>> No, it doesn't. And obviously, you are not a fundamentalist, Glenn.I
would say that in the case of the Exodus, there is no independent evidence
for or against the Exodus event. My guiding principle is that if it is not
ruled out by the independent evidence, to go with the Bible .So Exodus is
historical, Gen 1-11 isn't<<
GRM: I would also raise the possibility of mis-interpretation in these
issues. Merely a possibility. As to Genesis 1-11, I note that Abram, Sarah
and Lot are all mentioned in Genesis 11. That must mean they aren't
historical either? Of course I know that you will say that that is an
arbitrary chapter division. So, Terah, who is Abe's father isn't historical
because he isn't mentioned in the arbitrary chapter 12. If Terah is
actually Abe's ancestor, then why not Nahor? After all, Abe had an
unreasonably long life which is as unlikely as Terah's or Nahor's. If Abe
existed, he had a father and a grandfather. What evidence do you have which
indicates that these two characters were not his ancestors? So where, going
backwards, does the history actually stop?
Back to the Exodus. The Exodus is historical only because it is written of
in Scripture--the same Scripture which tells us of Nahor, Terah and Abe.
Other than that, there is no evidence for it. Events which have no evidence
are not usually, by historians, accepted simply because there is no
evidence. The usual procedure is that there must be positive evidence for
things to be considered historically real. The numbers of people which are
reported to have tramped through the desert would have left some
archaeological evidence. One would think there would be some Egyptian
records, which are quite good. At some point, lack of evidence becomes a
reason to doubt.
>>We can still believe that key events like the Exodus, The Conquest
(according to Judges), the establishment of a Davidic dynasty, The Exile and
the Return, and the events of the New Testament happened.The independent
historical evidence does not rule out any of these events. and indeed
supports some of them. But is a matter of belief, maybe not against the
evidence but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.<<
GRM: Wecan agree that things which have no evidence against them can be a
matter of belief. But I wouldn't call it historical.
I don't think that Jesus ever claimed to be descended from Noah.While the
sacrificial lamb tradition is connected with Passover, it is more closely
connected with the Sinai and tabernacle in the wilderness traditions
GRM: Jesus may not have, but his publicist did. Luke descends him back
through Noah. And Matthew takes him back to Abe, who didn't seem to have a
real father or Grandfather.
See above. Again, sorry for snapping at you. Its not you, its other folk.
Don't worry about it. You are at the end of a long line of people of whom I
have elicited that reaction. I must learn not to do that.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 16:07:51 EDT