How do you explain the lack of archaeological evidence for the exodus narrative?

[Eman_3]

I suggest you educate yourself on "First Council of Nicaea" where Christianity was finally and formally brought together. In that assemblage many texts were allowed into the bible, others not. There were also edits.

 

Therefore it is not rational to believe that everything in the bible is true, or that the bible held all of the relevant facts. And of note, were those prophesies in the bible put to paper before they occurred or after?

[FJK]

1 hour ago, Eman_3 said:

I suggest you educate yourself on "First Council of Nicaea" where Christianity was finally and formally brought together. In that assemblage many texts were allowed into the bible, others not. There were also edits.

 

Therefore it is not rational to believe that everything in the bible is true, or that the bible held all of the relevant facts. And of note, were those prophesies in the bible put to paper before they occurred or after?

Your purpose seems to be to cast doubt on the validity of the Bible.

Is there an articulable reason for that?

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

I suggest you educate yourself on "First Council of Nicaea" where Christianity was finally and formally brought together. In that assemblage many texts were allowed into the bible, others not. There were also edits.

Therefore it is not rational to believe that everything in the bible is true, or that the bible held all of the relevant facts. And of note, were those prophesies in the bible put to paper before they occurred or after?

Not biting.  If I wanted to debate theology with an unbeliever I would go to the atheist forums.  Jesus said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."  Jesus believed that the Bible was true.  He was there from the beginning.  You can believe what you want to believe, but remember: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

[Eman_3]

On 3/7/2024 at 2:35 PM, FJK said:

Your purpose seems to be to cast doubt on the validity of the Bible.

Is there an articulable reason for that?

Since God gave us the ability to be skeptical, it would be a sin not to exercise this ability. Applying skepticism leads us to the truth.

And is it reasonable to infer that untruths are the work of Satan?

I do suggest you research the First Council of Nicaea, a documented event that was the first amalgamation of various sects into one coherent religion, Christianity?

 

For example, they decided on the day to celebrate Easter. Therefore one must infer that no one had hard evidence on the day of Jesus's birth. Think about that.

[RV_Wizard]

9 minutes ago, Eman_3 said:

For example, they decided on the day to celebrate Easter. Therefore one must infer that no one had hard evidence on the day of Jesus's birth. Think about that.

Easter celebrates the resurrection, not the birth.

[FJK]

7 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

Since God gave us the ability to be skeptical, it would be a sin not to exercise this ability.

I can't accept that argument since God gave us the ability to commit all sorts of sins yet also gave us the commandments and other laws telling us not to commit them.  (i.e. God gave us the ability to worship other gods, rob, steal kill, commit adultery, etc.  but that does not mean it is a sin not to commit them)

Do you have a scriptural basis for, as I see it, trying to dispute the Bible and the stories it gives us as truth and encourage others to do the same?

[RdJ]

8 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

Since God gave us the ability to be skeptical, it would be a sin not to exercise this ability. Applying skepticism leads us to the truth.

You don't have to hang your brain at the coat rack before you come into church. But now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, but that's for the believer who has gotten faith. I know it's true, cause God's Word said it. But then I see a youtube video and a skeptical  christian guy says: hey the translation is wrong. There are some 0's missing in the Masoretic text compared to the Septuagint, ages from Abraham etc when they got their first kid, so not 30 but 300 years old and then you have a few hundred years extra and it falls together with Egyptian hystory.

I lately saw a video from a guy from National Geographic, Albert Lin, trying to figure it out. Very interesting. He thought the place they crossed was elsewhere. They have looked in the wrong time and maybe the wrong place, but there are people who have found stuff. He found the exact same type of houses as in Israel. He found inscriptions on a wall about the Egyptians who drowned. I don't know if he's right about everything. He had interesting stuff about Sodom too and I don't think he was christian.

One who doesn't believe in God needs proof, which is fine and if the church doesn't give it by raising a bunch of dead in Jesus' Name for instance to help clear up the doubt if there is proof that He was risen, then they can do something like Albert Lin. Search and you will find. That's how I got saved.

[Eman_3]

3 hours ago, FJK said:

I can't accept that argument since God gave us the ability to commit all sorts of sins

Yes, God gave us abilities. What we do with them is what matters. One can use their strength for bad things, or to defend their family. One can use their genitals to rape or father a family.

3 hours ago, FJK said:

Do you have a scriptural basis for, as I see it, trying to dispute the Bible

No. Use the Bible to dispute the Bible? I have seen pages of biblical quote-offs in here, each party posting passages from the Bible, with zero intellectual exchange of opinions.

Unlike you and many, I do not take the Bible as 100% literally true. I consider it a nice book with wonderful inspirational messages.

[Eman_3]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Easter celebrates the resurrection, not the birth.

Good point, my bad. I am aware that both dates (birth and death) are celebrated but both of them are basically unknown and the church has pasted those events on dates that are convenient.

[FJK]

1 minute ago, Eman_3 said:

Unlike you and many, I do not take the Bible as 100% literally true. I consider it a nice book with wonderful inspirational messages.

I aoriginally asked about your purpose, you have not stated it yet.

The things you say would go over much better on a New Age or secular forum of some type, are you posting them on those types of forums as well or just in Christian forums where you know they will not be well received by most?

This is looking more and more like a deliberate attempt to introduce doubt and false doctrine into the Church than anything that would make it stronger and more meaningful to its members, is this what you are doing?