August 20, 2006

Take A Deep Breath: How Can Anyone Believe the Exodus Story?

This is pretty good but the narrator forgot about the fact that the trip to cross the Sinai would only take 10 days tops, and that is if the Israelites were walking into a sandstorm.

Now for some Moses humor:

God's quirkiness is revealed in the Exodus.

More on the lack of proof that the Exodus happened.

More here:

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

I may have to buy and READ "The Bible Unearthed." I've seen Israel Finkelstein (not to be confused with the retarded Jew, Norman Finkelstein) in a documentary touch upon his findings. Here is part of an Amazon review of the book:

"The authors did not intend to change a persons faith only to point out the Biblical stories may be more allegory than historical. E.g., they propose the early writings of the OT were written c. 700 BCE. They also suggest the early Israelites were probably Canaanites. The points are supported by archaeological studies that may be more academic than the casual reader comprehends but doesn't burden the reading for the casual reader."


  1. if you want to post a comment on my blog, it has to be free of profanities and racial slurs.

  2. It is OK Elizabeth. Keep supporting your Arab assmonkey terrorist friends. Luckily your ilk has no clout.

    I guess it is OK to say that Israel is full of morally bankrupt people like you did on Dhimmi Steve's blog.

    Hypocrites like you make me laugh.

  3. Yoelba. I just saw the trailer. Interesting, I'd like to see the whole 90 minutes, but I did read this exchange

    First off, I don't need the Exodus to not have occurred to be an Atheist. In fact, it wasn't until the last couple of years that I have seen major holes in the Exodus story and the idea that Jesus was even a historical figure. I now believe neither happened.

    It appears that Simcha had to use the premise that the Exodus existed and then make all kinds of spins on the bible in order to fit in his "evidence."

    I'll wait for more reviews though, to judge this further.

  4. Bacon, if you don't believe it that's fine, but why are you willing to accept any and all evidence that you can scrounge up to be the basis for your reasoning? Unwittingly, your very willingness to accept such unverifiable facts makes you guilty of the exact same logic you use to support your religion: atheism.

    In defending atheism, you have supported the view that failure to disprove is inferior to hard evidence that you need to believe. Sloppy science like ID is unacceptable to you because anything less than concrete evidence of God's existence is unworthy.

    Yet, in this case you've shown the opposite to be true. The biblical accounts are the reality you seek to disprove, yet rather than require hard evidence you willingly accept the most feeble and lose archeology to show that the historical accounts of Torah are false.

    I conclude that your religious beliefs (atheism) have gotten in the way of your objectivity, and caused you to accept inconclusive evidence as "facts" that support your ideology. In essance, you've become an evangelical atheist who advances his beliefs unconditionally.

  5. MZ, you are wrong about me. The think about the Exodus and the historical Jesus is that there should be lots of evidence, and yet there is none.
    None that I accept. I accept the ancient Egyptians and their Pharoahs because of writings, archaeological finds, and even mummies. There is a history that can be pieced together.

    Yes, I have faith in archaeologists like Finkelstein, and if someone like him comes along and says he was wrong, or that he found new evidence, I would accept it.

    If Finkelstein for example writes a review of the Exodus Decoded and goes along with it, I would be willing to change my views.

    BTW, ID is not even a science, so it can't be a failed science.

  6. Did I just see you say you have "faith" in Finkelstein? there's hope for you yet, Bacon!

  7. I've already explained my faith in the scientific process in the comments to my Atheist post from a few days ago.

  8. Come on, Bacon, where's that sense of humor?

  9. I was smiling when I typed my response. Do you see any exclamation marks or any words in all caps?

  10. How can grown men believe in the Exodus story?

    It has more to do with the believed inerrancy of sacred texts than logic and evidence.

  11. How can grown men have little robot avatars?

  12. When theists claim everyone uses faith to get along, including atheists, I say "Yeah, but it's all about the Leap of Faith".

    I have faith the earth will rotate enough so the sun will reappear tomorrow, because it has happened every day of my life so far. Of course, there's no total certainty, so I am using faith.

    I'm also using faith when I accept scientists' ideas on evolution.

    But the Leap of Faith required is much smaller than the one required to believe the universe is a few thousand years old and was created by some invisible, inconsistent god/person (a god who seems to behave strangely like you would expect a god to behave if he was born of the fertile imaginations of pre-medieval Palestinians).

    Why is the Leap of Faith smaller? Because there's actually some evidence.

  13. p.s:

    As I thought, the situation with Israel is very similar to Northern Ireland. Check this. Prejudice creates extremists.

  14. Simon, I read that earlier this morning on Atheist Girl's site.

    But I do like the reply this person got. Don't forget to read it.

    But I don't buy the excuse that Israeli prejudice of Arabs creates extremists if you are saying that is what is driving Radical Islam (Palestinian terrorists included).

    Their prejudice that they are indoctrinated with has much to do with it though.

    Sure it is a bit of a cycle, but unlike the Irish situation: If the Arabs dropped their guns there would be peace. If Israel dropped their guns, there would be no Israel.

  15. "Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert."

    That's neither here nor there. After all, at the times we are discussing, all trash was biodegradable. So it is back to belief or the lack of it again. I, personally, do believe in a good breakfast, eggs and b...n included ;-)

  16. I knew you'd enjoy the reply.

    Up until recently, we were constantly being told it was the IRA's fault. The media were not allowed to claim there was any blame to be directed at the British government. I hated the IRA and still do.

    The Protestants would say: If the IRA dropped their guns, there would be peace, if the Loyalists dropped their guns, there would be no Northen Ireland. The IRA's objective was to unite Ireland under Catholic rule. And you can be sure Protestants would have had a raw deal.

    Sure, they would not have gone to such extremes as fundy Muslims. That still doesn't change the fact the same process is going on.

    A motivating factor behind ordinary Irish folk joining the IRA was a sense of injustice and prejudice inflicted on them by a more powerful controlling population.

    For Loyalists read Israel for British Government read US Government.

    The IRA felt that part of their land had been stolen from them by a group of people practicing a religion they despised, even though, and probably because of, their faiths were based on virtually the same teaching.

    Of course we can argue whether Northen Ireland was stolen or whether it is legitimately owned by the Protestants who moved there...

    See, it's almost identical. All you're talking about is the extremity of the terrorists. Yes, as we know, Muslim fanatics have the edge on IRA fanatics in their thirst for blood.

  17. Again, the Irish or the IRA weren't trying to drive the Brits into the sea. Their drive was more political. Jews in Israel live in Israel and are the majority in Israel. They were the majority in the land that was allocated to them in 1947 during the time of the partition.
    The "Loyalists" in Ireland are a minority. Israel is now a sovereign nation, prior to that, I can see how Britain would be considered the same as Britain is considered by the Irish. But this is not logical or true since 1948 of the Jews in Israel.
    Muslim terrorists wish the destruction of Israel and either the genocide of Jews there and/or the Dhimmitization of Jews there. The Irish just wanted political control of the place they were the majority of.

  18. Bacon, being of atheist pursuasion as you are, I would like to know if you differenciate between religions, or if you toss everything in one big lump of lies that is equally for shit and problematic. For example: Do you see islam as indestinguishable from Judaism, which is indistinguishable from Christianity, which is indistinguishable from islam, or, do you find that some faiths are more vile to you than others?

    Just curious...

  19. Of course I don't treat all faiths equally. Right now I like a lot about what the Catholics are admitting to when it comes to accepting science.

    Islam is the most dangerous religion out there today. Ever since Muslims have been able to get pilot training.

  20. So, how do you rank Judaism. I don't mean based on whether you accept God better from the Jewish perspective, as I am well aware that you do not, but from the belief system as it relates to the world in which you live. Rank it from the standpoint of the danger it poses to society at large, and the contributions it makes to society by its adherents.

  21. One more thing, Bacon. Do you believe that it would be better if Jews should continue as a people, or that it would be of no benefit to do so and they should assimilate out of existence.

  22. MZ, I think the world would be better off without religion. I think that is an impossibility. I don't think anyone should have to do anything, and if Jews or Catholics disappear through assimilation, let it be. Of course, I don't mean that Jews or Catholics should find another religion....I would rather see those who must believe in God, believe in him without the phoney stories that go along with it. In other words more like Buddhists (at least that is my impression of Buddhism).

    Judaism ranks there right up with Buddhism as far as I'm concerned. I one thing I like about Judaism over most other religions is the fact that Jews don't look for converts.

    In 10,000 years if there are still people on this planet, religion will not matter I believe. Again, in 2006, Jews are important as a people. In 10,000 years it won't matter.

    The way I look it, you have one chance at life. Do what you want, try not to hurt people, except for the people who want you dead. If you have to make non assimilation a factor in your life.....that is your call.

    I don't think it is important to fight assimilation. Not at all.

  23. BEJ, you got it wrong. You are seeing it from the IRA point of view. Northern Ireland was created as a "country" for the Protestant section of Ireland to live in in the same way Israel was created for Jews to live in.

    The Protestants are a majority in their "country", which is what caused the troubles. They abused their power.

    If you think the IRA didn't want to drive the British into the sea you are totally mistaken. The IRA loathed the British. If a Catholic girl was found to be involved with a British soldier she would be "executed" (if she was lucky she would get a warning first).

    The IRA wanted to remove the British from what they saw as their land. The equated the Protestants with the British in the same way the fundy Muslims equate Israel with the US (justifiably).

    You are siding with the IRA because you think Ireland should be one country and belongs to the Catholic of the whole island. That's like saying the Muslims are the majority of the middle east and so they should have control of the entire region.

    The Irish Loyalists wanted their own place to live, just like the Jews, and they felt they had a historical right to Northern Ireland, just like the Jews think they have a historical right to Israel. Hence all the Orangemen marches which the Loyalist insist on having every year, the source of much aggrivation, as it is a celebration of British military victory over the Irish.

    It's not exactly the same, but there are many similarities.

  24. Thanks for your thoughts, Bacon. Just out of curiosity, would you care either way if your children (don't know if you have any) married Jewish? The reason I ask is I know despite your atheism you are a very strong Zionist, so I was wondering if that meant you would all things being equal prefer Jewish grandchildren.

    If that's too personal for you to answer I understand.

  25. Simon, I'll admit temporary defeat because the IRA thingy isn't something I studied. Hopefully another one of my learned readers will put you in your place:) I can't say I side with the IRA or the Brits because I don't know enough. Time to read up a little more on it.

    MZ, no kids, and I wouldn't care. I'm not married to Jew, and neither is my brother or sister.
    But I am a strong Zionist just the same.

  26. hehe

    Well, I'm just trying to make the point that the best way to deal with fanatic Muslims is to try to piss off the people who are potential recruits (usually young men).

    Since the UK went into Iraq, look how safe that has made my country.

    Not very.

    50 people dead on the tube. One plot to blow up a few planes foiled. So now we live in terror of one of these recruits getting through the net and blowing us up.

    Because we went into Iraq for bloody reason.

    Nice one Blair. Cheers for that.

  27. *oops

    I meant "...NOT to piss off..."


  28. Simon, you still aren't getting it, Iraq is a smokescreen to blowing up buildings and subways.

    If you want to blame Blair, blame him for letting Muslims into your country.

    But nice Freudian slip on the pissing em off:)

  29. "How can grown men have little robot avatars?"

    At least I can tell fiction from reality. Besides, when we look at fools who believe in global flood stories, virgins giving birth, prophets flying around on winged horses, you might as well believe in Optimus Prime.