You invented a scenario that no one here asserted - except you - then attacked that as if it were implied from the OP's assertion. That's a textbook strawman. Also, calling someone "bat shit crazy" violates the rules you agreed to when you signed up.
?? It's your opinion - that is what you said. To remind you: Me: If you met someone named Ben, would that mean he was Jewish? You: No. Or are you changing your mind now?
I said he still wouldn't believe in God. Who knows? There might be a super hero that lives in the shadows and does this sort of work(broken noses, disappearing). Not great evidence for "God" is it really?
Good point! Today in the age in which we live you are correct and I do agree with you, from a contemporary point of view. Three thousand years ago in Egypt? I’m not so sure? The simplest interpretation of a slave list containing Hebrew names, would be that these people were Hebrews. To invert it, and conclude that none of the people on this list were Hebrews one would have to have a good reason to do this. Again, it is not the simplest interpretation of the evidence. I see no reason to hold your interpretation from the evidence provided. That is my view, and you are welcome to disagree. Sorry, if I am not communicating clearly.
SetiAlpha6: I am wondering if we can move forward with examining some of what you claim is evidence for the biblical Exodus, or any of the events recorded in the bible Exodus book. Could you perhaps present one piece of evidence that you believe unequivocally points to a specific account in Exodus being true? Then we can examine and discuss just that piece of evidence, for starters. Do you think there is any single piece of evidence or compelling fact that points unequivocally to the truth of Exodus, or do you think that only a conglomeration of a whole lot of different pieces of evidence is sufficient to establish that Exodus is true, to your satisfaction? Actually, there's a prior question. Do you accept that the Exodus count is true because you were convinced by evidence, or did you already accept that it was true prior to seeing any evidence? Do you regard it as important that there is evidence for Exodus, or do you think it is acceptable to just take the truth of the story on faith?
SetiAlpha6: I note that you have raised the issue of Hebrew names appearing on an ancient Egyptian papyrus (I think that's where they were, correct?) that lists the names of some slaves (is that correct?). What year would this have been? What's the date of the relevant document? And what period do you assign to the Exodus story? Suppose that the document does show that there were a few Hebrew slaves in Egypt (the papyrus only lists a few, right?). That doesn't strike me as necessarily unexpected, since Israel isn't very far from Egypt. I guess what I'm confused about is why you think this document is especially important in establishing the truth of the Exodus story. Can you explain?
The complete text of that papyrus is in the link that I posted earlier, isn't it? Anyway, it sounds like you've already done the necessary leg work on this, so you can give me the benefit of your reading and analysis of the papyrus. Maybe this would be a good piece of evidence for us to start with. Can you please set out your comparison of the Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus account for me, if it's not too much trouble? What do you regard as the most important points of agreement? Also, did you find any inconsistencies between the two documents? If so, how do you account for those? One other thing: which document was written first - the Ipuwer papyrus or Exodus? Is it at all possible that one of these two documents could have drawn on material in the other? And one last thing: how do you know that either of these documents is a historical account, rather than a fiction?
Perhaps, it isn't great evidence. That said, I would suspect God would know what sort of evidence Dawkins would require for him to believe, but that hasn't happened to Dawkins or the billions of other people who don't believe in God. You're free to single out Dawkins as an example, but you should remember that it is you who are in the minority group of believers in God. Maybe, a better question would be to ask yourself what evidence would it take for you to believe in another god or not believe in gods at all?
I had no way of determining if the Exodus Account was historical before I researched the subject and found that other people than myself were claiming that they found physical evidence for it. The single piece of evidence I would suggest we study is the proposed “Mountain of God” Site in Saudi Arabia. It is one single piece of evidence, one Site, but is also quite complex when studied in detail. It would take a lot of evidence for anyone to ever try and conclude that any Mountain anywhere is the real Mountain described in the Exodus. Historical evidence is often limited and requires the assembly of corroborating pieces of evidence to build a plausible picture of how the pieces may fit together. This can be clearer or less clear depending on the nature of the evidence itself. In my opinion, the Saudi Arabia Site, provides enough physical evidence on the ground to strongly suggest that it is the historical Mountain of God as described in the Bible in the Exodus Account. That is my crazy claim. The single piece of evidence I would suggest we study is the proposed “Mountain of God” Site in Saudi Arabia. Is that ok?
Note though, that this says nothing about whether the account is real. A 600-page novel that accurately describes every spar of the (very real) Eiffel Tower is not any less fictional for doing so.
If you could present some evidence that showed that using such names were NOT common for indigenous slaves in Saudi Arabia, that would make sense. However, given that in every society there are people with unusual (i.e. nontraditional) names, both today and historically, without such evidence it would not make sense. And given that slaves are often assigned names by their owners, it is even less likely that slave names have much meaning in terms of origins. As a simple example, take the tradition of naming slaves in the Southern US - they were often (ironically) named after presidents, which is why there were so many emancipated slaves named Washington, Jefferson etc. And after they were freed, many former slaves kept those names, or adopted such a name on their own. It would be a mistake to read those slave names and assume those slaves were related to those US presidents, and came from the UK or US rather than Africa. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...on-became-the-blackest-name-in-america/71511/
It is one of many sites proposed and debated over the years. To claim that this proposed site somehow confirms the truth of the Exodus is ridiculous in the extreme.
In the passage you quoted SA6 did say "in my opinion" and did say "strongly suggests". He did not say "confirms". To conflate "an opinion that suggests" with "confirmation" and then declaring that to be "ridiculous in the extreme" is ridiculous in the extreme.
