What is Reddit's opinion of
On the Reliability of the Old Testament?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
45 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
I've heard great things about this book, might want to give it a look as it may help with your question: On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen.
> The one I read and recommend is “Reading the Old Testament.”
Good recommendation. Have you ever read On the Reliability of the Old Testament? I read it over a decade ago and it's still on my bookshelf just a couple feet from me now, but I don't remember much of it.
> For instance, no modern academics of Egyptian history believe Jews were enslaved in Egypt or that Moses was a real person. All of that is considered 100% mythology.
That is untrue. While the acceptance of these things is not as uniform as it was in the 60's, once can still find scholars who affirm the historicity of these. Kenneth Kitchen, for instance. Is he not an academic?
In before "Exodus never happened cuz Wikipedia."
>The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." p. 246 (Kenneth Kitchen is one of the most preeminent scholars of ancient Egypt, having authored hundreds of journal articles and books.)
Most of what we know about history comes from written reports of eyewitnesses. Ask Ed Gibbon. The Kuzari constitutes a singularity of eyewitness proof. It is, by proxy, evidence of the Exodus. By what meta-criterion do gaps in the fossil record (heh) take logical precedence over the eyewitness testimony of a VAST group? The skeptic can't just assume it. History and archaeology are not sciences in the way physics is.
In before "Exodus never happened cuz Wikipedia."
>The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." p. 246 (Kenneth Kitchen is one of the most preeminent scholars of ancient Egypt, having authored hundreds of journal articles and books.)
Most of what we know about history comes from written reports of eyewitnesses. Ask Ed Gibbon. The Kuzari constitutes a singularity of eyewitness proof. It is, by proxy, evidence of the Exodus. By what meta-criterion do gaps in the fossil record (heh) take logical precedence over the eyewitness testimony of a VAST group? The skeptic can't just assume it. History and archaeology are not sciences in the way physics is.
> "If the Exodus happened, then we'd expect any piece of evidence." And there isn't any.
"The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." (p. 246)
>What modern Jews believe is irrelevant when judging the Torah.
What about Saadia Gaon, Gersonides & Maimonides, none of whom insisted on your fundie literalism? In the 13th century, Isaac ben Samuel of Acre estimated the age of the universe to be 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years. Not too shabby! In the 11th century, Abraham Ibn Ezra wrote this:
>If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason … then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation … the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense.
> But there are many who say the same of Scripture.
Christianity has passed all the tests of history and theology. Archeologists have found that the Bible has been a reliable source for centuries. Islam is the opposite. Historians are finding new versions of the Quran, despite Islam's attempts to burn variations. Islam claims that there is only one copy, so this is a big problem for Islam. Islamic sources have blocked access from academics looking into it further. Christianity is the opposite. It has encouraged academics.
> They say the Flood wasn't real, Eden wasn't real, humanity isn't from Adam and Eve, the Joshua conquest never occurred, Exodus and the 400 years of slavery in Egypt never occurred, etc.
Islam claims most of those things too, but fails with it's own specific claims.
Science is finding more and more evidence for a global flood every year. A lot of the science of Geology is still developing. This is a good overview :
> Exodus and the 400 years of slavery in Egypt never occurred, etc.
I found good historical justification in the following sources. Jesus is the ultimate witness of course, and He affirmed Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses.
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
The video documentary Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, which is very balanced and well-done: http://patternsofevidence.com/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802803962/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019513088X/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195155467/
I realise linking books on Amazon probably isn't particularly helpful, but those are the ones I could think of without access to the university library.
> How would you guys recommend trying to find out more about this?
I used to be a hard skeptic, so started at the bottom, studying basic logic and philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle, Ontology, Epistemology, etc). That helps navigate everything else.
Using Bayesian logic, eventually one should realize that Theism is a better explanation of reality than Naturalism. Books like Dr. Feser's "5 proofs for God" help with that.
The facts of history show that only Judaism+Christianity had the correct necessary Ontology for God ( singular,eternal, immaterial, perfected, etc). All other religions get that wrong. Christianity is the fulfillment, which you can check into history on. I recommend the resources below [1].
From an everyday practical level, it is good to think about the life and teachings of Christ. I don't know if you have children, but His teachings become a lot more obviously important in that light. Even if you don't believe, it's just a good way to live.
jfyi - I have some dear friends in the Mormon Church, so would love to hear any advice you have about talking with them. I listen to Mormon Stories regularly, and other podcasts and find it fascinating. I think a lot of people like myself are amazed that something like the LDS church even exists. I know a lot of people are leaving, but I hope they have a soft landing.
[1] Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
"James Hoffmeier examines the most current Egyptological evidence and argues that it supports the biblical record concerning Israel in Egypt."
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
"Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition 1st Edition"
Patterns of Evidence is a balanced presentation of arguments for and against Exodus with leading Egyptologists, including some who don't believe that Exodus happened : http://patternsofevidence.com/
>“Everybody recognizes these southern origins of Yahweh, but most scholars stop there,” Amzallag says.
Most scholars stop there because there’s no more evidence beyond a theory. Many scholars have debunked this theory.
Reliability of the Old Testament
Kenneth Kitchen is a British biblical scholar, Ancient Near Eastern historian, and Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, England.
Israelite religions Richard Hess is an American Old Testament scholar. He is Earl S. Kalland Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary. Hess has degrees from Wheaton College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Hebrew Union College.
Lost world of the conquest John H. Walton is an Old Testament scholar and Professor at Wheaton College. He was a professor at Moody Bible Institute for 20 years. He specializes in the Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds of the Old Testament, especially Genesis and its creation account, as well as interpretation of Job.
Or if you don’t want to read those books you can watch this video which summarises those books and the archeological evidence
YHWH didn’t emerge from a pantheon
And If the Exodus happened which there is evidence for this fringe theory is debunked. Here is a great YouTube series on the evidence for the exodus by an Egyptologist
There’s no evidence that YHWH was apart of a Canaanite pantheon. The Israelites did worship other gods but that’s what the Bible says happened, they were supposed to worship others but they rebelled against YHWH.
Many scholars like Kenneth Kitchens
Reliability of the Old Testament
And Richard Hess
Debunk this fringed theory. Here is also a video that debunks it if you don’t want to read those books
Did YHWH emerge from a pantheon? No
If the Exodus happened which there is evidence for this fringe theory is debunked. Here is a great YouTube series on the evidence for the exodus by an Egyptologist
It took me over a dozen books, and countless hours of podcasts and debates.
Dr.Feser - 5 proofs for God.
GK Chesterton - The Everlasting Man.
CS Lewis - Mere Christianity.
Thomas Woods - How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
Bishop Barron - Who God is : https://youtu.be/1zMf_8hkCdc.
Stephen Molyneux - The Devil is not Hiding - On Bitchute
Stephen Molyneux is an agnostic, but talks like his on history and evil in our culture helped open my eyes. Even non-religious people realize that there is transcendent evil in the world. That inspired me to look for the transcendent good.
Historicity of Moses and Exodus :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X "James Hoffmeier examines the most current Egyptological evidence and argues that it supports the biblical record concerning Israel in Egypt."
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691 "Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition 1st Edition"
Patterns of Evidence is a balanced presentation of arguments for and against Exodus with leading Egyptologists, including some who don't believe that Exodus happened : http://patternsofevidence.com/
> A Bayesian analysis wouldn't give you evidence
I didn't say it did. Bayesian reasoning is a way of EVALUATING evidence.
> What you found is your own inherent bias, not evidence of theism.
No, I had a bias against theism. It took me years to finally see that the evidence was for it as a last resort. The nature of Consciousness and Life weighed most heavily on the Theism side.
> There is no reason to believe that consciousness being an emergent process is anything other than natural.
It sounds like you have not investigated the field much. There is no evidence of "emergent" material processes causing consciousness. I spent years going to neuroscience conferences and meeting researchers.
Also, "emergent" is just a hand-waiving red-herring. My field is computer science, and I have built a lot of sophisticated systems with "emergent" processes. Those can be deconstructed. I recommend that you check the data yourself, or pay attention more carefully researchers like Dr. Chalmer's. He has looked into the data deeply for decades. His best hypothesis from the evidence is that consciousness is "fundamental" to the Universe. That's basically what Theism has been saying for 4000+ years.
> You not finding a sufficient explanation for this process, does not result in an alternate explanation becoming more likely
It seems that you are confused about the process that I used. I did years of processes of elimination, which has also been done in the field. e.g. Brain matter has been removed, yet memory and functions remain. All the evidence points to consciousness coming THROUGH the brain, not FROM it which is why recent decades have focused on Quantum effects. See the article below. The base of the brain appears to be a gateway to something that we can not see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
The following article sums up a repeating pattern in the field :
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
> What attempts have you made to prove the Bible is incorrect?
When I was atheist, I studied the related history for over 10 years:
e.g. Historicity of Moses and Exodus :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X "James Hoffmeier examines the most current Egyptological evidence and argues that it supports the biblical record concerning Israel in Egypt."
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691 "Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition 1st Edition"
Patterns of Evidence is a balanced presentation of arguments for and against Exodus with leading Egyptologists, including some who don't believe that Exodus happened : http://patternsofevidence.com/
> Let's start there since we keep going into tangents about things that are not actually attempts at falsifying your beliefs
I'm happy to discuss how I got from ardent atheist to christianity, but if you want to debate history, I recommend starting a debate topic so that you can get more input.
In general, I kept finding atheist sources like Richard Carrier to be wrong, and scholarly sources like the ones that I mentioned above to be legit.
For example, the (skeptical) work of Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a joke by scholarly standards.
> In the time of the wandering they had Moses, Aaron and Joshua. And even that was not enough to convince them.
That generation was to be cleansed, not "convinced". God used 40 years to raise up a new generation.
> Or maybe it shows that the authors of the books wrote these stories with a bias for their own cult?
Historicity of Moses and Exodus :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X "James Hoffmeier examines the most current Egyptological evidence and argues that it supports the biblical record concerning Israel in Egypt."
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691 "Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition 1st Edition"
Patterns of Evidence is a balanced presentation of arguments for and against Exodus with leading Egyptologists, including some who don't believe that Exodus happened : http://patternsofevidence.com/
> So we have the single instance of a king being hated by his own people, which was unsuccessful
No. That citation is just an example of a pattern that is known to repeat for thousands of years in diverse cultures, languages and geographies. It's still going on today.
> then the Egyptians did keep records of the Israelites and made no mention of the Plagues or miracles
There are some traces of evidence in the scholarly resources that I mentioned. Again, it's been many years since I went through those. If you are serious about investigating these things, I recommend using those scholarly sources. You'll get what you pay for on Reddit :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
This video documentary "Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus", has a balanced view of skeptical and believing scholars: http://patternsofevidence.com/
The Hebrew claims of Sodom and Gomorrah and many other sites has been validated by archeologists:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3
> A devastated Egypt would have been remarked on by its neighbors and likely taken advantage of by one of them,
Don't you know that the desert on both side of the Nile kept some areas relatively isolated?
> It is unlikely that the 603,550 adult males plus women and children mentioned in the Exodus story would have gone unremarked by contemporary records.
I showed 53 biblical references that have been validated by archeology. We also have Jesus who testified of Adam, Abraham, Moses and David as historically valid, and He is the world's most reliable witness.
I don't believe that any amount of evidence can satisfy a skeptic though. People have an infinite capacity to ignore evidence. There are atheists today who don't believe that they are Male or Female, despite objective physical evidence at arm's length. So, no amount of evidence is going to satisfy a skeptic.
> Why is the story of Exodus no where to be found in Egyptian or world history?
Ancient kingdoms were vigilant about wiping out information about other peoples, because they wanted to have them focus on themselves.
That said, there is a lot of evidence that supports the Biblical claims. See the sources below.
53 Biblical Characters confirmed by Archeology:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
This video documentary "Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus", has a balanced view of skeptical and believing scholars: http://patternsofevidence.com/
> guess, but you're welcome to explain how 4 documents written decades after the event by unknown authors is somehow good evidence for a resurrection
Like I said, I wouldn't present the Gospels by themselves as a proof. They are part of a larger set of evidence. Evidence for Jesus is the entire set of history, especially the prior 1000 years of prophecy predicting Him.
Also, the authors of the Gospels aren't anonymous. They were Catholic, and are known to Catholic Tradition:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/who-really-wrote-the-gospels-1134
> Which isn't relevant here so far.
It makes a relevant point about the limits of evidence.
> We generally want evidence for claims. We aren't talking about a math proof, but an event.
The Universe and Life is evidence of God, like a book is evidence of an author.
Evidence for Jesus is in the whole of history. If you want to understand some of the foundation, I would recommend these sources :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X "James Hoffmeier examines the most current Egyptological evidence and argues that it supports the biblical record concerning Israel in Egypt."
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691 "Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition 1st Edition"
Patterns of Evidence is a balanced presentation of arguments for and against Exodus with leading Egyptologists, including some who don't believe that Exodus happened : http://patternsofevidence.com/
> We generally want evidence for claims. We aren't talking about a math proof, but an event.
Logically, you can't evaluate a claim in isolation. For example, can you prove that you exist without referring to externalities ?
> Lets not go there. Suffice it to say its a gross view you should drop and leave it there.
Sorry, but Jesus pointed this out as why people don't believe. See Matthew 13:15.
> Please cite your evidence, then.
Do you think you are being rational to ask me to summarize 10+ years of research into a reddit comment box? I think that you have to do your own homework. Below are some sources to start with.
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Patterns of Evidence is a well-balanced presentation of the evidence and arguments for Exodus: http://patternsofevidence.com/
> What? Since when? Prove it.
You want me to prove 3000~4000 years of history to you in a reddit comment? Sorry, but you are going to have to do your own homework. Here's a good start:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, which is very balanced and well-done: http://patternsofevidence.com/
> First we would need evidence that a god exists in the first place.
The Universe, Life and Consciousness are EVIDENCE of God. The classic arguments explain why :
https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
There is no lack of evidence for God. The main problem with skeptics is that they assume that things are "natural". There is no good evidence for that assumption.
> I believed in God. I loved God devoutly. And yet I never felt the kind of peace of mind I experienced when I finally opened my eyes to the truth
Thanks for sharing that, but I was already a skeptic/atheist/agnostic for over 30 years. If you were not Catholic, I can understand why you never felt God's peace. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the sacraments. I marvel at non-Catholics who can live without the Eucharist and Reconciliation. I've had miraculous experiences with those, and don't know how Protestants live without them.
> I didn't have to force myself into dismissing glaring flaws and contradictions or spin all kinds of complex apologetics to patch over the holes. Such a relief! Everything we observe in the natural world now fit perfectly with the facts.
Sorry, but it seems like you've only scratched the surface with science. I have worked in science and information theory for 30 years and eventually realized about 10 years ago that naturalistic assumptions don't add up. There is no good evidence that molecules can become alive and turn into higher beings. This is a repeatable fact that you can observe in labs. And there is no naturalistic explanation of consciousness.
Also, if you forced yourself, then you never had the grace from God. It should come naturally.
> A majority of the world's religions have been around a lot longer than Christianity. It hardly has any claim to historic superiority
That's false. JudeoChristianty goes back to Abraham, and technically Noah and Adam. You said you believed, so you should have know that. Can you see why I don't think that you ever understood Christianity in the first place ? I can see why you would reject something that you didn't understand.
> All of those reasons are logical fallacies.
No, they are sound arguments. I don't think that evidence convinces skeptics though. Knowing God is a gift to those who pursue the highest truth. We're all on a journey, so maybe God wants to you investigate naturalism/atheism. Hopefully you'll realize it is a dead-end (literally) faster than I did.
> Their religion was so influential that we even name the planets and days of the week based on their gods,
You seem to ignoring that the whole world works on the 7-day Christian calendar. There are deeper etymologies for those names, but I don't have them offhand.
> How we feel about it personally doesn't tell us if it's true.
I didn't choose to believe in God. I slowly accepted the facts after I investigated everything. When the time was right, God gave me the gift of knowing Him. He's waiting for everyone to be open to that, but according to internet statistics, most people would rather watch porn and play video games. If you know Christianity, you would know how that closes one's heart to God.
No one can prove something to you. You have free will to decide.
I recommend checking the facts of history, but that's up to you.
Here's some sources if you are interested :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
By looking at the archeological evidence. A good book about the reliability of the Old Testament is
The reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen
But that book is like 600 pages long so here is a YouTube playlist that’s goes over the reliability of a bunch of events in the bible
> I've read the bible a couple of times, its the same as the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita
Why do you think that "reading the Bible" is the way to connect with God?
I didn't read the Bible until after I saw how there could be a God, and He possibly revealed Himself in Israel. That took years of research to get to that point. Along the way I studied linguistics and the historical method. Here are some sources :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
> Can you provide me with a objective way to compare religions to determine they are divinely inspired?
I can show you sound logic that only points to JudeoChristianity. See the link below for an overview. Most religions are pantheistic, which fails the Cosmological arguments and Contingency arguments because science has shown that this Universe is temporary. Whatever created it has to be able to exist independently of it. The creator also has to be greater than it, per the Contingency argument. Only JudeoChristianity gets that right, and all the other major logical tests :
https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Also, only JudeoChristianity stands up to the tests of the historical method as well. In contrast with Islam, historians have found that Mecca wasn't even a city when they claimed it was. There is no lineage like we have with Jesus and Moses. All signs are that Islam was cobbled together by some middle-eastern war-lords.
Archeologists have used the Bible as a reliable guide for centuries. Islam borrows most of what it has from the Bible, and still manages to get things mixed up. e.g. https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qbhc06.html
> Can you provide me with the name of a single biblical scholar that thinks people rose from the dead over 2000 years ago? (not a theologian, a biblical scholar)
Sure. Here's a few off the top of my head. Fr Pacwa is fluent in 12 biblically-related languages : Dr. John Bergsma, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Brant Pitre, and Fr. Mitch Pacwa.
You might say "well those are Christians", but that would be like saying "Show me someone who believes in Multiplication but doesn't believe in Addition".
> Religion is all man made,
It's absurd to lump all religions together. If you can't tell the difference between Satanism, Scientology and Christianity, I would question your sanity.
> They also didn’t make sense from the perspective that god is simultaneously three entities and one entity
Why wouldn't it make sense? I am a computer science guy, and we see this kind of thing all the time with different threads, each having their own memory and process states. In fact, the Father/Son pattern is quite common as a Master/Monitor.
> I have dug into both and I neither find them to be unique or legit.
Oh, okay. I guess your concept of digging is different than mine. I spent years studying linguistics, culture and history, and eventually found Jesus to be legit.
Here are some sources that I used in case you haven't already read them. I watched many debates and podcasts along the way too :
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
http://patternsofevidence.com/
> I have no idea what you’re going on about.
Well, you equated Islam with Christianity and implied that Christianity was fake. That's either ignorant or hateful. I'm glad if it isn't hateful. You said "I interpret that incoherence as being due to a bunch of fallible people who were trying to create a religion and control people."
For the Old Testament:
The Reliability Of The Old Testament
For the New Testament: anything by Mike Licona and Gary Habermas is great.
Sure, but I don't think that skeptics are convinced by evidence.
Here's academic rational proofs for God : https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Here's academic info on the historicity of Israel :
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Here's a case for the resurrection :
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830827196/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_2XFMRV0GP9FFA0K33G0J
Would also recommend Kenneth Kitchen’s On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802803962/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_6KGJ81EX7PDMT5XSSNNP
> Prophicies” that gets fulfilled in the same book, that is not history, its just storytelling in a book that tries to justify its religion.
It takes more knowledge of history to appreciate. Here are some well cited resources :.
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus:.
PART 1 of 2
> It's not an assumption, its limiting the scope of the discussion to exclude those who are closed minded, so you're not focused exclusively on the simplest case for your argument.
You explicitly used the word assume when you said "So lets assume we're talking about people who are not defending a belief that it's false, but are waiting for convincing evidence.".
I think that we may have talked about this before, that my main point is a type of meta-argument about epistemology. Being agnostic would be good, but I find that many atheists don't realize that they are holding naturalistic beliefs. Those beliefs act like a mental block and blindfold to Christianity and other truths. According to Pew studies, about 96% of atheists hold naturalistic beliefs:
https://i.imgur.com/ao4IR2q.png
I'd argue that the reason why only 1% are truly agnostic as shown by the don't know DK column on the chart is because anyone who is truly agnostic soon takes a side. Thus, true agnosticism is a fleeting thing.
The later part of your sentence confirms my point about assumptions and beliefs, because it mentions "waiting convincing evidence". The Christian claim is that God is omnipresent, so the evidence for God is based what is already all around us. The classical arguments make a strong case that God is required our for our reality :
https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Also, to evaluate arguments for God, one has to compare it to alternative hypotheses about our existence. The main alternative is naturalism. Naturalism seems viable at first but fails deeper investigation. Realizing that was a key step in my long journey from atheism. For me, it was my work on molecular biology projects that convinced me that there must be design and synchronization of life systems. Organic chemicals decay. There is no good evidence that chemicals could become alive and form every higher symmetrical orders of life.
In my opinion, it's not logical to proceed to other evaluations unless one realizes the inviabilities of false beliefs like naturalism. At least to where the probability for naturalism is 50% or less (Pnaturalism <= 50).
If you are seriously looking for proof of God, can you share your opinion of how life, consciousness and the universe got here, and how firmly you believe it on a 0 to 100% scale ?
> One must also recognise a similar potential bias to defend the belief of a god, which I'd argue is much stronger in general for most theists because the churches tend to push that, they tend to demand loyalty to the beliefs, rather than evidence.
I'd agree that there are a lot of Christians who don't know how to explain the faith to skeptics. That doesn't mean that they are wrong though. Not everyone on r/AskaChristian is an apologist. Some people are just here to share general experience, history, biblical or theological views and insights. You get what you pay for.
If you are serious, I'd recommend going to a Catholic Church to ask to speak to a Deacon or spiritual advisor. Many of those are former atheists who would be glad to meet with you on a regular basis. These are deep topics that are best discussed in person in dialog.
> Then one should also consider the stories that predate that which are very similar in narrative.
I find that those similarities help affirm JudeoChristianity because we all came from the same place, relatively recently. Middle Eastern people share common ancestors, and common information about how a Messiah would come.
> You seem to be saying that a bunch of the narrative taken as a whole has convinced you.
Sorry if I gave you that impression. All the rational arguments just got me to the point of considering that a God was possible ( P > 50). I was not fully convinced about God until I had a conversion experience.
> But I'd say that 1000 pieces of bad evidence or argument does not equal 1 good piece of evidence. Flawed evidence isn't cumulative.
That's not the way Decision Science works. It is a logical error to disregard any information in an analysis. Evidence that seems meaningless or flawed at first can later serve to corroborate other evidence.
> What part of his life and death demonstrates that any of the miraculous or extraordinary claims about gods or Jesus are true?
I don't believe in isolated parts. It's all connected to 3000+ years of history in totality that make a strong case that He was who He said He was. For example, Psalm 22 is a song about His crucifixion. He started singing it when He was on the cross, so that others would finish singing it.
Isaiah 53 is also a prophecy about His crucifixion, written centuries ahead of time. Someone would have needed a time machine to write everything down centuries ahead of time, then show up and do it.
I'm not saying that they are proofs by themselves. I'm saying that together, hundreds of lines of evidence all form a coherent picture.
The fact that 1000 years of authors of the Bible all share a coherent story itself is another line of evidence of a transcendent author.
> I'm not familiar with that. How do we know he had this prediction dream, and that it could only happen with divinity?
The Dead sea scrolls independently show that the prophecies were written before the Jesus and before the roman empire crumbled.
Anyone with a good sense of history knows that the Roman empire was the most powerful force in history. So, the fact that it went from having Pagan debauchery to Christendom should be stunning to anyone who has a sense of history. Even skeptical historians agree that Jesus was an actual Rabbi who was crucified in Jerusalem under the rule of Pontius Pilate. Instead of conquering with a sword like Mohammed, Jesus taught to conquer the world with love, charity, honesty, fortitude and other virtues. As someone who studied consciousness, the virtues make sense to me as a practical requirement for eternal life. Vices (sin) causes chaos and destruction.
The following article describes how scripture pointed to Rome, that the Messiah's throne would remain there. The author has an entire book about it: https://taylormarshall.com/2014/07/roman-church-prophesied-old-testament.html
> How do we know it was based on a rock from a god?
Peter was known as Jesus's rock as described by Matthew. Peter was the first Catholic Pope, and there have been 265 successors. Here is the complete list: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
> How have you ruled out natural explanations and concluded that its divinity?
Yes. I find it interesting how skeptics point to material causes of the fall of the Roman empire, like lead in the water. A deeper analysis shows that the moral culture is the fabric of a society, then and now. Christianity created a moral fabric that built western civilization. Sadly, many atheists are returning to pagan values today.
> Isn't it more reasonable and probable that it's just a story and isn't true? How have you ruled that out in order to accept the story at face value?
I used to think it was just a story until I investigated history better. That took me many years. The following is a good overview of the historicity of Jesus: https://youtu.be/ay_Db4RwZ_M
Here's some academic material:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
> Then what is the foundation for god? Without the bible, what information do you have for god?
The foundation of God's revelation is 3 fold. If you ask an orthodox jew about Israel, they'll tell you they had this same 3-fold foundation before the temple was destroyed: 1) Sacred priesthood 2) Sacred scripture and 3) Sacred tradition. They sometimes call tradition the oral law, and the priesthood authority. The old priestly authority was ended by Christ. He transferred it to Peter as the first Pope ( see Matthew 16:18-19). Many jews became Catholics in the first century, but many skeptics tried to hang onto to old Israel, despite Jesus predicting that their temple would be knocked over.
The Catholic Church is God's continuation of Israel, and carries these 3 pillars. As the Bible itself says "...the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." - 1st Timothy 3:15
Of course, Protestants reject the Catholic Church and just want to use our Bible. That's why they have thousands of sects, because they have no priestly authority. The Samaritans did the same thing to the jews in Israel before Christ.
> So then you agree that the bible is not the word of god but a story written some time after claimed events?
It's the word of God revealed to the Catholic Church. God led the Apostles and then inspired them to write down what He wanted written down. God does things this way for several reasons. He wants to minimize interfering with free-will, and He wants us to be humble and work together in obedience, even if/when we have bad priests.
> So how do we know those claimed events are factual?
I think that you have to first have to come to recognize that God exists , and then that He revealed Himself to the Israelites, and then as Jesus. Jesus then promised that He would make sure that His words were preserved.
That all took me many years, reading many books, and countless debates and podcasts. Below are some sources for historicity, but I recommend keep working on satisfying your doubts about God's existence. No one expects you to believe. Skepticism is good, but it requires good logic.
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier: https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Patterns of Evidence documentaries: The Exodus, which is very balanced and well-done: http://patternsofevidence.com/
> Actually there is really good evidence as we can explain a lot of these things through astrophysics, evolution and neuroscience.
Science is just measuring and modeling phenomena without understanding what it actually is. Science does not know what electromagnetism is. It just gives the phenomena a name as a placeholder.
We Christians know that it all is a manifestation of God's will. The Simulation Hypothesis is on the right track. This Universe is a "simulation" within God's infinite mind. He is immaterial and truly infinite in space and time. God is an infinite mind, and I suspect that He is based on something like dark matter or dark energy.
> What evidence is there that any of things are not natural?
Many things. Entropy . Energy decays. Organic molecules decay.
Electromagnetism is a contingent thing, like a book. It does not have the means to create itself or sustain itself.
There is also no good evidence of a material cause for Consciousness. I researched that deeply for years when I was atheist, and it was the main impetus for me becoming theist.
> Give me your best sign of having a creator because I see none.
That's way too much for a single reddit comment. It took me years to really understand some of those rational arguments. I used to think like you are saying about them being flawed.
I think that one major key is to learn how naturalism is deeply flawed. Then you can weigh things in a Bayesian comparison A versus B, of what is more likely: naturalism or theism.
I think that a major logic error that my fellow atheists make is that they don't do this comparison. They dismiss the rational arguments for God without comparing it to an alternative. That's is not how logic works.
Many atheists tend to just reject proposition "A" without equal consideration of "B".
Another major key is to weigh evidence together in a Decision tree. I used to dismiss the rational proofs like you did, until I saw how they fit together. E.g. The ontological argument overlaps with efficient causality, and contingency, and consciousness, and teleology.
If you are serious about relooking at the logic, I recommend the former atheist Dr. Ed Feser and his book : 5 proofs for God
I happened to have a background in consciousness studies, so I realized how the Universe itself could be conscious. Dr. David Chalmers is an atheist who said that is his best hypothesis, based on his decades of looking at evidence :
Dr. David Chalmers TED talk : https://youtu.be/uhRhtFFhNzQ
>> If you can't explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals — space, time, mass, charge — then as a matter of logic, you need to expand the list. The natural thing to do is to postulate consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature. This doesn't mean you suddenly can't do science with it. This opens up the way for you to do science with it.
.
> Logic is based on facts/truths that we know and can demonstrate.
Empiricism is about phenomenology, not determining the cause of existence. Christian understanding looks deeper into the cause of the phenomena.
> How do you know this?
For many reasons. You can empirically do experiments. E.g. take a pot of coffee, and pour a cup of coffee and notice that the cup can not be hotter or have more coffee than the pot did. The source has more actuality than the effect. Dr. Feser's book has a few chapters that go through the logic academically.
I've also since come to know that God revealed Himself in History, and I know it that way too.
> But I specifically said converting to Islam.
That was in a subsequent sentence. I replied in two separate sentences as well. One for Allah, then for Islam.
Hopefully I made clear that Islam is a diabolical twist of the God of Abraham. Most Muslims are good people though, and I trust that God will save all that can be saved, even some agnostics. God calls practically everyone to Heaven. The right question is who can stand in His light of truth.
> How can I discuss if I can't continue the conversation and why this comparison is relevant?
This is AskAChristian, so it would be tone deaf and inconsiderate at best to make anti-christian assertions, agreed? If something doesn't make sense to you about Christianity, that is understandable, but I there is a very common pattern of assertions and misunderstandings in your comments so far.
> So the Holocaust wasn't a genocide since Jewish people still exist?
I don't think it is wise to get hung up on terms. Concepts are more important than semantics. Catholics smuggled over 700K Jews out through Convents and Monasteries at great cost and peril to themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jews_by_Catholics_during_the_Holocaust
Evil people did have genocidal ideas of course. The Holocaust was a preview of what it looks like when evil runs amok. It's going to happen again...to Christians like it did via Pagans in Rome (e.g. Coliseum).
> You say it was a rescue, but what kind of rescue involves enslaving people who are too afraid to fight back, and executing all the men who do?
It was a spiritual rescue to stop more souls from going to Hell. Did you not understand what I said about a steady stream of souls flowing from Canaan into Hell?
Imagine all the fires and tortures of Hell down below the Earth, and all the people of Canaan falling into it as they died....like a steady rain. That is the perspective that God sees. It was a great mercy for God to put an end to it. All children went to Heaven, and whatever Canaanites repented were saved. Our lives here are only 70~80 years. Eternity is what matters the most.
> And what about the young boys
As I mentioned, all children go to heaven. Thus, the Jews stopped them from falling into the hands of that diabolic empire in Canaan. Do you know that Canaanites had institutionalized human sacrifice to Moloch? Even brutal pagan historians were disgusted by Canaanites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch
> If your daughter witnessed you, your spouse, and her brothers and older sisters all being slaughtered, would she ever willingly have sex with the people responsible? No, she would be raped.
Please stop with the assertions. In jewish culture, if a girl didn't want to get married, she wouldn't. Adultery was punishable by death among Israelites. They lived by very strict laws. No stealing, No murder, No lying, Not even coveting another woman.
It is foolish to project modern sense of things onto the lives of the Israelites. They had seen many miracles of God and had no doubt. Only the most foolish would willinging commit a sin like adultery, and that only probably happened once per generation. Imagine seeing someone in your community getting stoned to death. Would you go out then and commit adultery?
> Why would an all-loving, all-powerful God have to resort to such savagery? Is God not capable of literally anything else?
It's not savage if you know the results. God stopped countless souls from falling into Hell, and He saved the children into Heaven. God operates within divine laws of justice. He avoids interfering in free will, which is why He used the jews to stop that demonic infestation.
In Genesis 15, God points out that the Amorites had not yet reached their reprobation. That shows that God was trying to save them until they became completely overtaken by demons.
If you don't believe in angels and demons , not much of the Bible will make sense to you.
> You say it was a last resort but the scripture was a prescriptive command for future actions. It was the very first resort.
Please stop with the assertions. No, it was the last resort. See Genesis 15 about the Amorites. God didn't even punish Cain after Cain killed Abel.
> No, they're monsters, degenerates, demons. So much so that even their babies have to be destroyed.
Please stop with the assertions. I'm not saying that they were monsters. They were all God's children. God loved them more than you could imagine. They were His own children. He knew every heartbeat of every one, and He saw how they had become infested with demons, despite His interventions.
Have you seen the old teaching of an angel on one shoulder, and a devil on the other? That is basically true. God did everything within divine justice to coax the Canaanites to reject the devils, but the Canaanites gave in to the devils.
If you think that you care more about the Canaanites than God, then you have no idea about God. Again, each person is God's own child. He creates each one to get to Heaven. He did everything within divine justice to steer them to Heaven, but they went with devils instead.
> If God commands genocide, it's moral, right?
I'd rather not speculate about hypothetical situations. There's plenty of reality to deal with. It might help you to understand to realize that this is God's Universe, and this physical realm is virtually an illusion compared to the rest of reality. Heaven and Hell are waiting for us, and they are a lot more real and intense than this temporary physical realm.
> And now you're starting to express open hostility towards me as well.
It's not hostility. No offense, but I see atheists visit this sub on a regular basis that have no credentials in history or theology, yet they often make the same assertions that you've made here.
The surgeon covered in blood is a great analogy about how God is being misjudged with blood on his hands.
> These contradictory points are because your modern social moral code is thoroughly against the concept of genocide, but it's directly said to do so in scripture, by God. This is known as cognitive dissonance
Please stop with the assertions. It's not contradictory because it really wasn't a genocide. The context and language in the Bible is often misunderstood. The geography, the neighboring towns, the language of the people all played into understanding what really happened.
It is arm-chair historianism to try to judge the situation from 3000 years away, agreed?
> I'd love for you to post some sources. I don't know what logical fallacy is "the bible is historically accurate and cases where it's not are mistranslated", but it's definitely up there.
I'd recommend these sources for historicity:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
Thirdly, the work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
On linguistics, I'd recommend this series from Dr. John McWhorter:
https://www.amazon.com/The-Story-of-Human-Language-audiobook/dp/B00DTO69D6
> If people claimed that my Mom was the embodiment of love
That's different topic. I was making a point about how Faith is Confidence. The Latin (Catholic) basis of the word Faith is FIDE, which is the same basis as conFIDEnce.
> I'd be very apprehensive about this concept, as it's a glaring contradiction.
I'd agree that from the materialistic/atheist perspective, things don't make sense.
> But you're trying to argue that people like me secretly believe as well. But based on the information given, it's clear to me that God is a case of social reform but such a notion is contrary to your belief system.
No, I'm not arguing that. If I was arguing, I'd lay out premises and conclusions. I responded to OP's question with all that I know by experience as a former atheist. Countless other ex-atheists have said the same thing to me about having intuition for God.
It also shows up in studies with children that we are born with an intuitive sense for God. Since my conversion, I can now remember back to when I was 3 and 4 and having a sense for God. I spent most of my life as an atheist though, and finally saw the light.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
>> New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.
> Right. You're claiming you have the truth and refuse to justify it.
The claim for God? All the rational and logical arguments point to God. To understand what I said about cause and effect, I would recommend reading the former Atheist's book: 5 proofs for God, by Dr. Ed Feser.
The claim for Jesus? I would recommend the following:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
The work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Resurrection: http://apologeticsguy.com/2011/04/best-easter-books-resurrection/
> This is pointless.
We can both agree that the atheist worldview is pointless.
If you are questioning the Old Testament (since I see you are a christian)
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
For the Gospels a good book would be:
And for existence of God:
Apparently you have not checked all his credentials. If you are interested, the following page (scroll down) has a list of some of his published papers on historicity: https://www.johnbergsma.com/biography
Here are a few more sources that I would recommend.
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
The similarities in belief systems actually support the JudeoChristian claim that we all got off the same boat. If people evolved worldwide more independently, the myths then would be more independent, or radically different.
Regarding Pentateuch studies, I would recommend the following:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
> And that's where you leave it?
No. I had provided a reference to a book, which stands up to scholarly standards. Apparently you forgot that. Scholarly standards address your bias concerns. Below are a that and a couple more:
Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
the work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
> Unbroken chain of knowledge: Where is the evidence?
At the Vatican library . Its too much to sum up for you in a reddit comment. I suggest that you start with the books above.
> Ignorance of Judaic history. And what gives you this impression?
There were many things. Here are a few:
1) You equivocated the killing of Chrisitans in the Colloseum with punishment of Adultery. This demonstrates ignorance of morality and consequences.
2) You implied that Christianity advocates stoning today (like ISIS).
3) You asserted that the punishment for adultery had not help pave the way for Jesus.
> I was a christian for decades. I believed thoroughly.
Your statements in this thread demonstrate the opposite of an understanding Christian history or spirituality. No offense, but I do see a pattern of the common bottom-up errors taught by Protestantism. It's a classic case of not seeing the forest because of all the trees in the way. If you do venture into the faith, I recommend going to the source, and not some man-made sect. Christ established the Catholic Church to maintain the faith as documented in Matthew 16:18. The further that you get from the Catholic Church, the more distorted view of Christianity you will have. The Catholic Church has other problems, but not in the official records on the faith or morals of Christianity.
If you honestly want to seek the truth of the historical facts, I recommend contacting scholars like the link below. They would be glad to point you in the right direction for any specific sticking points that you might have.
Here's a great thread on why it's self-authenticating.
"If you mean Moses and Exodus then this never happened."
>The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." p. 246 (Kenneth Kitchen is one of the most preeminent scholars of ancient Egypt, having authored hundreds of journal articles and books.)
Most of what we know about history comes from written reports of eyewitnesses. Ask Ed Gibbon. The Kuzari constitutes a singularity of eyewitness proof. It is, by proxy, evidence of the Exodus. By what meta-criterion do gaps in the fossil record (heh) take logical precedence over the eyewitness testimony of a VAST group? The skeptic can't just assume it. History and archaeology are not sciences in the way physics is.
> Are you sure you want to emphasize two paragraphs that assert that the Hebrews were brought forth out of Egypt by a man rather than by G-d?
You cited this chapter to prove a different point: that an epidemic of atheism was quelled with an act of mass-murder. The text doesn't support this silly eisegesis. “Make us a god who shall go before us” is connected in both verses to an explanation: Moses is MIA and he's our intermediary. The Israelites flaked out after hearing the first few commandments at Sinai and sent Moses to deal with HaShem. In his absence they had no reason (or desire) to approach G-d directly. This couldn't be clearer from the text in this chapter and in the context of the entire Book of Exodus. You’re grasping for straws here.
>For me personally, I'd want hard scientific evidence to answer such a question. [the existence of G-d]
Do you even read the links you post? Your wiki link about scientific evidence says this: While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. WHICH OF THE CONFLICTING PHILOSOPHIES DO YOU ENDORSE? Popper? Kuhn? Naïve realism? It's just another philosophical battlefield, not some repository of Truth. ("What is science and why does it work?" are philosophical questions. "What's the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?" is a philosophical question. "Hard scientific evidence" is skeptical bluster. Whatever else it is, science is a methodology. It works best when it doesn't throw down with "Cuz G-d did it." This doesn't entail that G-d didn't do it, anymore than my thermometer not telling time entails there isn't any. The “scientific evidence” for G-d is impressive. There are top-notch physicists who agree. You’re not asserting that unless we bounce photons off G-d, He doesn't exist, I hope.
>If you're not comfortable with wikipedia as a source, feel free to click through to the numerous citations in the page.
How about this one:
>>The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." p. 246 (Kenneth Kitchen is one of the most preeminent scholars of ancient Egypt, having authored hundreds of journal articles and books.)
So absence of evidence is ... absence of evidence. How underwhelming and obvious.
>Just keep in mind, absent any historicity of Exodus, the entire Abrahamic religion collapses into a heaping steaming mound of dung.
Just keep in mind that's called begging the question. The Kuzari argument is evidence for the historicity of a national Revelation. The men listed here, the whole point of their lives was to be historians of a particular event. That's the purpose of the Jewish people, their national charter. They are WITNESSES and have always considered themselves such. This is evidence whether you like it or not, whether it jives with whatever archeology says this week.
>the earliest writings we have found were many centuries after the supposed events.
Relevance? Therefore there couldn't have been earlier Torah scrolls? That's not even an argument. This makes the sceptic's burden heavier. Centuries after the Sinai Revelation was alleged to have happened, Not-Moses appears and says, "Hey everybody, look what I have. This document explains the moral code, legal system, ontology, constitution, and history of mankind that G-d gave our ancestors."
"How come we've never heard of it before? What does 'circumcision' mean? On the seventh year we do what with our crops?! Yeah, this makes sense. Let's all start doing this! We agree with this document that portrays us as slaves, idolaters, malcontents, and worse. We especially like the feces-god some of us worshipped in Numbers 25. Nice touch! From this day forward we will all devote our lives to the perpetuation of this book. Thank you, Not-Moses! Let's kill everyone who doesn't go along with this."
I have a better explanation.
What you wrote was a question-begging assertion that the Kuzari is false. From my original post:
The skeptic needs to explain how Israel’s legal system, constitution, moral code, and theistic ontology arose ex nihilo. This is the unbroken chain of transmission. At what point could the Big Lie have been introduced: “These are the 613 rules that G-d gave our ancestors. They govern every facet of our existence. Everyone has been meticulously observing them since the Revelation at Sinai. This is the first you’re hearing about it because … well, just start doing them!”
Here's the code I want explained. Notice how some of these are borderline suicidal: circumcision, leaving your crops untended, etc.
You reject the Exodus as if archeology has the certainty of deductive logic. It doesn't:
>The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." (p. 246)
My argument is that the best explanation is that the Revelation at Sinai actually happened. What's yours?
I just checked the wikipedia page about it and I am not sure if that is a good unbiased source.
Further searching showed me this book. Have you read this one? https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
It's been years since I've read it, but I remember enjoying K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament in my undergrad years.
I'm not sure what the relevance is between your quote and Exodus.
It's why they were led out of Egypt. It's the most important event in human history, the only Enlightenment there ever was.
Moses is not a historical figure.
Cuz wikipedia, therefore deductive certainty. Notice how your infallible source also mentions that "William Dever states that a 'Moses-like figure' may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-13th century BC." He also states in a lecture, "There may well have been a long period of slavery. Thus the Biblical portrait of Hebrew servitude for 400 years is not essentially fantastic." When wiki cites the lack of Egyptian evidence for Moses as evidence he never existed it's the best laugh I've had all week. As if we should naturally expect a fifty-foot statue in honor of the man who kicked Pharaoh's ass (like those beautiful marble statues of bomber planes in Dresden).
It's not up to me to prove mass delusion.
The Kuzari proves it's not a mass delusion. It's up to YOU to refute it. You can't just conveniently assume that any widespread belief that falls below your lofty Wikipedia-quoting standards is delusory.
If you look at news in the last decade or two, you'll see millions of people having all sorts of strange beliefs.
Like faith in Wikipedia; reverence for Richard Dawkins, D. Dennett, and Hitchens as Great Philosophasters; the resurgence of atheism; belief that the universe popped out of nothing for no reason whatsoever; a priori dismissal of the possibility that G-d actively does stuff to His creation; the idolatrous status of reductive materialism, which is a methodology, not an ontology; persistent belief in the religious world that Judaism has been "fulfilled" or that Gentiles must convert. We agree. The earth is chock full o' crazy beliefs. (I'm not suggesting you have any of these.)
Scientology exists and has millions of followers ...
You lost the thread of my argument. What is the core evidence of Scientology? It's not like the core evidence for Judaism. At all.
Exodus is literal fiction
Why have you ignored this historian? Unless you started with your conclusion. Makes them easier to prove. ;0)
Why is Christianity ridiculous? I suggest you reading
http://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/were-adam-and-eve-historical-figures
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/is-there-a-historical-adam
or Kenneth Kitchens book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament ".
> What kind of evidence are you suggesting the Babylonians and Egyptians destroyed?
They destroyed buildings, removed names, burned documents, etc. See the article below for the kind of things that archeologists were still able to find.
> And what artifacts correlate with what scripture claims?
Biblical archeology is an entire field. I would recommend these books. :
Kenneth Kitchen : On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
> So what about Paul who experienced a vision that claimed to be Jesus? Wouldn't this be an example of an angel presenting itself after Jesus which would raise your skepticism?
Paul went to Jerusalem, compared notes and found the Apostles preaching the same good news (Gospel). This is in Galatians chapter 2. He also shares many beautiful insights that explains many mysteries of the Old Testament. As scholars say, the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New.
I was an ardent skeptic for over 30 years. It took about 10 years of digging through history and philosophy, but I eventually found the claims of Christianity to be true. It is more than I can easily sum up other than: Seek and you shall find. A compassionate heart and a clear conscious will lead you to the truth.
> You can't appear to scholarship if only few scholars hold this view and when said view is challenged
Everything is challenged. Some people don't believe that reality is real, and there is ultimately no way to prove that it is real.
For the historicity of Israel, I spent a few years checking the claims myself and found enough to follow the claims to Jesus, who is the center of all the claims. It's not the topic here, which is why I'm not getting into it. If you wish to debate it, feel free to post a topic. It might be better suited for DebateHistory. My topic here is a theological question.
> So in the end, scholarship and actual historical study does not matter to you if it doesn't support your views?
When I was an atheist, I corresponded with a few scholars of Pentateuch studies and found that they have a strong case.
If you are interested, I'd recommend these books:
On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691
Popular alternatives to On the Reliability of the O...
A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
