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?

[SiNcE_1985]

False dichotomy fallacy.

Not all dichotomies are false. The way you show that a dichotomy is false is by identifying another option.

Ive been there, and done that, Diff.

[Difflugia]

Ive been there, and done that, Diff.

Of course. I mean, it's not like you just say stuff.

So, what's another option?

[Difflugia]

I already stated that those who believe in a legendary Moses, are entitled to their opinions.

As I am entitled to mines.

That's really the extent of your argument? That because the opinions of expert academic historians backed by scholaship is nonetheless an opinion, it's no better than yours, backed by literally nothing more than misplaced confidence? Speaking of logical fallacies, do you know what a slippery slope is?

Youi know what? I'm personally incredulous.

I don't know what else to tell ya after that.

And that is the entire problem, illustrated so magnificently across so many topics and domains.

[POI]

P1: The Bible asserts the existence of an actual once-living (Moses).
P2: If a (Moses) did not exist in reality, Venom agrees this would be extremely problematic.
P3: The majority scholarship agrees that the claim(s) of a once-living (Moses) are instead of legend/lore.
P4: Therefore, na na na na nah, a) or b).

a) Abandon ship
b) pivot drastically

Please pick one.

I already stated that those who believe in a legendary Moses, are entitled to their opinions. As I am entitled to mines.

Your response above is not compatible with your response given prior (below) i.e.:

"I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the basis of; the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree".

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) or you don't

I don't know what else to tell ya after that.

Here's what you can tell me... Stop giving me handwaving, mislabeled rubberstamps, and inconsistent/illogical responses.

[SiNcE_1985]

That's really the extent of your argument? That because the opinions of expert academic historians backed by scholaship is nonetheless an opinion, it's no better than yours, backed by literally nothing more than misplaced confidence? Speaking of logical fallacies, do you know what a slippery slope is?

Youi know what? I'm personally incredulous.

1. I don't know.

2. I haven't looked into it, so I don't know.

3. But, my opinion is; Moses is historical.

Just like their opinions is, Moses isn't historical.

Whenever an unbeliever expresses modest ignorance, he get "Is that the extent of your argument? Is that all you have to say?".

But when a skeptic/atheist/scientist say "We don't know.", it is the greatest example of modesty in the world.

Blows my mind.

And that is the entire problem, illustrated so magnificently across so many topics and domains.

Opinions.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your response above is not compatible with your response given prior (below) i.e.:

"I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the basis of; the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree".

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) or you don't

Wow. An exact quote.

Tell ya what, now find the exact quote of me saying "it is a case by case basis".

Something like that.^

Remember that one?

Quote that one.

Here's what you can tell me... Stop giving me handwaving, mislabeled rubberstamps, and inconsistent/illogical responses.

The only thing I've given you, is consistent L's.

Still no thread banging on other worldviews, Mr. Agnostic?

[POI]

Your response above is not compatible with your response given prior (below) i.e.:

"I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the basis of; the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree".

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) or you don't

Wow. An exact quote.

Yep.

Tell ya what, now find the exact quote of me saying "it is a case by case basis".

We've covered this to death... Here is your reason. Here is another direct quote from you. --> "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not.".

And I've addressed this ad nauseum. Remember? "The majority of Biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major Biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described. In the New Testament, while a historical Jesus is almost universally accepted, many specific miraculous events are viewed by critical scholars as non-historical.

Old Testament Events: Most scholars view the following events from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as unlikely to have occurred historically in the manner described, largely due to a lack of supporting archaeological or external textual evidence (etc etc etc)"

This is why I have repeatedly asked you if you would now like to pivot in your Christian position? And here is where the handwaving continues to prevail. You know you are backed into a very precarious corner.

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

[SiNcE_1985]

We've covered this to death... Here is your reason. Here is another direct quote from you. --> "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not.".

And I've addressed this ad nauseum. Remember? "The majority of Biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major Biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described. In the New Testament, while a historical Jesus is almost universally accepted, many specific miraculous events are viewed by critical scholars as non-historical.

Old Testament Events: Most scholars view the following events from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as unlikely to have occurred historically in the manner described, largely due to a lack of supporting archaeological or external textual evidence (etc etc etc)"

This is why I have repeatedly asked you if you would now like to pivot in your Christian position? And here is where the handwaving continues to prevail. You know you are backed into a very precarious corner.

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

Um, no.

The primary reason behind scholars not accepting Moses as a historical figure, is because of what they believe is the lack of evidence supporting his existence.

Correct?

Now, again, I haven't looked into any of this yet, but I'll play along.

Well, on one hand...

1. I can't prove that the Moses of the Bible ever existed.

Shame on me.

But on the other hand..

2. You can't prove that the Moses of the Bible DIDN'T exist.

Shame on you.

I can't prove he did, you can't prove he didn't.

So, it is simply a matter of belief...either you believe he did, or you believe he didn't.

My inability to prove he that did, doesn't mean that he didn't.

And your inability to prove that he didn't, doesn't mean that he did.

That goes for Moses, and any of the other OT events and/or figures.

And since I know that people like you, simply dont want to believe regardless of how much evidence we have, I'm totally fine with everything as it currently is.

Those of us that know, we know.

And as long as we know, thats all that matters.

[Difflugia]

That's really the extent of your argument?

1. I don't know.

2. I haven't looked into it, so I don't know.

3. But, my opinion is; Moses is historical.

Just like their opinions is, Moses isn't historical.

That's my point, though: your opinion isn't "just like" their opinions. That would be like me claiming that my opinion about a brain tumor is "just like" the opinion of a neurosurgeon, or that my opinion about optimal wing shapes is "just like" the opinion of an aeronautical engineer.

Whenever an unbeliever expresses modest ignorance, he get "Is that the extent of your argument? Is that all you have to say?".

Is that what you're claiming this is? Modest ignorance? You literally claimed that your unsupported opinion is just as valuable in a debate as the opinion of an expert. That's par for the apologetic course, but hardly modest.

But when a skeptic/atheist/scientist say "We don't know.", it is the greatest example of modesty in the world.

That's because modest ignorance is something like, "I don't know and I'm not interested in looking it up, so I guess I won't be participating in this debate." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide if that's the approach you took.

Blows my mind.

Par for the course.

And that is the entire problem, illustrated so magnificently across so many topics and domains.

Opinions.

I know. That's what you said. You start with opinions, but "I don't know what to tell ya after that." There's supposed to be far more to a debate than that.

[POI]

In my continued faith that you are not just trolling, as you addressed nothing from what I said, I will address your response below anyways. However, we all continue to see the clear and present handwaving, as the presented options of a) or b), based upon your rationale, have placed you into an extremely precarious position. Okay, here we go...

We've covered this to death... Here is your reason. Here is another direct quote from you. --> "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not.".

And I've addressed this ad nauseum. Remember? "The majority of Biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major Biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described. In the New Testament, while a historical Jesus is almost universally accepted, many specific miraculous events are viewed by critical scholars as non-historical.

Old Testament Events: Most scholars view the following events from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as unlikely to have occurred historically in the manner described, largely due to a lack of supporting archaeological or external textual evidence (etc etc etc)"

This is why I have repeatedly asked you if you would now like to pivot in your Christian position? And here is where the handwaving continues to prevail. You know you are backed into a very precarious corner.

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.

Um, no. The primary reason behind scholars not accepting Moses as a historical figure, is because of what they believe is the lack of evidence supporting his existence. Correct?

What boggles the brain is that you have spent your time engaging a thread for which you now admit you have not researched in the slightest. And this is in the modern technological age -- where information is easily at your fingertips. This tells me that you may have started to investigate and realize that the claims of an actual Moses are quite unfounded in reality. Rather than spending hours producing what you have been "producing" so far, you could have spent 1/150th of that time making a case as for why a Moses existed. Instead, all you have presented is circular reasoning (i.e.) because the Bible tells me so, and also pleading ignorance (i.e.) I haven't even checked. Wow! Thanks for the vigorous debate Venom.

As to your question, it goes even deeper. It's highly unlikely a "Exodus" even took place. Which then means a "Moses", even if some Moses really did exist somewhere, was never even in the claimed region to begin with. This is why the owner of the debate forum himself argued for the "Hyksos". This is because scholars know that if they cannot link another tribe to the 'Israelites', then the Bible presents more doom and gloom, as there exists no archeological findings in which one would expect to find if millions were said to occupy a space for 100's of years.

In essence, the claim is TOO LARGE to not have left evidence or not have been addressed by others. This is why people try to fudge the 'evidence' these days. Heck, your pal 1213 tried to offer a video showing dead solders at the bottom of the Red Sea.

Now, again, I haven't looked into any of this yet, but I'll play along.

A sneaking suspicious suggests you kind of have, and know there is not really much in your favor. So yea, you "don't know".

Well, on one hand...

1. I can't prove that the Moses of the Bible ever existed.

Shame on me.

But on the other hand..

2. You can't prove that the Moses of the Bible DIDN'T exist.

Shame on you.

I can't prove he did, you can't prove he didn't.

So, it is simply a matter of belief...either you believe he did, or you believe he didn't.

My inability to prove he that did, doesn't mean that he didn't.

And your inability to prove that he didn't, doesn't mean that he did.

I've already addressed this. When dealing with claims from antiquity, we are always limited. What is the likelihood that a Moses existed? I'd say it's low, like 10% max. And yet, according to your worldview, Moses MUST exist. In my worldview, it really matters not. I've explained, in other threads, as to why. The stakes are only HIGH for YOU.

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

That's enough stalling from you. 40th request:

Pick a lane Venom! You either:

a) appeal to majority/authority
b) pivot, and now adopt a non-literalist Bible view

You know you can't pick a), because you will immediately expose your inconsistent logic, (as I explained above). --> Quoting your given rationale, even the majority of scholarly believers conclude that some stories are lore, and this goes against your literalist view.

Instead going with option b) means you must drastically switch gears, to the point of rationalization overload; so I do not blame you for running away from this option too.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. Hence, the handwaving will likely just continue.