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?

[Difflugia]

If I'm doing this much of a great job on intellectually owning you...imagine if I actually knew what I was talking about.

Something about playing chess with a pigeon.

I mean, when it's all you have...

Weak sauce.

ikr?

Next time you return to this discussion...bring back actual substance.

That's what we've been begging you for. Give us something to engage with. You've claimed that your confidence in a real Moses is "high." On what evidence is this confidence based?

[SiNcE_1985]

1) You told me you have not investigated.

Yeah, and that's the sad part; I'm identifying logical flaws in the argument, and I didn't even investigate it yet.

Goes to show how terrible the argumentation is.

2) You also keep asking me for what evidence should be found

Yeah and you keep not providing it.

, but you were not concerned when we were discussing a "Jesus." (See my response below for further explanation).

Because, I was the one who was busy being asked what is the evidence for Jesus/Resurrection, not you...and since Jesus is actually "my guy", I am more studied and knowledgeable on the subject concerning him, than I am on Moses, The Exodus, The Flood, etc.

Another gotcha moment, failed?

So please, <you> have no cause to question the actual experts here unless you wish to change the rules to taste.

I question the logic, as long as the logic becomes questionable...as is the case here.

Even if the expert consensus wasn't what it is, I'd be going against these experts on this issue, the same way I do with evolution.

In the Jesus thread, I was merely pointing out the scholarly consensus as a fun fact, and you simply ran wild with it..in epic fashion.

See above. Further, you are moving the goalposts. In the "Jesis is a myth!" thread, scholarly consensus tells you that the evidence must be overwhelming. And yet, you never bothered to see what the evidence even was. Welp, now prepare to dive upon your own sword. (Paraphrased) - "If majority scholarship all agrees, then the evidence must be quite convincing. " Hence, we do not need to know. The fact that they all overwhelmingly agree means it must be a lot. And like I said, I will be happy to go with this, which means a Jesus must exist, but it also means your version of Christianity is objectively false.

I already addressed this above.

Why can't I just get an answer to my question??

What EVIDENCE DO YOU EXPECT TO SEE FROM AN EXODUS??

You are avoiding that question like the plague(s).

Pun intended.

We are not talking about mere Jewish followers; we are instead referring to "scholarly consensus/authority". You know, the case-by-case standard for which you gave to conclude that the claim must actually be substantiated.

I'm talking about Jewish scholars, historians, and experts.

I'm with them.

LOL! YES! You just shot yourself in both feet at the same time using your own rubberstamping. Weee!

Um, no.

I would have had to be saying or implying..

"The experts agree, therefore it's true."

But that's not what I said, nor implied

Nothingburger/handwave.

Yeah, and that about sums up the entire thread.

And here I even went out of my way to place the important words in bold, and yet, you still missed the point. I've explained the historical method again and again and again. The Bible does not qualify, while using even some of the lowest standards.

Sources within Egypt doesn't count as evidence for King Tuts existence.

We need external, non-Egyptian evidence.

Yeah, back to that again.

Even if there was some 'authoritative' collection of claims about dinosaurs, we know dinosaurs exist anyways. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming, outside the identified claim(s) themselves. And please do not ask me what is the evidence. You can find out very easily. We do not have evidence with the Exodus. Not by a long shot. And you know it, which is why you are instead applying a weak "rubberstamp" (ala -- argument from silence), which is also a big fat excuse, and also an extreme omission, for why you cannot produce any actual evidence -- outside the claim from the "book" itself.

Did dinosaurs exist before evidence was found, of their existence?

Yes or no?

[POI]

I'm identifying logical flaws in the argument, and I didn't even investigate it yet. Goes to show how terrible the argumentation is.

I already pointed out your gigantic logical flaw a couple of threads ago. And now you are avoiding and twisting it like there is no tomorrow.

Yeah and you keep not providing it.

According to your given epistemology, I don't need to. (Paraphrased) - "Scholars, much more well-versed and studied up than us, almost all universally agree, based upon all the evidence and findings they do or don't have, that Jesus existed, and that Moses didn't." Hence, as I've stated ad nauseum now, you must "go down with the ship", you must now "die by the sword".

Because, I was the one who was busy being asked what is the evidence for Jesus/Resurrection, not you...and since Jesus is actually "my guy", I am more studied and knowledgeable on the subject concerning him, than I am on Moses, The Exodus, The Flood, etc.

Allow me to save you a lot of time and grief... The experts have not found anything for an 'Exodus.'' And yet, based upon the magnitude of the claim, they would have. So please, either select a) or b) and let us know. We continue to patiently wait...

I question the logic, as long as the logic becomes questionable...as is the case here.

Nah, You've just been exposed, so now you are pivoting.

Even if the expert consensus wasn't what it is, I'd be going against these experts on this issue, the same way I do with evolution.

Right, because verified and peer-reviewed science (denial) is your only move here. Much like Mr. Hovind, as explained in post 100.

In the Jesus thread, I was merely pointing out the scholarly consensus as a fun fact, and you simply ran wild with it..in epic fashion.

LOL! Nah. You instead got royally caught stepping all over yourself, and now you are just side-winding and back pedaling to try and cover your tracks. That's all.

What EVIDENCE DO YOU EXPECT TO SEE FROM AN EXODUS??

Already addressed above. Further, I can't imagine this is an actual serious question anyways.

I'm talking about Jewish scholars, historians, and experts. I'm with them.

This was already addressed in the 'Jesus is a myth!" thread. Majority/authority scholarship agree Jesus existed, and Moses didn't.

Um, no. I would have had to be saying or implying.. "The experts agree, therefore it's true." But that's not what I said, nor implied

False. Here is exactly what you said --> "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree" And --> "As I stated prior, 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"

Sources within Egypt doesn't count as evidence for King Tuts existence. We need external, non-Egyptian evidence. Yeah, back to that again.

Yet again..... When using (THE historical method), how does the claim(s) of "Tut" compare against "Moses"? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer to this simple question.

Did dinosaurs exist before evidence was found, of their existence?

Yes or no?

Either dinosaurs existed, or they didn't. And according to the vast amounts of evidence we have, (yes), they existed millions of years ago. Too bad you cannot say this for an 'Exodus".

48th request and counting. Are you going with a) or b)?

[SiNcE_1985]

I already pointed out your gigantic logical flaw a couple of threads ago. And now you are avoiding and twisting it like there is no tomorrow.

Oh, then I must of missed it.

According to your given epistemology, I don't need to. (Paraphrased) - "Scholars, much more well-versed and studied up than us, almost all universally agree, based upon all the evidence and findings they do or don't have, that Jesus existed, and that Moses didn't." Hence, as I've stated ad nauseum now, you must "go down with the ship", you must now "die by the sword".

Ok, and the Jewish lineage, community, scholars, and experts of yesterday, are more well-versed and studied than historians of today...and they testify to Moses and the Exodus.

And I believe them over those of today.

So, now what?

Again, how does the historians of today have more virtue than those of yesterday?

They don't.

Allow me to save you a lot of time and grief... The experts have not found anything for an 'Exodus.''

Found anything like what?

And yet, based upon the magnitude of the claim, they would have. So please, either select a) or b) and let us know. We continue to patiently wait...

There is no magnitude of the claim...a group of people migrated from one place to another.

It's called, "moving".

That's what you have to do, to get from one place to another.

You "move".

And you don't have to leave behind trace evidence of this "move", either.

Nah, You've just been exposed, so now you are pivoting.

Um, no.

I've been exposing your fallacious arguments across 3-4 threads... including this one.

"There is no evidence for X, therefore, X didn't happen" is the argument that your using, on behalf of these experts that you appeal to.

It is just simply flawed, and you're just upset that your "all the experts agree that Moses is a myth" plan backfired.

Try another one, because this one has failed you.

Right, because verified and peer-reviewed science (denial) is your only move here. Much like Mr. Hovind, as explained in post 100.

Again, I'll dig up a peer-reviewed paper on Jesus' resurrection.

Since it is peer-reviewed, you should be a Christian, right?

No?

I'll give the science peer-reviewed stuff, with the same credence you give the religious stuff.

I don't recall you addressing this point the last time I sent it your way.

Thanks for reminding me about it.

LOL! Nah. You instead got royally caught stepping all over yourself, and now you are just side-winding and back pedaling to try and cover your tracks. That's all.

Um, no.

What happened was, you weren't aware of just how silly the logic of "No evidence of X, is no evidence against X" was...and once I exposed it, you realize the gotcha moment you were trying to hit me with, just doesn't stick after all.

I don't have to backpedal on anything..I'm good over here.

Already addressed above. Further, I can't imagine this is an actual serious question anyways.

Um, no.

You did NOT provide an answer above, on what evidence you'd expect to find of an Exodus...after you continue to make claims of a lack of evidence

I'm simply asking what evidence should there be.

But I get it, all you did was, search the internet to get your confirmation bias about how there is a lack of external evidence for Moses/Exodus...and then you jumped on here to create your little debate thread to discuss the issue.

But you were completely unaware and unprepared for the specific angle that I was gonna hit you with.

I know how you roll.

This was already addressed in the 'Jesus is a myth!" thread. Majority/authority scholarship agree Jesus existed, and Moses didn't.

Yeah, and if the majority of mathematicians are wrong about 2+2=16, and correct about 7x7=49, I'll gladly disagree with them on the former, and agree with the on the latter.

I'm well within my right to do so, and will do it.

Like I said, case by case basis.

False. Here is exactly what you said --> "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree" And --> "As I stated prior, 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"

I said it, and I stand by what I said.

Yet again..... When using (THE historical method), how does the claim(s) of "Tut" compare against "Moses"? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer to this simple question.

I didn't know this was a pissing contest for claims made.

Either the person existed, or they didn't.

Either dinosaurs existed, or they didn't. And according to the vast amounts of evidence we have, (yes), they existed millions of years ago. Too bad you cannot say this for an 'Exodus".

Either you lack simple reading comprehension, or you deliberately refused to answer the question.

I'll ask again..in a different way..

Even if we had no evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, does it follow that therefore, no dinosaurs existed?

Yes or no.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #111]

You've got nothing, Diff.

[POI]

Oh, then I must of missed it.

No Venom, you certainly have not (missed it). You are instead doing what I often see Christian apologists do, which is (spin it).

Ok, and the Jewish lineage, community, scholars, and experts of yesterday, are more well-versed and studied than historians of today...and they testify to Moses and the Exodus. And I believe them over those of today. So, now what?

Now what? Well, you are wrong again Venom, that's what. In regard to claims for an "Exodus", (which would have left droves of evidence for later investigation), the historical method does not agree with your baseless assertion(s). Modern scholars possess many advantages over past scholars in addressing claims for "the Exodus", such as 1) advancements in archaeology, 2) decipherment of texts, 3) interdisciplinary approach, and 4) improved historical and critical methodology. Modern scholars have a significantly larger, more diverse, and better-analyzed pool of evidence, combined with more sophisticated tools and methodologies to interpret that evidence, offering a richer and more complete understanding of the past.

Found anything like what?

This can't be a serious question... If millions really did wander the Sanai dessert for 40 years, we would have found evidence to suggest it. Further, the hot and dry climate would certainly preserve all of it. A century of research shows no clear archaeological proof of a massive "Exodus" group in the Sinai. Based upon the magnitude of the claim, they would have. So, unless you instead wish to argue that these millions did not travel in large groups together, and instead all evenly spread out, (so that no remains could later be identified), your question is nonsensical.

It's called, "moving". That's what you have to do, to get from one place to another. You "move". And you don't have to leave behind trace evidence of this "move", either.

You would have some kind of a point if they had merely followed the already established trade route, which others travelled in days/weeks, (to get from point A to point B). But this massive populous was said to instead wander for decades in the same designated space. You are instead giving an apologetic excuse for why we have not found any evidence for this massive claim. What would be a miracle, is for millions to wander the Sanai (for decades) and NOT leave behind droves of evidence to investigate. That's it, maybe "YHWH" himself covered up all the evidence to promote (faith over evidence-based reasoning) for the later recipients who inquire

you're just upset that your "all the experts agree that Moses is a myth" plan backfired.

Another gaslighting defection... Remember Venom, the scholars know more. Further, "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree." (AND) "As I stated prior, 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."

This is one of the reason(s) many/most believers do not take many of the ancient claims as literal. Care to select option b) now? I know it will require even more spin, and in a differing direction... But hey, you believers should be used to all the spinning by now.

Again, I'll dig up a peer-reviewed paper on Jesus' resurrection. Since it is peer-reviewed, you should be a Christian, right? No? I'll give the science peer-reviewed stuff, with the same credence you give the religious stuff. I don't recall you addressing this point the last time I sent it your way.

You had brought up the topic of evolution again. And so, I responded to it. Evolutionary biology is a scientific topic, not a historical claim. One uses (the scientific method), while the other uses (the historical method). The two are apples and oranges. If you care to remain focused on the topic I'm responding to here, find me a peer-reviewed scientific study as to why "evolution is a lie".

My point here is you have to deny quite a bit of established theoretical science(s) in order to take the claims of Genesis as literal. This is why I keep offering you a life raft or an out, by offering option b). To stay in a literalist viewpoint requires way too much handwaving of the established sciences and also requires that you appeal to charlatans like Mr. Hovind.

Um, no. What happened was, you weren't aware of just how silly the logic of "No evidence of X, is no evidence against X" was...and once I exposed it, you realize the gotcha moment you were trying to hit me with, just doesn't stick after all. I don't have to backpedal on anything..I'm good over here.

You continue to double down. That's fine. Stay in mass denial. We all see it.

Yeah, and if the majority of mathematicians are wrong about 2+2=16, and correct about 7x7=49, I'll gladly disagree with them on the former, and agree with the on the latter. I'm well within my right to do so, and will do it. Like I said, case by case basis.

Not only are you attempting to cover your tracks, (two threads later), but you are also committing a basic category error. Math uses absolutes, where an actual conclusion can be drawn by use of (mathematical equations/other). Claims from antiquity cannot. Further, claims from antiquity instead use (the historical method). And based upon (the historical method), many events from the "OT" are highly unlikely. This is why many believers conclude that many of these ancient claims must have been "allegorical" or other, and not instead literal/factual. This is why faith is paramount (for you) in your literalist interpretation.

I said it, and I stand by what I said.

49th attempt:

a) denounce
b) pivot, and now take a position of a more 'allegorical' position, as it relates to claims from the OT, (which means you no longer have to flat out deny the theoretical sciences).
c) or instead just continue to <handwave/redirect/cover/false equivocate> the situation -- this is the observed added (non-option option) in your given true dichotomy of options available, based upon your given epistemology.

I didn't know this was a pissing contest for claims made. Either the person existed, or they didn't.

I know you are crashing out hard here, but it is what it is. Based upon the historical method, where does 'Tut' compare to 'Moses' in terms of believability? Again, maybe this is one of the reasons why faith is paramount (for you).

Either you lack simple reading comprehension, or you deliberately refused to answer the question.

I'll ask again..in a different way..

Even if we had no evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, does it follow that therefore, no dinosaurs existed?

Yes or no.

I answered in the logical way. Here, allow me to demonstrate your question, while simply replacing (dinosaurs) with another claim:

Even if we had no evidence for the existence of (dragons), does it follow that therefore, no dragons existed? It's a nothingburger question because if we never verified IF dragons truly existed, then you could ask this senseless and unverifiable claim about ANY senseless and unverifiable claim equally. Maybe dragons and bigfoot really exist in reality too. Sheesh!

[SiNcE_1985]

No Venom, you certainly have not (missed it). You are instead doing what I often see Christian apologists do, which is (spin it).

If you leave Christianity and the Bible alone, you won't have to see anything.

Now what? Well, you are wrong again Venom, that's what. In regard to claims for an "Exodus", (which would have left droves of evidence for later investigation)

Evidence such as?

, the historical method does not agree with your baseless assertion(s). Modern scholars possess many advantages over past scholars in addressing claims for "the Exodus", such as 1) advancements in archaeology, 2) decipherment of texts, 3) interdisciplinary approach, and 4) improved historical and critical methodology. Modern scholars have a significantly larger, more diverse, and better-analyzed pool of evidence, combined with more sophisticated tools and methodologies to interpret that evidence, offering a richer and more complete understanding of the past.

Ok, then you go with modern scholars.

I'd rather go with people who lived closer in time proximity to the events in question, than people living 5,000 years later.

This can't be a serious question... If millions really did wander the Sanai dessert for 40 years, we would have found evidence to suggest it.

Evidence such as?

Further, the hot and dry climate would certainly preserve all of it. A century of research shows no clear archaeological proof of a massive "Exodus" group in the Sinai. Based upon the magnitude of the claim, they would have. So, unless you instead wish to argue that these millions did not travel in large groups together, and instead all evenly spread out, (so that no remains could later be identified), your question is nonsensical.

You're talking in generalities, while I'm asking for specifics.

If they migrated on today, sure, I'd expect to see evidence tomorrow.

But I don't expect to see evidence some thousands of years later.

Weather, landscape, wind, other civilizations, etc..all could have changed over thousands of years, for you to be asking about those specific people at that specific time.

I need to know what specific evidences you are crying about us lacking.

It is easy to just say, as you go on an unbelieving, skeptical tirade...but it is hard to actually demonstrate...as is the case here.

You're being pressed on the issue and all you've offered is NOTHING.

You would have some kind of a point if they had merely followed the already established trade route, which others travelled in days/weeks, (to get from point A to point B). But this massive populous was said to instead wander for decades in the same designated space.

Yeah, 40 years out of a few thousands. Sure, the evidence should be mounting.

You are instead giving an apologetic excuse for why we have not found any evidence for this massive claim.

Evidence such as?

What would be a miracle, is for millions to wander the Sanai (for decades) and NOT leave behind droves of evidence to investigate. That's it, maybe "YHWH" himself covered up all the evidence to promote (faith over evidence-based reasoning) for the later recipients who inquire

When you won't believe regardless of "evidence", evidence is not required.

Another gaslighting defection... Remember Venom, the scholars know more. Further, "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree." (AND) "As I stated prior, 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."

This is one of the reason(s) many/most believers do not take many of the ancient claims as literal. Care to select option b) now? I know it will require even more spin, and in a differing direction... But hey, you believers should be used to all the spinning by now.

Already addressed this.

You had brought up the topic of evolution again. And so, I responded to it. Evolutionary biology is a scientific topic, not a historical claim. One uses (the scientific method), while the other uses (the historical method). The two are apples and oranges. If you care to remain focused on the topic I'm responding to here, find me a peer-reviewed scientific study as to why "evolution is a lie".

Um, I specifically mentioned the peer-reviewed-Resurrection, and you're talking about evolution?

My point here is you have to deny quite a bit of established theoretical science(s) in order to take the claims of Genesis as literal. This is why I keep offering you a life raft or an out, by offering option b). To stay in a literalist viewpoint requires way too much handwaving of the established sciences and also requires that you appeal to charlatans like Mr. Hovind.

I'm rocking with Hovind.

Not only are you attempting to cover your tracks, (two threads later), but you are also committing a basic category error. Math uses absolutes, where an actual conclusion can be drawn by use of (mathematical equations/other). Claims from antiquity cannot. Further, claims from antiquity instead use (the historical method). And based upon (the historical method), many events from the "OT" are highly unlikely. This is why many believers conclude that many of these ancient claims must have been "allegorical" or other, and not instead literal/factual. This is why faith is paramount (for you) in your literalist interpretation.

Well, I disagree with these believers on this issue, just like I disagree with them on other Biblical issues.

I know you are crashing out hard here, but it is what it is. Based upon the historical method, where does 'Tut' compare to 'Moses' in terms of believability? Again, maybe this is one of the reasons why faith is paramount (for you).

The point is, if I was a super-Tut skeptic, as you are a super-Moses skeptic, that is the kind of argumentation you'd have to deal with, from me.

Which is the same thing that I'm dealing with you.

Seems silly, huh?

My point exactly.

I answered in the logical way. Here, allow me to demonstrate your question, while simply replacing (dinosaurs) with another claim:

Even if we had no evidence for the existence of (dragons), does it follow that therefore, no dragons existed? It's a nothingburger question because if we never verified IF dragons truly existed, then you could ask this senseless and unverifiable claim about ANY senseless and unverifiable claim equally. Maybe dragons and bigfoot really exist in reality too. Sheesh!

Our knowledge is limited. Too many absolute statements are being made, in spite of limited knowledge.

Which is the problem.

[POI]

Evidence such as?

Again, this can't be a serious question. I'll explain more later, (hint hint) Mr. H... Further, I've given you evidence, in other threads, for which you just deny (and/or) spin/handwave regardless. This is a required trait from you to protect many interpreted literal claims from the Bible, for which are unlikely in reality, by way of following modern scholarship -- (both scientific and historical).

Ok, then you go with modern scholars. I'd rather go with people who lived closer in time proximity to the events in question, than people living 5,000 years later.

Yet another example of a massive handwave. I gave you several reasons as to why modern scholarship provides a much better rubric to such a claim from ancient antiquity. As stated, prior, in regard to claims like the "Exodus", you are wrong for doing so. In regard to the historical method, the "Exodus" claim fails its burden.

You're talking in generalities, while I'm asking for specifics. If they migrated on today, sure, I'd expect to see evidence tomorrow. But I don't expect to see evidence some thousands of years later. Weather, landscape, wind, other civilizations, etc..all could have changed over thousands of years, for you to be asking about those specific people at that specific time. I need to know what specific evidences you are crying about us lacking. It is easy to just say, as you go on an unbelieving, skeptical tirade...but it is hard to actually demonstrate...as is the case here. You're being pressed on the issue and all you've offered is NOTHING.

Already addressed...

Yeah, 40 years out of a few thousands. Sure, the evidence should be mounting.

Yup. And modern research has found nada. It's almost as if it never actually happened.

Um, I specifically mentioned the peer-reviewed-Resurrection, and you're talking about evolution?

I'm referring to your statement, when you said "Even if the expert consensus wasn't what it is, I'd be going against these experts on this issue, the same way I do with evolution."

You had brought up the topic of evolution again. And so, I responded to it. Evolutionary biology is a scientific topic, not a historical claim. One uses (the scientific method), while the other uses (the historical method). The two are apples and oranges. If you care to remain focused on the topic I'm responding to here, find me a peer-reviewed scientific study as to why "evolution is a lie".

I'm rocking with Hovind.

This is one of the reasons I bother not to even try to give you any specific evidence(s) anymore. Mr. Hovind is the sultan of spin, and yet you opt to use him as a source.

The point is, if I was a super-Tut skeptic, as you are a super-Moses skeptic, that is the kind of argumentation you'd have to deal with, from me. Which is the same thing that I'm dealing with you. Seems silly, huh? My point exactly.

What continues to be silly, is you continuing to miss the over-arching point. Which is, there are varying degrees of required blind faith -- (in place of the absence of evidence to support the claim), just like there is varying degrees of probability -- (based upon the historical method). That being said, again, based upon the historical method, where does 'Tut' compare to 'Moses' -- in terms of believability?

The point to the question above is... It takes more blind faith to believe in an actual Moses then is does to believe an actual Tut. Why? The historical method dictates as such. Again, in regard to ancient antiquity, there exist varying degrees of certainty. Regardless of your given actual percentage-level for certainty, the certainty-meter is higher objectively for many of these characters, (for which you have brought up), when compared directly to a Moses character.

Our knowledge is limited. Too many absolute statements are being made, in spite of limited knowledge. Which is the problem.

This is the reason I mentioned "Russell's teapot". In face of the absence of evidence to a claim, whether the claim is made from the Bible or any other book, it is quite reasonable to remain skeptical to the claim if all we have is the claim. Without evidence to support the claim, any claim, skepticism is the rational position/approach. You openly admit you need no evidence to support the claim. Which means you should be a believer in all ancient religious claims too.

Sure, anyone can state that maybe dragon(s) DID actually exist, (and we just haven't found the evidence to support the claim (from the Bible BTW). But please do not fault anyone, which is most everyone, for remaining hyper-skeptical to the claimed actual existence of dragons from the past.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #118]

You can have the last word.

All I see is the same, regurgitated stuff that I already addressed.

See ya in traffic.

[AquinasForGod]

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?

There is very little evidence that Moses was a real person. It really takes faith or a revelation to believe.