Lol, what a load of bullocks... "As recently as 2014 CE, the documentary Patterns of Evidence: Exodus claimed The Admonitions of Ipuwer was historical reportage, an Egyptian view of the events given in the biblical Book of Exodus, proving that work historically accurate. The companion book of the same name reasserts these claims as does the work by David Rohl, whose theories infuse and support the film and book, Exodus: Myth or History? which perpetuates the misunderstanding. However well-meaning these works may - or may not - be, they are intellectually and historically dishonest in how they represent the evidence they claim to be presenting impartially. Those who represent opposing views are dismissed as either atheists or blinded by 'mainstream' scholarship while literary and physical evidence is manipulated to prove the claims of the producers/writers. " https://www.ancient.eu/article/981/the-admonitions-of-ipuwer/
Let's have a look at those names, for example, the author said this, "Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13)", yet the name Ashera was identified as the queen consort of the Sumerian god Anu and used widely throughout the Middle East and the Mediterranean as a result. It certainly does not equate to the sons of Jacob as claimed by the author. Perhaps, the author is the nutcase.
I decided to have a further look at that website and found this... The First Christmas and the Birth of Jesus "The Roman festival of Saturnalia, honoring the god Saturn, is often cited as the inspiration behind the "official" Church sanctioned holiday date for Christmas, but Saturnalia was celebrated from December 17-23, not on December 25, and therefore it was not a replacement festival or holy day. " https://apxaioc.com/article/first-christmas-and-birth-jesus The massive ignorance displayed by that author is astounding. Had he bothered to do his homework, he would have found it was " in the fourth century AD, Pope Julius I (337–352) formalized that it should be celebrated on 25 December because Roman emperor Aurelian had declared 25 December the birthdate of Sol Invictus and Julius I may have thought that he could attract more converts to Christianity by allowing them to continue to celebrate on the same day." - wiki It would appear that website is awash with nutcases.
He may of done more homework than wiki, do you think? EDIT: I didn't watch the video or whatever, I'm just saying I subscribe to being open minded. In this case the whole discussion is pointless. No amount of so called evidence will satisfy you and nothing on earth will stop SetAlpha's crusade. Circles.
You know, those sentences that end with that funny squiggly thing often referred to as a "Question Mark"
He did very little if any homework at all. I can only conclude the author is either ignorant, biased or both. I'll go with the latter.
Again what is the question? The sentence before the ? makes absolutely no sense. EDIt: "So, we can conclude God appeared before you and busted your nose open which is the reason you believe in God?" conclude from what?
Yet, it is a question directly responding to your claim, so then according to you, your claim makes no sense.
What claim? I say "people like Richard Dawkins wouldn't believe in God even if God punched him in the nose and disappeared" Your question "So, we can conclude God appeared before you and busted your nose open which is the reason you believe in God?" Why would you ask that question?
Simple really, you used an evidence based reason for Dawkins not believing in God, so it would stand to reason you also must have used an evidence based reason to believe in God.
No, still doesn't make sense. God has never punched me in the face. Let me say it differently. "If Dawkins died tomorrow and awoke in heaven, he'd still not believe in God. It isn't possible for him, not a weakness maybe a strength.
Then, the reason you believe in God is not based on evidence, correct? Again, because you didn't get it the first time, Dawkins is an evidence based thinker, hence if he woke up in heaven standing before God, then he would have no choice but to believe in God. This is how evidence based thinkers operate, but I don't think you understand that.
My belief in "God" blows hot and cold, sometimes I'm certain he exists others I don't think so... I'm bipolar. It depends what you mean by "evidence" and your concept of "heaven".
So, even though you're not really answering my question, I'll take that as a "no evidence" answer and that your bipolar belief in God is based entirely on faith. Of course, it's not really 'my' definition of evidence that has any bearing here, it's the well known, well defined versions we should be using when attempting to demonstrate things that exist as opposed to things that have never been shown to exist. It seems you're quite confused on this point in that you don't appear to understand the definition of evidence considering your use of it (God appearing, broken nose). These are physical phenomena that can be measured, verified and used to demonstrate the existence of something. Clearly, Dawkins, who understands completely the concept of evidence, would take any physical phenomenon at it's value and have no choice but to acknowledge that. You're saying that he wouldn't, which is complete nonsense. So, in turn, I asked you what physical phenomena led you to believe in God so we could find out if it was evidence based, in the same way you presented the broken nose scenario and Dawkins. We find that there was no such phenomena, which makes your position not only hypocritical, but lacking also moral and ethical justification for doing exactly of what you accuse others. Dawkins finds no evidence for God so he doesn't believe in God. You on the other hand also found no evidence for God, yet you believe in God.
I was hoping for details not just a general dismissal without knowledge of the evidence. But suit yourself. Hope you have a great day!
I disagree. I have actually read it and it certainly is good evidence for the Exodus. Have you ever read it yourself?
Details of what? How can there be any details when you say look at the evidence and I say that I don't see any evidence. Are you asking me to copy and paste directly out of the website the lack of evidence I see? There would, by definition, be nothing to copy and paste if I didn't see any. I haven't dismissed anything, I've simply stated a fact of observation.
Then, it's clear you're quite confused on the concept of evidence and how it's used to demonstrate the existence of things.
