Did Moses Exist?

[POI]

I created the 'Exodus' thread here (viewtopic.php?t=40622), after being inspired to do so when Otseng made the (paraphrased) statement -- "if the Exodus did not happen, then we must question Biblical veracity".

From there, the topic of "Moses" ultimately came up; which is what I believe eventually prompted the follow-up topic, created here (viewtopic.php?t=42501).

However, since it seems to be imperative and crucial for Moses to be a real character, let us examine....?

For Debate:

1) As compared to other claimed figures from ancient antiquity, such as Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, and-the-like, how exactly does the claim(s) of "Moses" stack up as a real character? Meaning, if the (confidence-level) for Alexander and Pilate are fairly high, due to 'evidence(s)', how exactly does 'Moses' compare on the "confidence-meter"? (i.e.) Low, medium, high, or other?

2) If we have low-level confidence that a "Moses" really existed, as compared to other said characters from antiquity, does this jeopardize Biblical veracity claims in any way(s)?

3) Can one even logically remain a believer without accepting "Moses" as being a real dude from history?

4) Outside the Bible's say-so, what evidence suggests a "Moses" actually existed?

[1213]

Slaves generally don't leave traces that last long. It is not just Jewish slaves......

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

I think it is wrong to say "no evidence". For example the Bible is one piece of evidence. But, I think it is not reasonable find lot of evidence, because slaves generally don't leave lot of evidence. Or what say you, what evidence did other slaves leave over 2000 years ago?

Also, fourth request... When attempting to link Senenmut with a 'Moses', exactly how much leeway is expectable between the claims written in the Bible, <verses> any other claim(s) made written from ancient antiquity?

I think I have already answered that. As long as the stories are not contradictory, and there is similarities, they could be about the same thing.

[POI]

I think it is wrong to say "no evidence". For example the Bible is one piece of evidence.

Well, then, what you think is wrong, as we are here to question the claims from the Bible. Hence, you cannot logically count the Bible as "evidence", when it is instead the claim in question, as this would be circular reasoning.

But, I think it is not reasonable find lot of evidence, because slaves generally don't leave lot of evidence.

Then how exactly do we know if any people were actually enslaved in ancient times at all?

I think I have already answered that. As long as the stories are not contradictory, and there is similarities, they could be about the same thing.

No 1213, you did not. You need to plant your flag. I already planted mine. You are suggesting Senenmut is 'Moses', aren't you? Before we explore, I need you to plant your flag. Otherwise, you might perpetually move the goalposts. Please re-read the bottom of my request in post 10.

[bluegreenearth]

In this case I have no argument, I have a question. And it is interesting that you don't seem to be able to answer it.

The question entails a red herring fallacy because any answer someone could provide would not be relevant to the original objection levied against the Biblical argument. The argument described in the Bible is that the newlywed's bedsheet (i.e., "the cloth") will serve as sufficient evidence to either confirm or disconfirm the woman's premarital virginity.

Obviously, given what is now undeniable about the variations in hymen physiology, the newlywed's bedsheet could never serve as conclusive evidence to convict the wife of sexual promiscuity. As you've stated yourself,

"not bleeding could be also a result of woman's own actions that doesn't necessary mean she slept with some other man."

The existence of that possibility as well as the previously described variations in hymen physiology demonstrate where a reasoning error exists in the Biblical argument for "the cloth" test as a reliable method to falsify claims of virginity. So, requesting a method for confirming the virginity of a woman who fails to pass the Biblical "the cloth" test serves no legitimate purpose in a debate about the reasonableness of that test in the first place.

Also, I don't think Bible even speaks about bleeding, it says "the tokens of virginity". Maybe that could mean something else than bleeding.

The Biblical text refers to "the cloth" as the only evidence to be displayed in front of the town elders. There is only one interpretation of what was intended by the term "the cloth" in conjunction with "the tokens of virginity" that is coherent in the context of this narrative about a virginity test.

[1213]

In this case I have no argument, I have a question. And it is interesting that you don't seem to be able to answer it.

The question entails a red herring fallacy because any answer someone could provide would not be relevant to the original objection....

It is relevant, because it shows your argument fails. There simply is no way to confirm person is actually virgin, if she doesn't bleed. And actually I think it may be that even it is not absolute proof.

...The existence of that possibility as well as the previously described variations in hymen physiology demonstrate where a reasoning error exists in the Biblical argument for "the cloth" test as a reliable method to falsify claims of virginity...

What if it is not actually about hymen related bleeding, but about menstrual blood?

I think the problem with this is, Bible doesn't say what exactly the "tokens of virginity" means. Yes, it is a garment, but what garment and what makes it a token of virginity. Bible doesn't speak of hymen, therefore it is possible it is about something else.

I can't agree that Bible has error on this, without knowing more accurately what the "tokens of virginity" means. And also because it is possible that your claims about hymen are not correct.

[1213]

I think it is wrong to say "no evidence". For example the Bible is one piece of evidence.

Well, then, what you think is wrong, as we are here to question the claims from the Bible. Hence, you cannot logically count the Bible as "evidence", when it is instead the claim in question, as this would be circular reasoning.

That is like saying, "planes are not evidence that planes exist. You must give something else to prove planes exist".

Then how exactly do we know if any people were actually enslaved in ancient times at all?

By what I see, only from the stories that have survived. But, if Bible is not good enough for that, no history book is good enough for that.

[POI]

I think it is wrong to say "no evidence". For example the Bible is one piece of evidence.

Well, then, what you think is wrong, as we are here to question the claims from the Bible. Hence, you cannot logically count the Bible as "evidence", when it is instead the claim in question, as this would be circular reasoning.

That is like saying, "planes are not evidence that planes exist. You must give something else to prove planes exist".

Negative. The Bible is the claim in question. You cannot use the claim as the evidence. Again, the entire point of this arena is to try and prove the Bible. It would be no different if we were in an arena where believers were trying to prove the Holy Quran. You cannot use the Quran as evidence. The Quran merely produces the claims.

Then how exactly do we know if any people were actually enslaved in ancient times at all?

By what I see, only from the stories that have survived. But, if Bible is not good enough for that, no history book is good enough for that.

Why not?

*************************

5th Request:

Even if you want to begin trying to directly link Senenmut with a 'Moses', then how much leeway do we grant the Biblical account, being most believers view the Pentateuch as being an accurate historical account of events? I mean, do we 1) just call it 'close enough', when claims differ a bit, or do we 2) assume the Bible is right, and the other accounts are wrong, or 3) other? Please plant your flag before I address your position.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 1213 in post #34]

Your response is a remarkable exhibition of intellectual dishonesty and fallacious reasoning. I'll leave you to struggle with the burden of having to reconcile your belief in the god with the god's command to not behave dishonestly.

[POI]

Are there any other believers out there following along, who may have a position? I posted (4) questions. Thus far, (2) believing interlocutors responded. The first, in post #2, tried to tell me I'm not comparing "Moses" to the right characters, due to the time/era. I responded, and now posts #2 and #3 are mysteriously absent????

In post #4, which is also mysteriously now absent, another interlocutor is trying to link another dude to "Moses". I asked two things of him... 1) Isn't this just demonstration of verisimilitude? For which he has not responded. 2) Since there appear to exist some similarities, in other ancient writings for this other dude, I need to know how much leeway is granted before I address. I asked him to first plant his flag, to avoid any possibility of me firing at a moving goalpost. No flag has been planted, after asking 5 times and counting.

Come on believers, I would imagine 'Moses' is a necessary character. Seems we should have ample evidence for his mere existence, outside the Bible's say-so? Does anyone want to take a stab at the (4) debate questions?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 1213 in post #34]

Addendum to my previous post:

It only just occurred to me that your claim about there being no ability to confirm the premarital virginity of woman who doesn't bleed under the conditions described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 also serves to demonstrate where the Biblical text commits a reasoning error. Even if we tentatively grant your assertion for the sake of the argument, it still doesn't resolve the reasoning error entailed in the Biblical proposition that the "garment" will serve as conclusive evidence to demonstrate when a woman has been sexually promiscuous:

Deuteronomy 22:7

7 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughters virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

Deuteronomy 22:20

20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her fathers house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her fathers house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

Obviously, "the tokens of virginity" in the context of those passages can only refer to blood from a torn hymen. Whether observed on the "garment" or within the vaginal canal of "the damsel" herself, blood remnants from a torn hymen are the only "tokens of virginity" that would be expected or available in the described situation. No other interpretation of that euphemistic language would be coherent or intellectually honest within the context of the corresponding narrative. Therefore, given the existence of just the single possibility you previously described about the woman not bleeding as a consequence of her own actions rather than sexual promiscuity, the Biblical reasoning behind the "garment" (i.e., "cloth") test is necessarily and tragically in error.

[1213]

...Obviously, "the tokens of virginity" in the context of those passages can only refer to blood from a torn hymen. Whether observed on the "garment" or within the vaginal canal of "the damsel" herself, blood remnants from a torn hymen are the only "tokens of virginity" that would be expected or available in the described situation.

I don't think that is true. And I think more likely it is the menstrual blood. If the person is not virgin, she would be pregnant and not have periods. So, to prove she is virgin, it would be enough to show the menstrual blood.