How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

In particular "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong, period" is an absolutely false claim and unfair.

I don't want to say all skeptics automatically reject the entire Bible, but I do believe it is a tendency among many to automatically discount claims made in the Bible. I've presented this tendency before with Bretz proposing a catastrophic flood and it was automatically rejected.

Because it happens to affirm the Bible, then it is on that basis it is rejected. How can I say this? Because this is exactly what happened when Bretz (who is not a Christian) theorized that the Washington Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood. It was rejected by others because it sounded too much like the Bible. But, it was only later accepted when ice dams (which there was no evidence for) were proposed to have multiple, local floods instead of a single, massive flood.

viewtopic.php?p=1061691#p1061691

Its cosmology, although basically incorrect, reflects primitive human views from the non scientific era 3000 and more years ago;

Yes, it was reflecting the views of the people that it was written by and for the people it was written to. However, I would disagree it's basically incorrect. It was correct in that it was how the cosmology was viewed at that time. As to if it has exact correspondence with what the universe actually is, I do not feel it's very important. We don't even know what most of the universe actually is. Take dark matter and dark energy, which we know practically nothing about, which purportedly comprises 95% of the universe. And the remaining 5% we know very little of also. But, the broad strokes of their description of cosmology could be correct. For example, I believe there is a strong argument that we actually are near the center of the entire universe.

[Replying to otseng in post #892]
Scholars suggest humility should play a greater role in pronouncements, either supporting or disproving Biblical claims via archeology.

Of course. And not sure if you're applying this to me, but to reiterate, I've never set out to prove anything. What I stated at the onset was:

"Even with a large body of archaeological evidence, I do not claim archaeology will prove, or even support, all the claims in the Bible. But, I will claim that archaeology confirms and aligns with many claims of the Bible."
viewtopic.php?p=1065843#p1065843

No it does not support your view which is that the Hebrews were in Egypt substantially enough to be a en enslaved population once Hyksos rule was ended so as to perform the Exodus later on.

If the Hyksos dominated lower Egypt, it would be quite a lot of people.

The view that the Hebrews adopted the Phonecian alphabet when they replaces Canaan long after the time suggested by anyone for the Exodus does not in any way support you argument for Joseph of a Hebrew component of the Hyksos before the New Kingdom dynasty.

Of course there's no direct correlation. Why should there be?

Sure Moses could have used Canaanite or even Egyptian to author the Exodus, but I see no decent evidence produced by you to show that he did.

All I'm doing is showing a necessary step exists - the origin of the alphabet prior to Moses.

I think this reveals a difference in how we are approaching this. My job is not to find evidence to support every single detail of the Biblical account. Am I going to find copies of the Torah that Moses wrote? Highly doubtful. What I am doing is presenting pieces of the puzzle that fit with the bigger picture and increasing the plausibility of the Biblical account.

Do I have to prove that the Hyksos/Canaanites were not Hebrews or do you have to prove that they were?

I have already produced evidence to link the Israelites in Avaris. I do not claim it is proof, but it is evidence to argue for basis to believe in it.

I remind you that Manetho does not connect the Hyksos with Hebrews and Josephus, evidently makes the connection himself to suit his own agenda.

Note that I've never referenced Josephus as evidence the Hyksos were Hebrews. The only evidence I've used is archaeological evidence to show Hebrews existed in Goshen.

But I have already shown that the Hyksos are not at all like Hebrews so much that you had to excuse this by saying they were in some formative state where they sacrificed people and donkeys.

Note that I've never said all the Hyksos were Hebrews. The only claim I've made is they were Canaanite. Yes, they had "pagan" practices, such as worshipping a form of Baal. But, a subset of them were Israelite, as evidenced by the palace at Avaris.

I'll add, the statement "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong," is for many skeptics an overly broad claim. There is no reason a skeptic of religious faith should automatically dispute any of the Bible's non supernatural, historical claims. In fact it is reasonable that the Bible skeptic would generally accept (at least provisionally) Old Testament as readily as those from other ancient sources. Certainly a historian or archaeologist would consider that all sources, whether secular or religious, should be examined for personal, tribal, national, and religious bias; but that they should not be rejected automatically because of potential bias. I am not in the least surprised that many, if not most of the historical claims found in the Bible would be generally supported by archaeology.

I certainly would not put Old Testament historical claims in the same category as (for example) claims made from The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, or any other writing whose provenance cannot be traced back to the time it claims to references; especially when such provenance includes a supernatural source (like "An angel gave it to me, I 'translated it' and then the angel took it back).

Christians differ on which, if any, should be taken literally as actual events and which were never intended to portray actual historical events or phenomena.

Agreed.

It seems to me that fundamentalists do themselves and their Faith a disservice to insist all of these passages be treated the same, as literally true historical events.

If they insist without extra-Biblical support, I agree with you. But, if they also present it with extra-Biblical evidence, I see no problem with their approach.

[otseng]

The Bible explains that eventually a pharaoh arose that no longer had any respect for what Joseph had done.

Exod 1:9-10
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we:
10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.

What the Egyptians did during the Second Intermediate Period was to try to reconquer Egypt from the Hyksos.

One Egyptian ruler that tried was King Senebkay.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... cuted.html

"King Senebkay lived between 1650 and 1550 B.C. near the ancient Egyptian cemetery of Abydos, about 300 miles (483 kilometers) south of Cairo. He was one of four mysterious pharaohs whose tombs were discovered in January 2014 and who belonged to a previously unknown royal dynasty."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/cult ... rchaeology

He was killed in battle and beaten up pretty badly by his enemies.

Studies on his skeleton reveal he was most likely killed in battle. There are eighteen wounds on his bones, impacting his lower back, feet and ankles. The cutting angles suggest he was hit from below, perhaps while he was on a chariot or on horseback. Upon falling to the ground, he was killed by several axe blows to the skull. The curvature of the wounds on the skull indicate the use of battle axes contemporary to the Second Intermediate Period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senebkay

"Possibly the king died in battle fighting against the Hyksos kings who at that time ruled northern Egypt from their capital at Avaris in the Nile Delta."
https://www.penn.museum/about/press-roo ... c-evidence

He is now remembered as the first Pharaoh to die in battle.

"The new results suggest that Senebkay might be the first Egyptian king who died in battle."
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/ ... in-battle/

"Senebkay’s body was not mummified for some time after his death, indicating that he did not die in a time or place where his body could be properly treated for burial in a timely manner."
https://mummipedia.fandom.com/wiki/Woseribre_Senebkay

As with all Egyptian defeats, his reign was never recorded by the Egyptians and was only revealed through recent archaeology.

"Unlike these numbered dynasties, the pharaohs of the Abydos Dynasty were forgotten to history and their royal necropolis unknown until this discovery of Senebkay’s tomb."
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/sci ... 01698.html

His enemies made it a point to make sure he was dead dead.

The new analysis showed that the mummy is in very bad shape. The head is no longer connected to the body, many vertebrae and ribs are loose, and there’s very little soft tissue or muscles left on the bones.

Seqenenre had no bodily fractures, but his head and face were severely injured. The large fracture on his forehead was attributed to a “heavy sharp object like a sword or an axe,” according to the paper. The location of this injury suggests an assailant delivered the killing blow from a position above the pharaoh. A double-edged weapon, like a bronze battle-axe, likely caused the “gaping fracture” above Seqenenre’s right eyebrow, and some kind of blunt force object, like an axe handle, was responsible for multiple blows on the pharaoh’s face, according to the paper. A penetrating wound below the mummy’s left ear and into the base of his skull was likely caused by a spearhead.

The strong hit must have caused the King to fall down, possibly on his back. The King may have received several attacks from the assailant with the Hyksos battle axe, possibly using its blade to inflict the fracture above the right eyebrow...Then a thick stick (possibly the handle of the axe) was used to smash the nose and the right eye of the King. The assailant hit the King’s left side of the face with the axe. Another assailant at the left side used a spear horizontally to pierce deeply the lower part of the left ear...and reached the foramen magnum [the part of the skull that attaches to the spinal column]. We assume that the King was dead at this point, and that his body was rolled to lie at his left side where he received several blows to the right side of the skull possibly by a dagger. The dead King likely stayed lying down on his left side for some time enough for the body to start decomposition as the brain shifted to this dependent side.

https://gizmodo.com/seriously-gruesome- ... 1846282026



His son, Ahmose I, most likely quite eager to get revenge on the death of his father, succeeded in overpowering the Hyksos. He reconquered lower Egypt and even extended Egyptian rule into Canaan and Nubia. He reigned from c. 1550–1525 BC and started the New Kingdom and the 18th Dynasty.

"During his reign, Ahmose completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I

"These records indicate that Ahmose I led three attacks against Avaris, the Hyksos capital, but also had to quell a small rebellion further south in Egypt. After this, in the fourth attack, he conquered the city. He completed his victory over the Hyksos by conquering their stronghold Sharuhen near Gaza after a three-year siege. Ahmose would have conquered Avaris by the 18th or 19th year of his reign at the very latest."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I

[TRANSPONDER]

The Bible explains that eventually a pharaoh arose that no longer had any respect for what Joseph had done.

Exod 1:9-10
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we:
10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.

What the Egyptians did during the Second Intermediate Period was to try to reconquer Egypt from the Hyksos.

One Egyptian ruler that tried was King Senebkay.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... cuted.html

"King Senebkay lived between 1650 and 1550 B.C. near the ancient Egyptian cemetery of Abydos, about 300 miles (483 kilometers) south of Cairo. He was one of four mysterious pharaohs whose tombs were discovered in January 2014 and who belonged to a previously unknown royal dynasty."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/cult ... rchaeology

He was killed in battle and beaten up pretty badly by his enemies.

Studies on his skeleton reveal he was most likely killed in battle. There are eighteen wounds on his bones, impacting his lower back, feet and ankles. The cutting angles suggest he was hit from below, perhaps while he was on a chariot or on horseback. Upon falling to the ground, he was killed by several axe blows to the skull. The curvature of the wounds on the skull indicate the use of battle axes contemporary to the Second Intermediate Period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senebkay

"Possibly the king died in battle fighting against the Hyksos kings who at that time ruled northern Egypt from their capital at Avaris in the Nile Delta."
https://www.penn.museum/about/press-roo ... c-evidence

He is now remembered as the first Pharaoh to die in battle.

"The new results suggest that Senebkay might be the first Egyptian king who died in battle."
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/ ... in-battle/

"Senebkay’s body was not mummified for some time after his death, indicating that he did not die in a time or place where his body could be properly treated for burial in a timely manner."
https://mummipedia.fandom.com/wiki/Woseribre_Senebkay

As with all Egyptian defeats, his reign was never recorded by the Egyptians and was only revealed through recent archaeology.

"Unlike these numbered dynasties, the pharaohs of the Abydos Dynasty were forgotten to history and their royal necropolis unknown until this discovery of Senebkay’s tomb."
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/sci ... 01698.html

His enemies made it a point to make sure he was dead dead.

The new analysis showed that the mummy is in very bad shape. The head is no longer connected to the body, many vertebrae and ribs are loose, and there’s very little soft tissue or muscles left on the bones.

Seqenenre had no bodily fractures, but his head and face were severely injured. The large fracture on his forehead was attributed to a “heavy sharp object like a sword or an axe,” according to the paper. The location of this injury suggests an assailant delivered the killing blow from a position above the pharaoh. A double-edged weapon, like a bronze battle-axe, likely caused the “gaping fracture” above Seqenenre’s right eyebrow, and some kind of blunt force object, like an axe handle, was responsible for multiple blows on the pharaoh’s face, according to the paper. A penetrating wound below the mummy’s left ear and into the base of his skull was likely caused by a spearhead.

The strong hit must have caused the King to fall down, possibly on his back. The King may have received several attacks from the assailant with the Hyksos battle axe, possibly using its blade to inflict the fracture above the right eyebrow...Then a thick stick (possibly the handle of the axe) was used to smash the nose and the right eye of the King. The assailant hit the King’s left side of the face with the axe. Another assailant at the left side used a spear horizontally to pierce deeply the lower part of the left ear...and reached the foramen magnum [the part of the skull that attaches to the spinal column]. We assume that the King was dead at this point, and that his body was rolled to lie at his left side where he received several blows to the right side of the skull possibly by a dagger. The dead King likely stayed lying down on his left side for some time enough for the body to start decomposition as the brain shifted to this dependent side.

https://gizmodo.com/seriously-gruesome- ... 1846282026



His son, Ahmose I, most likely quite eager to get revenge on the death of his father, succeeded in overpowering the Hyksos. He reconquered lower Egypt and even extended Egyptian rule into Canaan and Nubia. He reigned from c. 1550–1525 BC and started the New Kingdom and the 18th Dynasty.

"During his reign, Ahmose completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I

"These records indicate that Ahmose I led three attacks against Avaris, the Hyksos capital, but also had to quell a small rebellion further south in Egypt. After this, in the fourth attack, he conquered the city. He completed his victory over the Hyksos by conquering their stronghold Sharuhen near Gaza after a three-year siege. Ahmose would have conquered Avaris by the 18th or 19th year of his reign at the very latest."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I

That's all fine, but I see no valid reason to suppose that Joseph or indeed Hebrews were anything to do with it.

[TRANSPONDER]

In particular "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong, period" is an absolutely false claim and unfair.

I don't want to say all skeptics automatically reject the entire Bible, but I do believe it is a tendency among many to automatically discount claims made in the Bible. I've presented this tendency before with Bretz proposing a catastrophic flood and it was automatically rejected.

Because it happens to affirm the Bible, then it is on that basis it is rejected. How can I say this? Because this is exactly what happened when Bretz (who is not a Christian) theorized that the Washington Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood. It was rejected by others because it sounded too much like the Bible. But, it was only later accepted when ice dams (which there was no evidence for) were proposed to have multiple, local floods instead of a single, massive flood.

viewtopic.php?p=1061691#p1061691

Its cosmology, although basically incorrect, reflects primitive human views from the non scientific era 3000 and more years ago;

Yes, it was reflecting the views of the people that it was written by and for the people it was written to. However, I would disagree it's basically incorrect. It was correct in that it was how the cosmology was viewed at that time. As to if it has exact correspondence with what the universe actually is, I do not feel it's very important. We don't even know what most of the universe actually is. Take dark matter and dark energy, which we know practically nothing about, which purportedly comprises 95% of the universe. And the remaining 5% we know very little of also. But, the broad strokes of their description of cosmology could be correct. For example, I believe there is a strong argument that we actually are near the center of the entire universe.

[Replying to otseng in post #892]
Scholars suggest humility should play a greater role in pronouncements, either supporting or disproving Biblical claims via archeology.

Of course. And not sure if you're applying this to me, but to reiterate, I've never set out to prove anything. What I stated at the onset was:

"Even with a large body of archaeological evidence, I do not claim archaeology will prove, or even support, all the claims in the Bible. But, I will claim that archaeology confirms and aligns with many claims of the Bible."
viewtopic.php?p=1065843#p1065843

No it does not support your view which is that the Hebrews were in Egypt substantially enough to be a en enslaved population once Hyksos rule was ended so as to perform the Exodus later on.

If the Hyksos dominated lower Egypt, it would be quite a lot of people.

The view that the Hebrews adopted the Phonecian alphabet when they replaces Canaan long after the time suggested by anyone for the Exodus does not in any way support you argument for Joseph of a Hebrew component of the Hyksos before the New Kingdom dynasty.

Of course there's no direct correlation. Why should there be?

Sure Moses could have used Canaanite or even Egyptian to author the Exodus, but I see no decent evidence produced by you to show that he did.

All I'm doing is showing a necessary step exists - the origin of the alphabet prior to Moses.

I think this reveals a difference in how we are approaching this. My job is not to find evidence to support every single detail of the Biblical account. Am I going to find copies of the Torah that Moses wrote? Highly doubtful. What I am doing is presenting pieces of the puzzle that fit with the bigger picture and increasing the plausibility of the Biblical account.

Do I have to prove that the Hyksos/Canaanites were not Hebrews or do you have to prove that they were?

I have already produced evidence to link the Israelites in Avaris. I do not claim it is proof, but it is evidence to argue for basis to believe in it.

I remind you that Manetho does not connect the Hyksos with Hebrews and Josephus, evidently makes the connection himself to suit his own agenda.

Note that I've never referenced Josephus as evidence the Hyksos were Hebrews. The only evidence I've used is archaeological evidence to show Hebrews existed in Goshen.

But I have already shown that the Hyksos are not at all like Hebrews so much that you had to excuse this by saying they were in some formative state where they sacrificed people and donkeys.

Note that I've never said all the Hyksos were Hebrews. The only claim I've made is they were Canaanite. Yes, they had "pagan" practices, such as worshipping a form of Baal. But, a subset of them were Israelite, as evidenced by the palace at Avaris.

I'll add, the statement "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong," is for many skeptics an overly broad claim. There is no reason a skeptic of religious faith should automatically dispute any of the Bible's non supernatural, historical claims. In fact it is reasonable that the Bible skeptic would generally accept (at least provisionally) Old Testament as readily as those from other ancient sources. Certainly a historian or archaeologist would consider that all sources, whether secular or religious, should be examined for personal, tribal, national, and religious bias; but that they should not be rejected automatically because of potential bias. I am not in the least surprised that many, if not most of the historical claims found in the Bible would be generally supported by archaeology.

I certainly would not put Old Testament historical claims in the same category as (for example) claims made from The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, or any other writing whose provenance cannot be traced back to the time it claims to references; especially when such provenance includes a supernatural source (like "An angel gave it to me, I 'translated it' and then the angel took it back).

Christians differ on which, if any, should be taken literally as actual events and which were never intended to portray actual historical events or phenomena.

Agreed.

It seems to me that fundamentalists do themselves and their Faith a disservice to insist all of these passages be treated the same, as literally true historical events.

If they insist without extra-Biblical support, I agree with you. But, if they also present it with extra-Biblical evidence, I see no problem with their approach.

Again I see nothing here that anything to do with hebrews, other than the claim that you have produced some evidence to show that they were involved with the Hyksos during the time they ruled in Egypt. You haven't done any such thing, neither with trying to link Canaanite script with Hebrews. It seems rather than they picked up their alphabet from the Phoenecians when they appeared in Canaan around the 11th c and did not use the proto -Canaanite script. The statue with three colours hardly related to Joseph, the four room house rather indicates a general middle eastern (as distinct from Egyptian) model and not specifically linked with Hebrews and I have shown reasons to see that cylinder - seal as Hyksos rather than Hebrew, especially as the Exodus does not (as I recall) show the Hebrews as rulers, but as slaves.

I think you have nothing as evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt before the Hebrew state appeared and one could then have reason to see them in Egypt in numbers. On the other hand the evidence of pagan practices in Avaris indicates that they weren't Hebrews. I suppose it could be argued that they hardly had the Hebrew rites before the Law was given and backslid into Set or Baal - worship as soon as Moses' back was turned, but it also works if they weren't there at all and the Exodus is just an origin - fantasy loosely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos.

[Diogenes]

In particular "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong, period" is an absolutely false claim and unfair.

I don't want to say all skeptics automatically reject the entire Bible, but I do believe it is a tendency among many to automatically discount claims made in the Bible. I've presented this tendency before with Bretz proposing a catastrophic flood and it was automatically rejected.

Because it happens to affirm the Bible, then it is on that basis it is rejected. How can I say this? Because this is exactly what happened when Bretz (who is not a Christian) theorized that the Washington Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood. It was rejected by others because it sounded too much like the Bible. But, it was only later accepted when ice dams (which there was no evidence for) were proposed to have multiple, local floods instead of a single, massive flood.

viewtopic.php?p=1061691#p10616s91
Bretz Schemtz! Bretz, as you say, is not all skeptics. Whomever he is, he is one and therefore statistically insignificant.

Its cosmology, although basically incorrect, reflects primitive human views from the non scientific era 3000 and more years ago;

Yes, it was reflecting the views of the people that it was written by and for the people it was written to. However, I would disagree it's basically incorrect. It was correct in that it was how the cosmology was viewed at that time. As to if it has exact correspondence with what the universe actually is, I do not feel it's very important. We don't even know what most of the universe actually is. Take dark matter and dark energy, which we know practically nothing about, which purportedly comprises 95% of the universe. And the remaining 5% we know very little of also. But, the broad strokes of their description of cosmology could be correct. For example, I believe there is a strong argument that we actually are near the center of the entire universe.

That is my point, that the Bible does not reflect the truth from an omniscient God, but the views of stumbling humans at the time of the writings. As for us being near the center of the universe, what is your basis for such a statement? From what I read there IS no 'center' of the universe.
ww.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/09/17/where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose he is basing that on the idea that everything in the universe is moving away from us.In fact as the universe is expanding everything is moving away from everything else and I think we DO know where the center of the universe (our visible universe) is, and the hope is that the Webb telescope will be able to penetrate the dust and gas and show us what it looks like.

[Diogenes]

I suppose he is basing that on the idea that everything in the universe is moving away from us.In fact as the universe is expanding everything is moving away from everything else and I think we DO know where the center of the universe (our visible universe) is, and the hope is that the Webb telescope will be able to penetrate the dust and gas and show us what it looks like.

I was reading about this recently. What seems strange to me is that yes, the universe is expanding... at a very fast rate, about 67 km/second (or aboet 73 km per second, depending on which data you use) "per 3.26 million light-years." [I put the last in quotes because I do not understand it and don't want to give the false impression I do.] BUT, due to gravity, the Earth remains the same distance from the Sun. The entire solar system maintains the same relationship with its components. Even galaxies remain intact at the same time the universe as a whole is rapidly expanding away from... what? Apparently there IS no 'center.' I don't pretend to understand this, except that 'they' claim the universe HAS NO CENTER.

The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.
....
Throughout history, humans have wrongly thought we were at or near the center of the universe —whether that center was the Earth, the sun or even the Milky Way galaxy. But no matter how special we humans think we are, the universe has, so far, shown otherwise.

https://www.livescience.com/62547-what- ... verse.html

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct.I was thinking tabletop model universe where the BB was the point of origin of Our universe and so there is a centre of origin.

But I gather space time doesn't work like that and while time logically may converge at a center, we can never know where it is as it's everywhere. However, we can (with the Webb) look back to the origin center of whatever time we happen to look at.

[otseng]

That's all fine, but I see no valid reason to suppose that Joseph or indeed Hebrews were anything to do with it.

The point is it aligns with the Biblical account of Exod 1:9-10.

As for us being near the center of the universe, what is your basis for such a statement? From what I read there IS no 'center' of the universe.

And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.

I suppose he is basing that on the idea that everything in the universe is moving away from us.In fact as the universe is expanding everything is moving away from everything else and I think we DO know where the center of the universe (our visible universe) is, and the hope is that the Webb telescope will be able to penetrate the dust and gas and show us what it looks like.

Yes and it has to do with the topology of the universe. I debated about it in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

[otseng]

Brickmakers, Tomb of Rekhmire, ca. 1479–1425 BC

After Ahmose I reconquered Egypt and the surrounding areas, the conquered foreigners, including the Hyksos, were then forced as slaves.

"New Kingdom, with its relentless military operations, is the epoch of large-scale foreign slavery".
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

"The shift in the status of local work force is an evident sign of an overall evolution of Egyptian social fabric as a result of foreign involvement during the late Dynasty 18. Military and commercial activity brought many Asiatics to Egypt, either as booty or as slaves bought in slave markets."
https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56 ... -6151.html

"Ahmose’s officers and soldiers were rewarded with spoil and captives, who became personal slaves."
https://www.britannica.com/place/ancien ... 9-1075-bce

Ahmose, son of Ebana, served in the Egyptian military under the pharaohs Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I.

Ahmose was awarded slaves and other spoils by the pharaoh after Avaris was sacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose,_son_of_Ebana

The foreigners captured during military campaigns are, for example, referred to in the Annals of Thutmose III as "men in captivity" and individuals were referred to as "dependents" (mrj). In reward for his services in the construction of temples across Egypt, Thutmose III rewarded his official Minmose over 150 "dependents". During and after the reign of Amenhotep II, coerced temple labor was only performed by male and female slaves.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

If we look at the imagery of people making bricks in Rekhmire’s tomb, their dress is of simple loincloths like those of Egyptian peasants. Yet, the accompanying text specifically identifies them as captives brought by his majesty to make bricks for the temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes.

The men have various Levantine traits, one has blue eyes, two have light colored body hair and all three have light skin and hair. None of these physical traits would be used to depict Egyptian men. Another wall within the same tomb depicts Levantines at work, wearing plain white kilts, also an Egyptian style.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/levant ... yptian-art

Exod 1:11
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.

Semitic ("Asiatic") laborers in Egypt making bricks, etc. (15th Century BCE), doing what Bible describes Hebrews as doing when enslaved in Egypt. The captions include the descriptions: "Captives whom his majesty brought, for the works of the temple of Amon" and "The taskmaster, he says to the builders: "The rod is in my hand; be not idle."

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/nelc1 ... lide2.html

Exod 1:14
And they embittered their life by hard labours, in the clay and in brick-making, and all the works in the plains, according to all the works, wherein they caused them to serve with violence.