard on the Mountain to the North.

    FAITH AND REPENTANCE…
    For intimacy with God to be restored, for us to be forgiven, and for us to be given access to the Presence of God again like we had in the Garden, we must turn completely around from having our back to God at the Golden Calf Altar, turn towards His Presence on the Mountain Repent and walk in Faith towards Him and approach Him on His terms. We have to basically both Fear His Justice and Trust in His Love at the same time.

    BAPTISM…
    We are to be cleansed by water, as a symbol of our desire to have a cleansed heart, before we can come into the presence of God. In the Exodus account, to approach God Himself on the Mountain they had to first wash themselves in the water which flowed down from the Mountain. There was a Lake at the foot of this Mountain and a brook that flowed down the valley. Still evidence for both.

    COVERED BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB…
    And we must also be cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb, by Christ’s Sacrifice. The Altar of Moses Animal Sacrifices were a type of, or a picture of, the future Sacrifice of Christ. And in the Exodus account, they had to be sprinkled with the Blood of the Sacrifice from the Altar before ascending to the Presence of God.

    ENTER BY THE NARROW GATE…
    The Animal Sacrifices at the Altar of Moses, and being sprinkled by the blood there, was the only narrow gate (symbolically), point of access, to God just as the Blood Sacrifice of Christ is the only “Narrow Gate” for us today.

    THE NARROW PATH…
    Now take a look at the valley that ascends the Mountain to God's Presence (to Heaven). Between the Altar of Moses and the top of the Mountain is a "V" shaped Narrow valley that leads straight to the Presence of God Himself. This Path is Narrow. According to the Exodus account, if the people tried to access God in any other way, by going up the mountain to the right or to the left they would die. And God even told Moses to place boundary markers at the base of the mountain to protect the people and to prevent people from dying. Boundary warning markers are still at this Site in two different forms.

    THE PRESENCE OF GOD...
    The Blackened Top of the Mountain appears to match the physical description given in the Book of Exodus for the Presence of God on the Mountain…

    Exodus 19:18 says, “the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.”

    To me personally, all of this testifies loud and clear that God exists, that He loves us and wants to restore His relationship with us, and that He laid out His Plan of Salvation on this Earth over three thousand years ago, to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is also evidence to me that the Exodus Account in the Bible is very accurate.

    But, again, you must decide for yourself.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 12, 2019
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    So you may have evidence of peoples beliefs of yesteryear... stone henge is also, as are the pyramids in Egypt etc.
    ...and how does it support your argument, that a God is required to solve the ex-nihilo paradox?
     
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Also, why does one have to prove so much that God exists?

    Are you more special because of God existing?
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2019
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SetiAlpha6:

    To me, it seems like you're pretty confused about the difference between faith, belief and knowledge. I'll try to explain while I respond to a few things you wrote.

    You are making a knowledge claim there. You claim to know that there is no multiverse and/or that such a thing is an impossibility. But you give no details about how you would know that. All you give is your belief that such a thing does not or could not exist.

    You claim that a multiverse would have no properties. If that's the case, then you and I are thinking about different kinds of multiverse. The multiverse I'm thinking of would, at the very least, have a set of physical principles that govern it in some way, at least allowing for the existence of universes like ours within said multiverse. Your multiverse with no properties whatsoever is obviously a different kind of beast. Let's talk about my multiverse from now on, since it seems more useful and interesting that your one.

    I don't have any evidence for the existence of a multiverse such as I have described, other than the existence of our own universe.

    But then again, we can as easily apply your own argument to your God. Here's how it would go:

    "A “pretend” God, has no properties whatsoever. It does not exist.
    A bit of evidence for it might be appropriate before it is cited as an imaginary solution for the ID fine tuning of the universe improbability problem."​

    No doubt you have considered how your own argument would apply in the case of your God, so tell me how you deal with your own objection in that case.

    In any case, can we agree that my multiverse and your God are on a roughly equal footing as far as evidence goes that they caused our universe to come into being? You have no evidence. I have no evidence. So, either explanation is possible. Right? Or maybe both explanations are wrong. Do you agree?

    Are you talking about split rocks in Arabia, or is there some other evidence for your God?

    Christianity was invented around 2000 years ago. We know the date of its invention, too. So what? What has the date of the invention of an idea got to do with the likelihood that it is true or false?

    I see. The idea of a multiverse is a grand conspiracy by atheists, is it?

    What about Christianity? Could that be a grand conspiracy, too?

    What makes you think our universe is fine tuned? Can you give me a few examples?

    How does he know God did it? And, just as importantly, how do you know that he knows that God did it? And how do you know that God did it? (Or perhaps you don't know that?)

    This, I think, is part of your confusion with the word "faith". "Faith" is a word that can mean different things. If it only means "trust", then it would be fair to say that I have faith in lots of things. I have faith that my chair won't collapse under me as I write this. But that kind of faith is an evidence-based trust. My chair has worked well so far, still has a reasonable projected lifespan, is manufactured reliably etc. etc. I have evidence that it will probably continue to support me for some time yet.

    On the other hand, your faith that God exists is not evidence-based. Rather, it is a belief you maintain in the absence of good evidence. It's a bit like if I were to believe that my chair comes from Planet Zarquon. There's nothing that I know about the chair that suggests that it does actually come from there, or even that such a place exists, so if I held such a belief it could only be based on my "faith" in an unevidenced, assumed truth.

    I hope this is now clear. Beliefs can be held for all sorts of reasons. For instance, beliefs can be evidence-based (my chair will probably hold me up tonight) or faith-based (my chair was made on Planet Zarquon).

    Clearly, belief is not the same thing as faith. Beliefs are merely things that we accept as true, for good or bad reasons. Unevidenced faith, by the way, is what I would regard as a bad reason to believe.
    Th
    Now we come to knowledge. Faith and knowledge are not the same thing. I might have faith (i.e. an unevidenced belief) that my chair comes from the Planet Zarquon, but I don't know that it comes from any such place.

    Knowledge is often defined to be a justified, true belief. For me to know that my chair comes from the Planet Zarquon would therefore require that (a) I believe it to come from the Planet Zarquon, and (b) that it does, in fact, come from the planet Zarquon, and (c) that there's good reason for me to conclude that it does, in fact, come from the planet Zarquon.

    The justification bit is often very important, because we can't always tell whether something is true or not. Even though it is possible that my chair could come from somewhere called "Planet Zarquon", I certainly am not entitled to say I know it came from such a place, because I can give no good justification as to how I know that.

    One thing to note: justification and belief are separate. The idea is that beliefs are subjective, but justifications are supposed to be objective. You can believe what you like, personally, but you aren't entitled to claim you know stuff unless you can justify your claim to other rational people.

    So we ask the question:
    1. Does every normal, mentally healthy, human, believe that God exists?
    2. Is it true that God exists?
    3. Is the belief that God exists justifiable based on "evidence of creation all around them"?

    My answers are:

    1. No. I present for your perusal Exhibit A: myself, as a counter-example to your claim.
    2. Nobody knows. Which is why we turn to ...
    3. No. This alleged "evidence of creation" is hotly disputed. There's lots of stuff all around, but none of it points unambiguously to any supernatural Creator, as far as I can tell.

    I hope this helps to clear up some of your confusion about belief, faith and knowledge.

    ---

    Oh, and one other thing, in case there's lingering confusion about what I believe. I don't believe in a multiverse. That's because I haven't seen any good evidence for a multiverse yet. I only brought it up to show that God is not the only possible "causal" explanation for the existence of our universe. I do not in any way assert that I know there's a multiverse. I hope you can see why, in light of what I've written above.
     
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Considering there is no compelling evidence of a multiverse, I wouldn't exactly call that obvious "physical existence". And since parallel universes don't undermine the notion of a beginning, the only feature that is relevant would be prior universes.

    But assuming, for the sake of argument, that the multiverse exists, there's no reason to believe that each individual universe doesn't have its own beginning. And anything that shows evidence of a beginning equally shows evidence of being contingent upon the circumstances of said beginning. That would make prior universes merely an infinite regress. An infinite regress is not a good argument of something, like a universe or multiverse, being eternal, since each iteration of the regress can only ever be an ad hoc justification of the following one(s), without any further justification. As such, there is no scientific parsimony in just presuming an eternal multiverse.

    Aside from the fact that you just seemed to reject an infinite regress:
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Non-falsifiable, you see.

    Not really. Science is neutral as to whether God exists. The working assumption is that God doesn't exist, but then again God is in no way special in that regard. The working assumption is that that pink unicorns called Fred from the Fluffy Dice Galaxy don't exist, either.

    Point being, if any positive evidence ever comes to light to suggest that God and/or unicorns called Fred do exist, then science is flexible enough to revise its working hypotheses to take the new finding into consideration.

    It is interesting that you equate science with atheism. Does that mean your hostility to atheism rubs off and you end up being generally hostile to science and scientists as well? Do you reject the findings of science because you worry that they threaten your religious convictions?

    Like split rocks in Arabia? Got anything better than that kind of just so story?
     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Agreed.
    Disagree. Most of the originators of the sciences were deeply religious, and many working scientists today are as well. It's only the pop-culture perception that, like you accuse, science has any affinity to atheism. God differs from pink unicorns in the fact that ~80 of the world believes the former exists.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Heh.

    How far back are we looking here? I mean, even today the religious far outnumber the non-believers, and in the past the imbalance was far greater than it is now. It follows that, on the basis of pure weight of numbers alone, we would expect the "originators of the sciences" to be religious. I'm not sure what is required in order to be "deeply" religious, as opposed to moderately religious or religious almost by default, but maybe you can tell me what you had in mind there.

    We could also perhaps have an interesting discussion about who these originators were, specifically, which might lead us to a more thorough investigation into the actual strength or weakness of their personal religious convictions. A number of quite important thinkers almost immediately spring to my mind as potential originators of the sciences, whose expressed views on the gods and religion were somewhat out of the mainstream, to put it mildly.

    Another thing to note is that science as we know it today only started to make faltering steps during the Renaissance and only really began to hit its stride in the mid 1600s. Since then, I'd say a disproportionate number of prominent "originators" have been at least skeptical of traditional religious claims, if not functionally or openly atheists. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that atheists have traditionally been persecuted by the religious majority, so that espousing atheism has historically been a dangerous and often life-threatening thing for a scientific originator to do.

    As for today, there is an observed inverse correlation between being a highly-awarded and respected scientist and being a traditional theist (or "deeply religious"). It is quite possible to work in science (some fields more than others, it must be said) and maintain a religious faith, but it seems that rigorous scientific training is one of the things most likely to knock religion out of a person sooner or later.

    Science is committed to methodological naturalism, so to say that it has no affinity to atheism is quite a bizarre claim.

    Opinions change over time, and the current trend in God belief is downwards, not upwards. I would put that down, at least in part, to a public better educated in science, with better access to information of all types. I would also give a nod to atheist arguments making significant incursions into your "pop-culture" over the past decade, in particular.

    Not so long ago - a matter of a decade at the most - the numbers of people who believed that climate change was happening were about 50-50 in the United States. Today, about 27% of Americans still think that the idea that the Earth is warming is a left-wing political conspiracy rather than an observed scientific reality.

    I'd be wary, if I were you, about assuming that weight of public opinion determines what is true or false about the world.
     
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    It was their belief that a God created an orderly world that humans could comprehend that gave rise to science. So not just a coincidence with the prevalence of religious people. There were also many superstitious people who thought the world was as capricious as the Greek gods. Acting on their faith to discover facts about the world seems like a fairly deep religious conviction to me, but YMMV.
    Who said orthodoxy was a criteria for deeply held beliefs? Or again, that theism is equivalent to any particular religion?
    Again, you're trying to conflate theism with religion to undermine the former. Seems you may have bought into the Galileo myth as well.
    Or there's just a leftist and anti-religious bias against those people getting tenure, prompting them to find work in the private sector. And where scientists used to represent the population better, academia is now far more left and atheist than the general population.
    Ahem. You're the one who, rightly, said "Science is neutral as to whether God exists." To now claim atheism and science have an affinity belies your own statement. Just because atheists cuddle up to science like a security blanket doesn't mean that science feels the same way.
    If you think religion belongs to the past and we live in a new age of reason, you need to check out the facts: 84% of the world’s population identifies with a religious group. Members of this demographic are generally younger and produce more children than those who have no religious affiliation, so the world is getting more religious, not less
    - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next
    You were saying?
    Yup, secular leftism largely running media, entertainment, and education will do that. Beware that it may only be influence and not actual "better information".
    A decade ago it was "global warming" and now it's "climate change". They changed the name for a reason...everyone basically agrees that the climate is changing. Try going back to global warming, especially during a very cold winter, and Al Gore saying the ice caps would be gone by now.
    Never have. Just a clear distinction from pink unicorns.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Vociferous:

    Belief in an orderly world doesn't require belief in a God. It only requires recognising their are regularities in nature. The belief that those regularities are due to some deity's plan is an add-on, not a prerequisite for science.

    You think that theism and religion are independent?

    As for the Galileo myth, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I confess I'm a bit of an expert on Galileo, so maybe we could discuss your myth in a different thread.

    I like talking with you, Vociferous. You introduce all kinds of interesting avenues that we could discuss. Once again, I suggest that you might like to start a thread where we can discuss the idea that there's a leftist and anti-religious bias against academics getting tenure. We're already getting quite far off the topic of this thread.

    Not all scientists are academics. You could be right that academia is becoming more leftist and atheist. On the other hand, maybe society in general is becoming more rightist and theistic (I note you've put an argument for the latter, at least).

    I'm interested, though. Do you think that scientists ought to be representative of the religious and political mix of the wider society? If so, why?

    Methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism.

    Maybe not. Where do you get your information on how "science" feels?

    Ooh, a gotcha! I plead guilty to cultural bias, thinking about Western Europe, the United States and so-called first-world countries like my own. Specifically, I had in mind what I assume is your home country or place of residence, the USA.

    I take your point about the religious out-breeding the secularists, and thereby increasing their proportions not out of any merit in their ideas but through sheer biology. Is that supposed to be an argument for theism?

    Also, did you read to the end of that article?

    Do you think that secular leftism is responsible for the declining birth rate of theists in America? I'm inclined to lay the blame on all that pesky contraception and feminism and stuff, myself. God only knows how those lefties managed to get the one-up on the good and righteous conservatives, to take over the media like that. It'll all come to tears in the end, mark my words young man!

    They changed the name because uneducated people didn't understand that an average warming doesn't mean that everywhere on the planet warms uniformly, or even that everywhere necessarily warms.

    My preferred term these days, following the Guardian's advice, is "global heating". Even though the same confusion is still there with a lot of uneducated people, the climate emergency is such that I don't think we can afford to mince words any more; we need to call it what it is. And "warming" sounds far too benign.

    Do you agree that humans are causing the climate to change, through burning fossil fuels etc., or are you are climate denier? Just so I know where you're coming from on this, you understand. After all, until today I was mistakenly assuming you were a Christian. I don't want to make a similar mistake again.

    The arctic ice cover is reducing every year. Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are melting. Polar bears are an endangered species. 2019 was the hottest year on record.

    Do you think Al Gore was wrong to talk about the Inconvenient Truth?
     
  17. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    I didn't say it was required, only that it was. We cannot retroactively say what would have been otherwise.

    Yes, not all theists are religious.
    I'm sure you can Google "Galileo myth" if you're interested.

    Odd which off-topic points you wish to entertain.

    Maybe we can make inferences from this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    source: https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
    And:
    And:

    So if roughly half of scientists hold, if not expressly theistic, spiritual beliefs, roughly half of scientists work in the private sector, and Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1 in academia, it might be reasonable think that a majority of the leftist anti-religious scientists tend to be in academia. Maybe there's better data?
    Western society is largely not becoming more religious. Don't know about more right-leaning lately, as that could be on the rise, both in the US and UK, but might just be recent elections.

    No, that's just a typical leftist contention, for the sake of "diversity" (except excluding diversity of thought).

    Ontological naturalism is only one possible ontological basis for science. To my knowledge, science doesn't claim to explain everything, so its methodological naturalism does not imply ontological naturalism. Unless you pervert the science with scientism, which is how atheism usually snuggles up to science. Science doesn't refute the null hypothesis without evidence.

    No, just refuting your claim that belief in God was trending downwards. No idea why you'd think that was an argument for theism, especially since I've already told you argument ad populum is not compelling.

    It is The Guardian, and there's a difference between facts and commentary.

    That's quite the non-sequitur. Considering the religious still have higher birthrates than the secular in the US, I don't see that it matters why. Maybe just more abortion among the secular.

    People who are more emotional than rational just make better storytellers and perhaps gravitate towards expressing things rather than making things.

    Really? Did changing it to "climate change" get more support from those same "uneducated people"? Did it get more of those "uneducated people" on board with catastrophic climate change?

    I agree that there's a human contribution, among contributions from things like solar forcing. Not catastrophic.

    Polar bears are currently "vulnerable", an upgrade from "endangered".
    Al Gore was wrong to fearmonger about exaggerations. Even if you believe the worst case scenario, you have to admit it doesn't help the cause to be so easily shown to be wrong.
     
  18. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    The Book of Exodus gives the account of the flight of the Hebrews from Egypt. How God delivered them from Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea Crossing. And led them to Mount Sinai where He gave Moses the Ten Commandments.

    The Account gives numerous details and a chronological order of events which can be tested, compared, verified or falsified against the geography of the land and the ground evidence left behind at the various sites described therein.

    The Exodus account uses three names to describe a Great Mountain where God’s presence was on the Earth and where many very specific details took place. It calls this Mountain... Horeb, Mt. Sinai, and The Mountain of God.


    According to the account…

    MOSES LIVED IN EXILE FROM EGYPT IN MIDIAN

    Moses lived outside of Egypt controlled lands, to avoid capture by the military for killing an Egyptian.

    Moses first encountered God on this Mountain in a Burning Bush, where the Bush was on fire but the Bush itself did not burn.

    The Mountain was on the East edge of Midian, the West side of the Wilderness to the East.

    At this encounter, God told Moses to return to Egypt, and to bring his people back to this same Mountain to worship Him.


    MOSES RETURNED TO EGYPT AND BROUGHT THE PEOPLE BACK TO THIS SAME MOUNTAIN, AS COMMANDED BY GOD

    At this Mountain, according to the account…

    On the journey back to the Mountain, Moses was told by God, to strike a Rock, near the Mountain.

    That Rock was Split open by God and water flowed down from it to provide water for the people in a waterless area of the desert.

    They traveled to a second location at this same Mountain to set up camp and to worship God there.

    There was a Camp at the base of the Mountain.

    The Camp area was massive to hold all the people.

    The people could see the Top of the Mountain with the Presence of God on it from the Camp.

    The Presence of God was terrifying to the people, with lightning, and God appearing like the fire of a furnace upon the Mountain.

    The Presence of God specifically was at the top of the Mountain.

    God told Moses to build an Altar of uncut stone and earth.

    Moses built the Altar at the base of the Mountain.

    Moses built 12 Stone pillars to represent the 12 tribes of Israel (these could be cut stone).

    Moses had a rock source for the Pillars on the Mountain.

    God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, Stone Tablets, in His Presence at the Top of the Mountain.

    There was a Spring that flowed from the Mountain.

    There was a “Cleft in the Rock” at the Mountain.

    God told Moses to make a Menorah.

    God told Moses to build a Tabernacle with the Entrance on the East Side, representing the Mountain.

    This Mountain provides access to the Presence of God only on the East Side.

    God told Moses to set up boundaries around the base of the Mountain to protect the people from touching the Mountain and dying.

    Some people rebelled against God in His presence and worshipped demons at the Golden Calf Altar Site.

    3000 people died at the Golden Calf Altar from worshipping demons.

    There is a Mass Gravesite in the Area, that was excavated all at once, large enough for 3000 people.

    There were Almond trees in the area.

    There were Acacia Trees in the area.

    There were Quail in the area.

    According to another separate account in the Bible there was a Cave at the Mountain.

    According to that account, Elijah talked to God there and witnessed among other things, a Fire.


    Over 0ne thousand years before Christ, the Gospel was placed on the ground at the Mountain in Symbolic Form.


    There is evidence for almost all of this on the ground in the vicinity of a Great Mountain located in Saudi Arabia.

    Google Earth Coordinates...
    28°35'0.91"N, 35°20'55.47"E

    There is also more Geographical and Site Evidence that the Exodus Account was real and for God intervening into Space/Time in human history.

    The Exodus account is referred to as a historical event in over 900 places in the Bible, in 36 Books across both the Old and New Testaments, by at least 24 different authors, over a period of more than 1400 years.

    Both the apostle Paul and Jesus taught the historicity of the Exodus event.

    The oldest known fragment of the Book of Exodus, the Nash Papyrus, dates before the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, from 150–100 BCE. The Papyrus contains the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew.

    The oldest known existing fragments of the Torah in the world, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scroll Amulets, date from a period just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.

    Based on the Nash Papyrus, the Exodus Account clearly existed a century before the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. With the oldest fragments of the Torah going back at least another 400 years before that. The original writings would have existed far before either of these fragments.

    The Exodus Account has been regarded as a historical event for centuries both by the authors of the Bible and in Jewish oral tradition.

    Saudi Arabia just opened it's borders to tourism of these historic Sites?

    Here are a few links on the topic...

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-christian-tour

    https://livingpassages.com/christian-tours/saudi-arabia/

    https://doubtingthomasresearch.com/

    http://realmountsinai.com/explore

    https://splitrockresearch.org/
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2020
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    That's an indication that the author of the story knew the area. It is not an indication that everything/anything else in the story is true.

    (Ian Fleming write some true things about London and Switzerland. That does not mean that all of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is true.)
     
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I Agree. Ian Fleming never claimed that his writings were historical. The Exodus Account of course does, and has been regarded as such for centuries.
     
    davewhite04 likes this.
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Fiction can claim it is non-fiction. That's what fiction does - it makes false claims. You can not use anything the Bible says to prove that the Bible is true.
     
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I agree!

    You would have to use evidence outside the Bible to prove that the Bible accounts are true.

    And that is what these Sites provide.

    They provide Geographic and Archeological, verifiable and falsifiable, extra biblical evidence that the Exodus Account in the Bible is historically accurate and true.
     
    davewhite04 likes this.
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    How do they provide this evidence, exactly?

    Let me offer some similar examples:

    The story Close Encounters of the Third Kind references the Devil's Tower - a real geographic artifact. Does the real-life existence of Devil's Tower outside the story lend evidence to the idea that the story of CE3K is true?

    The TV show Stargate references the real-life Egyptian pyramids, offering that they are landing sites for UFOs. Is the existence of the pyramids outside the story evidence that the Stargate story is accurate and true?

    In general, does the inclusion of real-life elements in a fictional story cause the story to be any less fictional?
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2020

Share This Page