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]

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.

Ohhh, so if all the historians agreed that the evidence supporting Jesus as the risen Messiah is overwhelmingly strong, you will become a Christian.

Because after all, any opinion that you have otherwise, cant hold a candle do theirs.

You're opinion wouldn't be "just like" theirs, so you'd become a Jesus worshipper.

Is that correct?

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.

Ok, then I'll go with the Christian "experts" with their "supported" opinion that Moses existed.

How about that?

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.

Um, no.

It is more like "I normally wouldn't participate in such a discussion...but there is so much nonsense in the OP, I can't resist."

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.

If I don't know, I don't know.

But, neither do you.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

My request that you agnostically attack naturalistic claims and beliefs just as hard as you bang on Christianity, haven't been addressed either, so hey.

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.

1. X claim doesn't have archeological or external evidence supporting it.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow.

Next...

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.

False dichotomy fallacy.

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.

Um, no.

I'm right here, on your battle ground.

I'm going with what you say, that there is no evidence supporting Moses existence outside the Bible.

I'm maintaining that the Bible doesn't need external evidence to support it. That is my position.

As I said before, the goalposts will continue to be moved, regardless of what we have.

We have what we have. Take it or leave it.

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.

Argument from silence fallacy.

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.

Oh, I get it. I guess we should expect some ancient TikTok or IG Live video of the parting of the Red Sea.

If a million people migrate on foot through Time Square, I doubt there would be evidence of this migration 5,000 years later.

No one is pressing you to believe it. You spend too much time and energy trying to convince yourself that it is false, rather than people trying to convince you that it's true.

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.

Mannn listen, do you think believers give a hoot about a skeptic's degree of certainty on whether Moses existed?

Instead of worrying about the validity of Moses existence, how about focusing on whether or not abiogenesis is true?

That is YOUR worldview..by default, once the existence of any God is taken out of the equation, all you have is abiogenesis. Yet, the focus is on a God you DONT believe in, and not on the validity of the natural processes by which you yourself exist.

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.

I believe in the Bible, and I'm not of the belief that outside corroboration is needed.

We (believers) are good over here...and we can care less what you think, feel, believe, or any other synonym you want to throw in there.

[POI]

1. X claim doesn't have archeological or external evidence supporting it.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow.

Next...

Yet another misrepresented mislabel Venom. Here is the omitted step:

1. X claim doesn't have archeological or external evidence supporting it.
2. X claim would leave tons of archeological or external evidence supporting it.
3. Therefore, the claim is unfounded and is to be discarded. Which is exactly why scholarship considers this claimed event "lore". And since you also appeal to (majority/authority) scholarship, and (majority/authority) scholarship has came to this conclusion, so should you - if you care to remain consistent in your worldview.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Yet another misrepresented mislabel Venom. According to your given epistemology (explained ad nauseum), these (2) options are the only (2) options applicable for you. Thus, either:

a) denounce your faith
b) pivot and adopt a less literal Biblical view.

Please finally pick one and let us know?

Um, no.

Um, yes. You offer 1) circular reasoning and/or 2) state you've never checked. That's all. Makes for objectively poor debate strategy on your part.

I'm right here, on your battle ground. I'm going with what you say, that there is no evidence supporting Moses existence outside the Bible. I'm maintaining that the Bible doesn't need external evidence to support it. That is my position. As I said before, the goalposts will continue to be moved, regardless of what we have. We have what we have. Take it or leave it.

Which is more evidence for options 1) and/or 2) directly above.,

Argument from silence fallacy.

Yet another failed attempt, via another misplaced rubberstamp. Nice try, but no cigar for you here. I explained above. This is why advocates for "the Exodus" attempt to link other tribe(s) to the claimed Israelites in Egypt.

Oh, I get it. I guess we should expect some ancient TikTok or IG Live video of the parting of the Red Sea. If a million people migrate on foot through Time Square, I doubt there would be evidence of this migration 5,000 years later. No one is pressing you to believe it. You spend too much time and energy trying to convince yourself that it is false, rather than people trying to convince you that it's true.

Please stop crashing out. I know you know you've got nothing, and now you are just complaining. Claims of this magnitude would leave tons behind. Scholarship knows this. This is why the claim(s) are deemed lore.

Mannn listen, do you think believers give a hoot about a skeptic's degree of certainty on whether Moses existed? Instead of worrying about the validity of Moses existence, how about focusing on whether or not abiogenesis is true? That is YOUR worldview..by default, once the existence of any God is taken out of the equation, all you have is abiogenesis. Yet, the focus is on a God you DONT believe in, and not on the validity of the natural processes by which you yourself exist.

Just more spinning out, complaining, whining, crashing, etc... The reason this thread exists is that the overwhelming majority of Christians state that the actual existence of a Moses is to be real. And all I read here are excuses as to why we have no evidence for his existence.

I believe in the Bible, and I'm not of the belief that outside corroboration is needed. We (believers) are good over here...and we can care less what you think, feel, believe, or any other synonym you want to throw in there.

Yes, just more cope. I kind of don't blame you at this point. All you have demonstrated is more of 1) and/or 2) explained above.

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

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.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yet another misrepresented mislabel Venom. Here is the omitted step:

1. X claim doesn't have archeological or external evidence supporting it.

Still doesn't mean X didn't happen.

Next..

2. X claim would leave tons of archeological or external evidence supporting it.

Evidence such as?

3. Therefore, the claim is unfounded and is to be discarded. Which is exactly why scholarship considers this claimed event "lore".

I'm on the side of the Christian scholars who think otherwise, whether this is the minority view or not.

The books of the Bible are my evidence..and I don't want or need any evidence outside it to validate it's truth value.

.And since you also appeal to (majority/authority) scholarship, and (majority/authority) scholarship has came to this conclusion, so should you - if you care to remain consistent in your worldview.

Um, no.

You're gonna need more than "there is no external evidence supporting it".

That is the primary reason why they reject it, and the primary reason why I reject their reasoning.

Yet another misrepresented mislabel Venom. According to your given epistemology (explained ad nauseum), these (2) options are the only (2) options applicable for you. Thus, either:

a) denounce your faith
b) pivot and adopt a less literal Biblical view.

Please finally pick one and let us know?

Um, no.

This is indeed a false dichotomy.

I gave an option C.

You reject my option C, and I reject your options A & B.

Which is more evidence for options 1) and/or 2) directly above.,

Certainly not.

Yet another failed attempt, via another misplaced rubberstamp. Nice try, but no cigar for you here. I explained above. This is why advocates for "the Exodus" attempt to link other tribe(s) to the claimed Israelites in Egypt.

Oh, is that what they do?

That is them.

I'm sticking with "The Biblical Israelites were held captive in Ancient Egypt".

Please stop crashing out. I know you know you've got nothing, and now you are just complaining. Claims of this magnitude would leave tons behind.

Yeah, just like there is clear tons of evidence of a Creator (Rom 1:20) that was left behind...an entire universe and everything in it.

Yet, that still ain't good enough.

So, no.

If you won't believe based on a universe that came into being..with sentient, intelligent life that came along with it..then nothing will ever be good enough.

Scholarship knows this. This is why the claim(s) are deemed lore.

Opinions.

Just more spinning out, complaining, whining, crashing, etc... The reason this thread exists is that the overwhelming majority of Christians state that the actual existence of a Moses is to be real. And all I read here are excuses as to why we have no evidence for his existence.

Yeah, so I guess what's next on your "To-do" list for threads will be..

"Did the Biblical Prophet Zechariah Exist"...

"Christians often state that the Bible has prophets of God. One of those prophets is Zechariah. However, history does not seem to support the existence of a Zechariah. I was wondering, what evidence is there for Zechariah. Question for Debate; Did the Prophet Zechariah Exist?"

Or something like that.

Right?

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.

Wow. The false dichotomy continues.

[POI]

Yet another misrepresented mislabel Venom. Here is the omitted step:

1. X claim doesn't have archeological or external evidence supporting it.

Still doesn't mean X didn't happen.

This is just more handwaving.

1) You agree with majority/authority, and majority/authority says it's enough to deem the storyline as "lore". Which is why you perpetually look the other way here; as you have been caught.
2) Other claimed tribes in that timeframe and area left evidence to substantiate their claimed existence, but the claimed Israelites didn't.
3) All believers do here is to offer desperate excuses as for why there is no evidence for "an Exodus" in this region or during this timeframe.
4) a) Expressing circular reasoning, followed by b) expressing how you have made no effort to actually explore the claim for yourself -- (is both quite telling).

Evidence such as?

The same types of evidence found for the 'Hyksos' and others. Historians do not rest their loreals upon the claims of one "authoritative" book alone.

I'm on the side of the Christian scholars who think otherwise, whether this is the minority view or not.

This is a massive pivot.

The books of the Bible are my evidence..and I don't want or need any evidence outside it to validate it's truth value.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Um, no. You're gonna need more than "there is no external evidence supporting it". That is the primary reason why they reject it, and the primary reason why I reject their reasoning.

Yet another collection of handwave(s). I've already explained ad nauseum.

Um, no. This is indeed a false dichotomy. I gave an option C. You reject my option C, and I reject your options A & B.

According to your given epistemology, there is no 3rd option:

a) pick this option, which is the option of authority/majority, which then renders a Moses and the Exodus kaput. Which then means your belief system is also kaput.
b) Make a massive shift in your current literary view of the Bible's assertions.

Everything else is just more ranting, whining, circular reasoning, and handwaving -- (none of which are viable 3rd options in your distinct case).

Certainly not.

Yet another handwave.

Oh, is that what they do? That is them. I'm sticking with "The Biblical Israelites were held captive in Ancient Egypt".

You stick to this course of action, based upon fallacious reasoning and handwaving alone, yes.

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

That's enough stalling from you. 41th 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.

[Difflugia]

Ohhh, so if all the historians agreed that the evidence supporting Jesus as the risen Messiah is overwhelmingly strong, you will become a Christian.

Almost certainly. Evidence that would convince "all the historians" is probably going to convince me, too. Or do you think that my opinion isn't based on evidence, either? Are you maybe projecting a little?

Because after all, any opinion that you have otherwise, cant hold a candle do theirs.

Do you have to turn every argument into a straw man? The opinion that we were talking about is specifically one that you refused to defend with any sort of evidence. If I bring up an opinion during a debate that I refuse to defend with anything but the assertion that all opinions are equal, then yes, that opinion couldn't hold a candle to an expert's opinion. That's not "any opinion," mind you, just the ones that are backed by no more than hubris.

You're opinion wouldn't be "just like" theirs, so you'd become a Jesus worshipper.

If the evidence were sufficient to convince even the majority of historians that Jesus was real and divine, I had no interest in learning anything about the topic, and were willing to rely only on my modest ignorance, then yes, I'd become a Jesus worshipper.

Is that correct?

As long as we dial the goalposts back to where they were and rectify the straw men that you've made of my claims, then yes.

Ok, then I'll go with the Christian "experts" with their "supported" opinion that Moses existed.

In TD&D, that's fine. This is C&A, though.

How about that?

In general, that's fine. That's not what this particular debate is about, but as a personal epistemology, I've seen worse.

Um, no.

Is that the kind of evidence that you think convinces historians? "Um, no?"

It is more like "I normally wouldn't participate in such a discussion...but there is so much nonsense in the OP, I can't resist."

And yet, you can't articulate any reason to think that it's nonsense other than your own admittedly baseless confidence?



"Um, no."

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.

If I don't know, I don't know.

If you're going to engage in a debate about something and expect your responses to be considered in good faith, it would be at least polite to try to learn something about the subject. The stuff we're talking about in this thread isn't exactly difficult for Google to find.

But, neither do you.

Is that the source of your problem? You think that I share your "modest ignorance" about scholarship involving the Old Testament and Ancient Near East? Do you think everyone does and the rest of us are trying to bluff through this, too? Whoever bluffs most convincingly wins?

Just out of curiosity, when you see a house, but turn around and can't see it anymore, do you think it's still there?

[SiNcE_1985]

Almost certainly. Evidence that would convince "all the historians" is probably going to convince me, too. Or do you think that my opinion isn't based on evidence, either? Are you maybe projecting a little?

Um, no.

You see, I am an independent thinker. Yes, on a case by case basis (as I keep stressing), I do lean on "experts" because as bright as I am, I don't know everything.

However, I have my own mind too..and particularly when it comes to the theoretical sciences, scientists are usually convinced by X, until Y evidence comes along and proves X wrong.

This is something that is welcomed in science, and is the holy grail of modesty, living and learning, and making adjustments along the way.

But as beautiful as that is, I could have did that (drawn a wrong conclusion based on prior evidence) myself, and I'm not a "certified" scientist.

So, what separates them, from me?

That said, on a case by case basis, I'll appeal to experts, but not on every...single...thing.

Last I checked, scientists/scholars are human beings.

They are imperfect. They have biases. They have prejudices.

And some are even straight up liars.

God is the only being that I'm giving my 100% trust and faith in.

Let God be true, and every man a liar (Rom 3:4).

Do you have to turn every argument into a straw man? The opinion that we were talking about is specifically one that you refused to defend with any sort of evidence.

Um, no.

My evidence is the Bible, which is a point I've made blatantly clear throughout this discourse.

Oh, but I get it...you view the Bible with so little veracity, that your eyes don't even see sentences structured as "I believe in the veracity of the Bible and am not of the belief that it needs any outside corroboration".

I get it.

If I bring up an opinion during a debate that I refuse to defend with anything but the assertion that all opinions are equal, then yes, that opinion couldn't hold a candle to an expert's opinion. That's not "any opinion," mind you, just the ones that are backed by no more than hubris.

First of all, not all experts agree on this issue.

So, like I said, if my non-expert "opinion" on the issue can't hold a candle to the experts...then I'll simply stand behind the opinion of the Christian "experts" of whom share my opinion, on this issue.

Now, how about that?

If the evidence were sufficient to convince even the majority of historians that Jesus was real and divine, I had no interest in learning anything about the topic, and were willing to rely only on my modest ignorance, then yes, I'd become a Jesus worshipper.

Makes no sense.

As long as we dial the goalposts back to where they were and rectify the straw men that you've made of my claims, then yes.

Um, no.

I did not make a claim, I asked you a question.

In TD&D, that's fine. This is C&A, though.

Oh, is this the one where the Bible can't be used as evidence?

Is that the kind of evidence that you think convinces historians? "Um, no?"

Um, no.

Especially when, 98% of the time it is followed by a statement.

And yet, you can't articulate any reason to think that it's nonsense other than your own admittedly baseless confidence?

It certainly ain't baseless.

If you're going to engage in a debate about something and expect your responses to be considered in good faith, it would be at least polite to try to learn something about the subject. The stuff we're talking about in this thread isn't exactly difficult for Google to find.

If there was any groundbreaking new evidence as it pertains to these subjects, I'll know about it.

But just because there is lack of external supporting evidence, doesn't give skeptics reason to run amok.

And that's all I'm here for...mainly..

1. Just because there isn't external evidence outside of X, doesn't mean X is false.

and..

2. X doesn't need external evidence to corroborate it, anyway.

The entire thread is irrelevant, is what I'm trying to say.

Is that the source of your problem? You think that I share your "modest ignorance" about scholarship involving the Old Testament and Ancient Near East? Do you think everyone does and the rest of us are trying to bluff through this, too? Whoever bluffs most convincingly wins?

?

Just out of curiosity, when you see a house, but turn around and can't see it anymore, do you think it's still there?

Do I have reason to think it isn't?

[SiNcE_1985]

This is just more handwaving.
1) You agree with majority/authority, and majority/authority says it's enough to deem the storyline as "lore". Which is why you perpetually look the other way here; as you have been caught.

*Umpteenth time* Case by case.

2) Other claimed tribes in that timeframe and area left evidence to substantiate their claimed existence, but the claimed Israelites didn't.

Ok, so tomorrow, I'm gonna fly back to Detroit MI..to my old neighborhood.

And I'm gonna look for evidence of an ancient tribe of Native Americans, who may have lived and civilized through my old backyard.

I'm gonna check for MRE remains, sandwich wrappings, bedsheets, ancient pots and pans, ANYTHING to suggest that the tribe lived there.

And if I dont find anything, I'm gonna conclude that therefore, no one has ever lived there.

Let's do some good ole archeology, shall we!!

3) All believers do here is to offer desperate excuses as for why there is no evidence for "an Exodus" in this region or during this timeframe.

When I ask for observational evidence of macroevolution, I get "We need more time. It takes longer than that".

Sounds like a desperate excuse to me.

4) a) Expressing circular reasoning, followed by b) expressing how you have made no effort to actually explore the claim for yourself -- (is both quite telling).

You ain't make the abiogenesis thread yet.

That is telling.

The same types of evidence found for the 'Hyksos' and others. Historians do not rest their loreals upon the claims of one "authoritative" book alone.

It isn't one authoritative book. It is a collection of books, which testifies to the existence of Moses.

It would be a lot easier to accept the existence of Moses, if the stories behind him didn't have the Hebrew God attached to it.

That's what this is really about.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Then, it is the same circular logic you use to conclude King Tut existed.

You have no evidence outside of Egypt that he exist...no external or corroborating evidence whatsoever.

But, do you let that stop you, no.

Hmm. Sounds taxi cab fallacy'e.

[POI]

*Umpteenth time* Case by case.

*Umpteenth time* --> "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." --> Your exact words Venom, not mine.

*Umpteenth time* --> If you are to live by this sword, then you must also be willing to die by this sword. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

*Umpteenth time* --> 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.

*Umpteenth time* --> The majority of Biblical scholars and historians is not exclusive to non-Christians. No, the majority instead means both sides (believers verses not). This is why most scholarly believers take the position that these claims are merely allegorical. But I understand why you may not want to rock option b), as it takes a completely different path of mental gymnastics.

Are you rock'n a) or b) in red, at the bottom? We all finally want to know, rather than to see your perpetual handwaving, in the hopes that this demonstrated immutable set of possible conclusions, (to select from), instead just fades away like a fart in the wind.

Ok, so tomorrow, I'm gonna fly back to Detroit MI..to my old neighborhood. And I'm gonna look for evidence of an ancient tribe of Native Americans, who may have lived and civilized through my old backyard. I'm gonna check for MRE remains, sandwich wrappings, bedsheets, ancient pots and pans, ANYTHING to suggest that the tribe lived there. And if I dont find anything, I'm gonna conclude that therefore, no one has ever lived there. Let's do some good ole archeology, shall we!!

You do not even need to be this "micro" Venom. Historians/archeologists do not believe these claimed ancient Israelites lived in Egypt, at all, during the stated timeframe. And you certainly do not need to fly there. (https://detroitography.com/2021/06/25/m ... roit-1931/)

We know Native Americans inhabited Detroit through archaeological finds - (like ancient hearths at Holcombe Beach), physical remnants (burial mounds at Fort Wayne), and historical records noting settlements and trails, with early evidence pointing to Paleo-Indians around 11,000 years ago, followed by groups like the Wyandot, Ottawa, and Ojibwe using the strategic waterways for millennia before European settlement.

Evidence of Native Presence:

Ancient Sites: Paleo-Indian hearths and geological features near Lake St. Clair suggest human presence in the Detroit area as far back as 11,000 years ago.

Burial Mounds: A significant burial mound at Fort Wayne indicates long-standing Native use of the site, notes the Detroit History Podcast.

Archaeological Discoveries: Ongoing work continues to uncover evidence of earlier habitation, sometimes underwater due to sea level changes.

Tribal Presence: Groups like the Anishinaabe, Wyandot, Iroquois, Fox, Miami, and Sauk utilized the Detroit River area for hunting, fishing (especially sturgeon), and gathering for centuries before Cadillac's arrival in 1701.

Indigenous Trails: Maps from the 1931 Archaeological Atlas show trails used by Indigenous peoples, with some believed to be the basis for modern Detroit streets, according to (Detroitography) - as seen in the link above..

Key Locations: Belle Isle: Historically used for fishing, hunting, and spiritual practices by Native Americans. Fort Wayne: A significant site for various tribes for over a thousand years, noted by (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/native ... etroit.htm).

When I ask for observational evidence of macroevolution, I get "We need more time. It takes longer than that".

Not chasing the red herring. I already designated a thread to evolution, tailored JUST for you. (viewtopic.php?t=41715&start=130). Guess what? You handwaved there too. However, it does seem quite silly to debate a peer-reviewed theoretical science though. However, I guess these are the lengths a fundamental believer would have to go to in order to protect/retain belief in confirmed legendary stories and lore.

It isn't one authoritative book. It is a collection of books, which testifies to the existence of Moses.

Right, the Pentateuch, which was all apparently written by one dude --> "Moses".

It would be a lot easier to accept the existence of Moses, if the stories behind him didn't have the Hebrew God attached to it. hat's what this is really about.

Nah, under YOUR EPISTEMOPLOGY, I'll accept the existence of a Jesus, no problem. But then, under YOUR SAME EPISTEMOLOGY, you must reject other facets which force your hand in denouncing your faith. Let me know if you want to finally make a deal? Otherwise, continue with the handwaving and pivoting abound.

Then, it is the same circular logic you use to conclude King Tut existed.

I already addressed this. Did you forget?

You have no evidence outside of Egypt that he exist...no external or corroborating evidence whatsoever. But, do you let that stop you, no. Hmm. Sounds taxi cab fallacy'e.

Nice strawman.

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

That's enough stalling from you. 42th 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.

[POI]

Last I checked, scientists/scholars are human beings. They are imperfect. They have biases. They have prejudices. And some are even straight up liars.

Peer review in science is a quality control process where experts in the same field (peers) evaluate a researcher's work before publication to ensure its accuracy, originality, validity, and adherence to scientific standards, acting as a crucial filter to maintain credibility and prevent flawed research from entering the scientific record. Reviewers check study design, methods, data, conclusions, and clarity, providing feedback that often leads to revisions, making it a cornerstone for trustworthy scientific communication.

How it works

Submission: A researcher submits a manuscript (article) to an academic journal.

Editor Assignment: A journal editor sends the paper to several qualified peer reviewers.

Expert Evaluation: Reviewers critique the work for quality, methodology, significance, and potential errors, looking for soundness in design and analysis.

Feedback & Decision: Reviewers send their reports to the editor, who then decides to accept, reject, or request revisions (major or minor) from the authors.

Revision & Resubmission: Authors address reviewers' comments, often undergoing multiple rounds of review until the paper meets publication standards.

Why it's important

Ensures Quality: Filters out weak or scientifically unsound research.

Enhances Research: Provides authors with constructive feedback to improve their work.

Builds Credibility: Makes published research more reliable and trustworthy for other scientists and the public.

Detects Errors: Catches mistakes, logical gaps, or questionable interpretations before dissemination

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

Kent Hovind has not published any work in a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journal. His claims and "Hovind Theory" are entirely rejected by the scientific community. I guess this means he is at the very top of the "imperfect liar-list" you described.