In this case a second opinion isn't enough, a third is required(history of religion)

[mapuc]

A few weeks back i saw an episode of an history of religion program.

In this episode they examined the Exodus.

In most of these program, history or history of religion or science program, there use to sit some expert on a chair or stand in front a camera and
and tell the viewer some more about the sequence you just have seen.

Now somewhere in the middle of this episode an elderly man appeared in front of the camera.

His title was
archaeologist

Here is what he said.

An event of this scale should have left traces in the history, but we can't find any evidens of such an event should have occured.

I was like
What !? Is all the story I was told in the Sunday school and in the ordinary school nothing but a fairy tale ??

Well I need not only a second but even a third opinion on this subject, before I can say:
1. The exodus most likely didn't happen or:
2. The route they toke was different from what was told in the bible
3. The number of people leaving Egypt was not so many as the bible indicate.

Markus

[Skybird]

Won't go much into it, only saying that this and other tales form the OT, the ten plagues for exmaple, the dividing of the sea, and so forth, have been explained repeatedly by scientific explanations that reflect modern knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena. But the devout believer will never believe these, since they violate what he chooses to believe in instead: and that often is what some scripture tells him and what he takes literally, no matter how much magic and wizardy it contains.

Past historic episodes get echoed through human history, and its a bit like this game, "Silent Post" or "Post to Jerusalem" it is called, I think. What ever the story is about, the current narration probably holds some grain of truths in it, but the details get changed and added the more the longer time ago it is. And the original eye witness reports from long time ago got written in the mindset and knowledge of the people back in that time. For them, the explanation of events and phenomenons often was attributed to deities because they had no better knowledge, and certainly not that that we have today.

An event that founds the narration of the exodus, most likely has taken plasce, I think. Whether it really was as we today think and read in our latest iterations of scriptures about it - that is something very different.

[Rockstar]

In Genesis it was said the universe had a beginning. Yet it wasn't until the beginning of the last century that science may have found evidence which could support that.

Just because there is currently no evidence of an Exodus doesn't mean it didn't happen. We just haven't found it yet and its possible we never will. Some archeologists and translators of the Merneptah Stele seem think Ancient Egypt did have interaction with Israel. Just not of the kind your looking for, but its a start.

Some tend to circle the wagons when it comes to their beliefs. With zeal they raise the banners of their religion defending saviors, prophets, after life, miracles, biblical history. Even going so far as condemning others to eternal hellfire if they dont 'believe'. All the while ignoring the most important part of the book. That instruction on how to behave towards one another, things like love your neighbor, love the stranger, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the poor.

Its OK if there is no evidence of a biblical Exodus. Just learn to be good to one another. It'll all pan out in the end.

[Sean C]

Many biblical stories are almost exact retellings of much older stories from other religions. Does that mean that these things didn't actually happen? Not necessarily. But is it really important if they did or didn't? My own opinion is that the stories are meant to convey a message, and it is that message that is important.


One of my favorite books is Atheism: the Case Against God by George H. Smith. The title of the book makes it sound much more hostile to religion than it actually is. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in religious theory. Anyway in that book, Smith asserts that faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is "unreasonable" - as it were. But this is not to say that faith is to be discarded. What it means is that, in the presence of reason, faith is impossible. If you know something is true, you no longer believe it ... you know it. And that misses the whole point of [religious] faith in the first place.

[August]

I find it amazing that we think that we have the intelligence to even comprehend the concept of a being that created the entire universe let alone codify his thoughts into a book.


God I believe in. Religion I do not.

[Buddahaid]

And yet "we" almost always act in His name to punish. Such conceit is laughable if it wasn't so serious to so many victims throughout history and to this day.