The bricks of Pithom
			Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/22/2002, 11:53:16 Author Profile Mail author

Hi Folks, I've been "sitting" on this topic, finding it quite sometime ago in the references of my Bible. This is in regards to the account of the treatment of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. I've read here many times that there is no evidence in Egypt for these accounts. Apparently, in 1883, a Sir Flinders Petrie unearthed the cities of Pithom and Ramses. Following is an excerpt from a link I just dug up regarding what he found that describes the findings far better than I can. "Now, it is a very curious and interesting fact that the Pithom bricks are of three qualities. In the lower courses of these massive cellar walls they are mixed with chopped straw; higher up, when the straw may be supposed to have [Page 50] run short, the clay is found to be mixed with reeds­the same kind of reeds which grow to this day in the bed of the old Pharaonic canal, and which are translated as "stubble" in the Bible. Finally, when the last reeds were used up, the bricks of the uppermost courses consist of mere Nile mud, with no binding substance whatever. So here we have the whole pathetic Bible narrative surviving in solid evidence to the present time. We go down to the bottom of one of these cellars. We see the good bricks for which the straw was provided. Some few feet higher we see those for which the wretched Hebrews had to seek reeds, or stubble. We hear them cry aloud, "Can we make bricks without straw ?" Here's the link: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/edwards/pharaohs/pharaohs-2.html What do you think? Vicki Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 11:56:17

| Recommend | Alert

Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message

Re: The bricks of Pithom
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 11/22/2002, 12:12:40 Author Profile Mail author

I'm not informed on the topic, really, but it seems to make pretty good sense that the strongest bricks would be at the base, and they could use softer bricks the higher up they went. I'm not sure this confirms anything except that bricks were made both with and without straw in ancient times. I don't think many deny that much of the O.T. records actual events or traditions, so I'm not sure what the point of this is. -Dan

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: The bricks of Pithom
Re: Re: The bricks of Pithom -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/22/2002, 13:24:13 Author Profile Mail author

Thanks for your comment, Dan! Why would they use softer bricks the higher up they went? I'm not well famliar with the architecture of the times. I hope others, who do, will offer their comments! Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: The bricks of Pithom
Re: Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 11/22/2002, 13:55:30 Author Profile Mail author

I'm not aware of their architecture either. But, it stands to reason that the strongest bricks must be at the bottom, since they have the most weight on them. The bricks at the top, comparatively, are not setting a foundation, and have comparitively no weight on them. While they may not have understood gravity completely, I'm sure they understood that putting more weight on something required it to be a bit stronger. Even today the foundation in buildings is the strongest component--it just makes sense, since everything else is resting on it. As I say, I don't know much about this topic. But it seems reasonable to me that ancient civs (not just Israel) might have used straw in their bricks for foundation. -Dan

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Fatuous, deluded reasoning
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/22/2002, 16:00:58 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Vicki, The idea that just because some actual historical name, person, artifact or what have you is found in the Bible that this validates the truth of the Bible reports is just too stupid to credit. It's fatuous, deluded reasoning (and I'm not referring to you, but to anyone who would believe such a ludicrous idea). I repeat: the existence of 221-B Baker Street in no way validates the historical truth of the Sherlock Holmes stories. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Fatuous, deluded reasoning
Re: Fatuous, deluded reasoning -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 11/23/2002, 04:22:40 Author Profile Mail author

.....or that the rest of us know for a fact that your name is Martin. You have given us no reason not to believe......but then. TLC

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

More fatuous "reasoning"
Re: Re: Fatuous, deluded reasoning -- TLC		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 09:30:12 Author Profile Mail author

TLC, Didn't have anything reasonable to contribute, eh TLC? Are you really as confused and logically inept as to consider the absense of an active disproof of an existential claim equivalent to a proof or even strong evidence of the reverse?? Really? Besides, I have posted hundreds of posts that show the Bible is utterly unreliable over the years, so don't be so snide as to claim that I've never addressed the issues more narrowly! The view most solidly established through scholarly archeology and history and anthropology is that at most a certain sub-population of Jews voluntarily agreed to work as indentured servants of the Egpytians, as did many other surrounding peoples. Thus, according to the very best evidence, the claim that the Jews were captured slaves of the Egyptians appears very much to be a myth, and the preponderance of the evidence is that -- directly contrary to the Bible claims -- the Exodus never happened. - Martin Modified by Martin at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 13:26:02

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Insert Foot into Mouth
Re: More fatuous "reasoning" -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: TLC ® 11/23/2002, 22:22:52 Author Profile Mail author

Hello Martin; Good grief! No! No! No! I've done it again. You misunderstood what I meant. How sloppy of me! I intended just to comment on your Sherlock Holmes anology, nothing else in the thread. My "confused and logical inept" comparable anology was: Just because you have posted hundreds of marvelous posts with the handle of "Martin" does not prove 100% beyond a reasonable doubt (Epistimology 101?) that your name really is Martin. Is this not an appropriate parable? Of course the probability for your name being actually Martin, far outweighs the probabilities of it being something else. But I, in all honesty, couldn't really make a final conclusion without meeting you personally and you presenting me a "validated " birth certificate or equal unchallenged proof. Epistimologically speaking, I do not "know" that your name is Martin. I can believe until the "cows come home", but we both know, this is not knowing. This was (however sloppy) the only point I was trying to make. I wasn't even thinking ancient Egyptians vs. Jewish slaves or anything to do with the "story" of the Exodus. In my, shoot from the hip, quick quip, I was only, in my mind, trying to bolster,in my own way, your continious clear thinking approach to supposed events in the Bible as well as other subjects. I couldn't care less about trying to credit or discredit events in the Bible, as true or not, any more than the validity of Peter Pan, Harry Potter or Moby Dick. As I told Vicki, I don't do well in such subjects. I always end up with my ignorant tit in a wringer. This is why you will rarely see my posts pertaining to the Bible. With my lack of Biblical knowledge, my pragmatic thinking and statements have no place discussing matters of myth and superstition. With all this said, I have tried in the past (however inept) to state how much I value your seemingly endless knowledge and understanding of a whole gammut of subjects. I have learned not to challenge you, except when I feel warranted to do so. This thread was definately not the case. Am I forgiven? This most certainly was not a challenge of any kind. Always with great respect; Terry Modified by TLC at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 23:24:24

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Wait a second
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 11/22/2002, 22:52:39 Author Profile Mail author

The Biblical account doesn't say that the jews didn't use straw to make Egyptian bricks, it says that they were to go gather the straw themselves. Am I wrong in this? TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Here are the ref's, TV
Re: Wait a second -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 06:59:01 Author Profile Mail author

Hi TV, Here are the ref's on the bricks. Exodus 1: 11 Therefore they did set o ver them taskmasters to afflict them with their burderns. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. Exodus 1:13&14 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour. And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter and in brick, and in all thier service,wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. (then Pharoah told his people to drown every Hebrew son in the river, not the daughters) (a bunch of other stuff happens, Moses comes to Pharoah with warnings and stuff...scholarly, eh? :) Exodus 5: 6 And Pharoah commanded the same day the task masters of the people, and their officers saying. 7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves 8 And the tale of bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon the; ye shall not diminish aught thereof; for they be idle, therefore they cry, saying. Let us go and sacrifice to our Lord. (Pharoah is doubling the workload here since they have to spend time gathering straw but produce the same amount of bricks) 9 Let there be more work laid upon the men, that they may labour therein; and let them not regard vain words. 10 And the taskmaters of the people went out, and their officers, and they spake to the people saying. Thus saith Pharoah, I will not give you straw. 11 Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it: yet not aught of your work shall be diminished. 12 So the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather STUBBLE INSTEAD OF STRAW. So what the KJV says, is that they had straw and morter to make their bricks but then had to go out and get their own straw and what they actually could get ahold of TV, was STUBBLE, not straw. The Petrie account shows that the bricks in the building begin with straw/morter bricks then change to bricks made with stubble instead as the story says in Exodus. IOW, Petrie is using the bricks as if they were a timeline of the accounts in Exodus. Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Thanks
Re: Here are the ref's, TV -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 11/23/2002, 07:57:41 Author Profile Mail author

Thanks for the interesting info. I don't know if it actually fits the description given that, if I understood, there was a layer of brick where there was just plain mud, and that doesn't seem to fit the Exodus account. Nonetheless, its an interesting study. Do these ruins date back to correct time too, according to Biblical chronology? Thanks TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Welcome
Re: Thanks -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 09:03:15 Author Profile Mail author

Heck TV, I don't know if they coincide with the Biblical chronology! Why didn't I think of that! I'll do some "digging" ;) and try to find out. If you do, will you post it here? I've never seen a thread on this before and thought it would be of interest. Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Here's 2 related links
Re: Welcome -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 10:15:44 Author Profile Mail author

http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/1_exodus.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11302c.htm Modified by Jersey Girl at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 10:28:05

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

This one describes the layers and dating
Re: Here's 2 related links -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 10:27:12 Author Profile Mail author

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter16/wright.html

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Thanks n/t
Re: This one describes the layers and dating -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 11/27/2002, 02:08:58 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Please tell us, Vicki...
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 11:30:02 Author Profile Mail author

... exactly what you see about this that is so important as to fill so much space with it. What, exactly, is your conclusion? Do you honestly think that this pointless brick story -- even if completely true (which is ludicrous) -- somehow is evidence that the Bible is historically true?? Please tell us exactly what you think this all means. Thank you. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Why sure!
Re: Please tell us, Vicki... -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 11:36:33 Author Profile Mail author

Martin, I don't think I've filled this space by myself, have I? As I stated above I found this in the footnotes of one of my Bibles a long time ago. I've never seen a post on this and wanted to bring it to the board to see what others thought about it. Yes, of course, I'm interested in offering a post that might bear evidence that the Bible is true. Of course, I would. Thank you for asking me outright. Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

But you've evaded my questions!
Re: Why sure! -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 11:57:42 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Vicki, You thank me for asking you outright, but you didn't answer my questions! I will therefore repeat them: What, exactly, is your conclusion? Do you honestly think that this pointless brick story -- even if completely true (which is ludicrous) -- somehow is evidence that the Bible is historically true?? Please tell us exactly what you think this all means. I look forward to your direct, complete, and on-point answers. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I thought I answered it
Re: But you've evaded my questions! -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 12:08:41 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Martin, Let me c/p so I don't miss anything! Watch me screw this up! YOU: Dear Vicki, You thank me for asking you outright, but you didn't answer my questions! ME: I thought I did answer you. YOU:I will therefore repeat them: What, exactly, is your conclusion? Do you honestly think that this pointless brick story -- even if completely true (which is ludicrous) -- somehow is evidence that the Bible is historically true?? ME: I haven't arrived at any conclusions, Martin. I don't know yet, if the brick story is pointless or not. That is why I posted this. If the brick story turns out to be "completely true" (which I have no idea how I'll ever really know that, but "if") then yes, I would think it was one piece of evidence that the Bible is historically true. Yes, of course. YOU: Please tell us exactly what you think this all means. ME: I think I just answered that, Martin. I don't know what it means at this point. I put it up here so that people could bat it around with me. If it turns out to be "completely true", I would consider it one piece of evidence that the Bible is historically true. Yes, I would. YOU: I look forward to your direct, complete, and on-point answers. - Martin ME: I did my best. Peace be to you, Vicki Modified by Jersey Girl at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 12:09:12

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Then let me try again
Re: I thought I answered it -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 12:26:38 Author Profile Mail author

Since the overhwelming majority of the evidence demonstrates that the Bible is almost entirely mythical, why does it matter to you that one tiny, utterly trivial and unimportant archaelogical finding happens to correspond with the Bible mythology when thousands of major archaelogical findings prove the Bible is utterly inaccurate and mythical? In other words, why is this finding not exactly like the discovery that shoes existed in the 19'th century England as far as proving that Sherlock Holmes actually existed? Please explain why you feel that one trivial positive finding counts for more than thousands of disconfirmations of the Bible? - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Okay
Re: Then let me try again -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 12:39:02 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Martin, I'm logging off in a few, it's been a long day. Let me start with the middle of your post and work my way out to the ends. I don't know anything about the Sherlock Holmes shoe. I don't think that one trivial finding counts for "more", Martin. I think it counts, though. It matters to me because I'm a believer, Marty. Thank you for taking it slow and patiently, Vicki p.s. sorry for the short answers, I honestly think I'm getting sick. Much hurling to follow! Modified by Jersey Girl at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 12:40:28

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Sherlock Holmes' Shoes
Re: Okay -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 13:07:17 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Vicki, I'm very sorry to hear you're feeling ill, my friend. I hope it's just a brief spell and you'll return to health and vigor quickly! As for the reference to Sherlock Holmes' shoes, what I was trying to get across is that your very ludicrous idea that the existence of certain types of bricks should be considered validation of any significant aspect of the Bible is akin to someone saying that because Sherlock Holmes is reported as wearing shoes in his stories and that the existence of shoes in 19'th century England has been confirmed, that proves that a significant element of the biological existence of Sherlock Holmes has been proved!! It's plumb crazy! Let me quote about how simple fact is often mixed with fiction to form religious myths from one of the sites I linked to elsewhere in this thread: What the critics say is that any competent author could put a long romance written for some non-historical purpose, whether entertainment, propaganda or theological, and set it convincingly in time, establishing a few historical characters to add to the authenticity. Propaganda and theological purposes existed, and that means the bulk of the content of the scriptures served those purposes and not the need to record facts accurately. You write: "I don't think that one trivial finding counts for "more", Martin. I think it counts, though." When the score is 10,000 points against the truth of the Bible, does 1 very trivial point that is really fairly neutral really matter? I would say: certainly not. You write: "It matters to me because I'm a believer, Marty." Yes, I understand that and I appreciate your honesty. But as I said, 1 fairly neutral point against 10,000 devastating points is still a crushing defeat against the truth of the Bible. I hope you feel better soon! - Martin Modified by Martin at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 13:08:32

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Short on words...
Re: Sherlock Holmes' Shoes -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 13:23:22 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Martin, Yes, I understood the Sherlock Holmes analogy and I understand the stacking of evidence that you mention. I would like to say something very profound here but I can't pull it together at the moment. I'll be fine, and thank you for your well wishes. I'm surrounded by flu carriers! Have a good evening and take care. Vicki Modified by Jersey Girl at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 14:14:48

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

The Bible is collection of myths
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 11:38:25 Author Profile Mail author

God's Truth: Science in the Bible? God's Truth: Moses and the Exodus from Egypt God's Truth: Exodus: Jewish Apologetic There's plenty more on that site, of course. If you want addtional links demonstrating that the Bible is a collection of myths which, like all myths, inject a certain amount of factual material to make the myth all the more compelling to the reader, just look around -- they're everywhere. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: The Bible is collection of myths
Re: The Bible is collection of myths -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 11:40:33 Author Profile Mail author

Martin? I know what your position is. Please do not discourage me in this. I need to keep giving mental "airtime" to both sides as I did with my Leviticus thread and now this one. Vicki Modified by Jersey Girl at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 11:42:47

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

In other words: "Don't confuse me with the facts"
Re: Re: The Bible is collection of myths -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/23/2002, 11:59:01 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

No, no
Re: In other words: "Don't confuse me with the facts" -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 11/23/2002, 12:11:40 Author Profile Mail author

Dear Martin, I WANT you to offer up facts whenever it supports your position and I want you to afford me the same. Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

The problem is
Re: No, no -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Darr ® 11/27/2002, 14:28:10 Author Profile Mail author

When you write, "I WANT you to offer up facts whenever it supports your position and I want you to afford me the same. Vicki", you have few facts to offer. The best you can do is offer the deceit and lies of so-called "scholars." The problem is compounded because you do not have the background to understand that they are indeed lies. I maintain that most if not all these scholars know they are lies. At least those of my acquaintance who are generally noted as scholars admit their public offerings differ from that which they privately accept.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Questions
Re: The problem is -- Darr		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: vicki ® 11/29/2002, 09:14:42 Author Profile Mail author

Darr, Glad you joined this thread! Are you saying that: 1. The cities found are NOT Pithom and Raamses? 2. The composition of the bricks in these cities is NOT as stated? 3. The composition of the bricks does NOT match the Exodus account? Vicki

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Fact and Fiction
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 11/23/2002, 14:37:04 Author Profile Mail author

Vicki: A friend of mine is an amateur writer. But, many of the characters in his stories have found some of their inspiration (or at least a name) in a real person. If the real person were to read the stories he writes (without knowing he was the author), they would probably not recognize that the character is based on them (he has a very fertile imagination), even though the exact name is often used. Needless to say, the actual events of the stories are complete fiction, because real life is often quite boring (or at least he thinks so). Even if the real person were to read the stories and did recognize themselves, there still would be no correlation between their lives and the fictional ones. Now suppose that in 2000 years' time, we've gone through nuclear war, and history is a shambles--no one knows what's accurate, and what's not. Suppose someone finds the fiction of my friend. Suppose they also find birth records, enrollement papers, apartment contracts, and other information linking several of the characters who are mentioned in the book. Is it reasonable for them to assume that his books are a faithful history of what those people did? My friend's books also mention cars, nuclear weapons, planes, and other things that simply aren't part of the hypothetical future world. His books are also historically accurate on many of these points, because he doesn't write sci-fi or fantasy. Is it reasonable for those beings in the future to assume that his books are accurate, simply because they find evidence of the very objects, traditions, and habits he mentions in his book? The answer in both cases is a clear "no." Accurate facts within a piece of work do not preclude it from being a fiction. In fact, much fiction includes accurate information about the society in which it was written (even sci-fi or fantasy). It is nearly impossible to avoid projecting something about your culture onto any book, historical or otherwise. Thus, when this kind of thing shows up in an ancient document, it cannot be used as proof of accuracy in any way. There is no doubt that the OT is a fairly old book. As such, we would expect to see evidence of some of the ancient traditions, and methods. Finding these kinds of things in the Bible, however, is not evidence that the majority of the book is not mythical. It is expected, even of a mythical account, for accurate information about culture and time to be included. It is also important to remember that if the myths were meant to be believed in the time they were written, it would have been absolutely essential that the writers include some information that the readers would both understand and relate to. Now, as for the bricks you mention, I submit that they are not very convincing evidence of anything, except perhaps that people used straw and reeds to make bricks. Suppose that is true. Why is it important that an old book talks about such a thing? It should be no more surprising than the fact that my friend mentions cars and ice skating in one of his books--and in no way does either validate the book as authentic history. Consider the method you are using (if you accept this as "evidence" of the Bible): what are the ramifications? There is a huge amount of evidence verifying much of the history of Joseph Smith (because much of his history is true!). Are we then to accept his entire story, including his visions, prophecies, and scriptures? Of course not, but this evidence for the Bible is along a similar thread. Consider the field of apologetics regarding the Book of Mormon: the Book of Mormon mentions cement as a building structure; recently, structures have been found which were indeed made from a material that could be called cement. The Book of Mormon records wars in which many died; Areas with massive numbers of bodies have been found. The Book of Mormon uses the name "Alma"; purportedly, the name Alma has been found on carvings in Guatemala (or something). The apologists would have you believe that simply because some of the information in the BM appears to correspond to ancient times, the Book of Mormon must indeed be an ancient document (of course, they ignore all the evidence that suggests otherwise). These are known as "parallel evidences" and at best prove, for each "fact" in question, that it was possible. As long as you accept the BM as false, you can also recognize another factor: even if a story wasn't written during a certain time frame, it still will contain information that appears to correspond. It's called coincidence, and it is pretty common when you look at things generally (wars that leave many dead are pretty common in world history, for example). For these reasons, and the ones that Martin has repeatedly pointed out (which I'm basically reiterating), I think you should accept that the information you present here is not evidence in support of the Bible. The Bible includes much more than simple traditions of the ancients, it contains information on deity, miracles, and divine commandments. As such, it should have a very high standard of evidence before we accept it as truth. I submit that parallel evidence as you have mentioned here is no evidence at all, because even if we could be sure it directly relates to the relevant passages in the book (which we cannot), it does nothing to suggest the historical accuracy of the overall account (it's all or nothing). The only thing that is relevant is whether the Bible is a faithfully recorded history. Evidence of a few events that appear to correlate to events mentioned in the book do nothing to help us answer that question. Indeed, whether it is a fictional book or not, we would expect such things to show up. As such, this brick information, while possibly faith-promoting to some, is not a scholarly proof of anything at all. -Dan Modified by nofaith at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 14:45:16

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: The bricks of Pithom
Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Artem ® 11/29/2002, 03:49:05 Author Profile Mail author

Is this evidence to historical accuracy of the book? I've never heard anyone argue that the ENTIRE book is a lie (although I would suspect there are people that would do that, they just wouldn't be very successful). People looking for support of their faith in Bible are charged with a far more challenging task that disproving such a claim. They need to prove it is entirely true. The evidence above is useless to that end.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Say what?
Re: Re: The bricks of Pithom -- Artem		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: vicki ® 11/29/2002, 09:17:53 Author Profile Mail author

YOU: People looking for support of their faith in Bible are charged with a far more challenging task that disproving such a claim ME: Charged by WHOM? YOU: They need to prove it is entirely true. ME: Again, prove it to whom and for what purpose? Are you saying Artem, that the cities described are NOT Pithom and Raamses? That the composition of the bricks of these cities is falsely stated? That the composition of the bricks does NOT match the Biblical account in Exodus? I've seen alot of rhetoric on this thread Artem, so far no one has challenged the authenticity of the material. Are the cities or are they not Pithom and Raamses? Are the composition of the bricks accurately stated? Do they match Exodus? Vicki Modified by vicki at Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 09:19:59

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Say what?
Re: Say what? -- vicki		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Artem ® 11/29/2002, 11:08:48 Author Profile Mail author

You didn't answer my question, is this evidence to historical accuracy of the biblical account of Exodus? [edited for clarity] If you are presenting the original post as such, then what I am saying is that it would be relevant only for an argument against a position that states the biblical account of Exodus is ENTIRELY false. Proving that some of Exodus is true is about as useful as proving that Baron Munchhausen description of Turcs is accurate. It doesn't make his tales any truer nor does the brick evidence help the burning bush story. Modified by Artem at Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 11:10:38

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Say what?
Re: Re: Say what? -- Artem		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: vicki ® 11/29/2002, 12:45:36 Author Profile Mail author

Is this evidence to the historical accuracy of the Biblical account of Exodus? That's what I'm trying to find out! So far what I've gotten is a combination of advice, discouragement and rhetoric. Please answer my questions. I'll repeat them in order and a little more directly: 1. Are the cities uncovered by Petrie, the cities of Pithom and Raamses? 2. Do you think the stated composition of the bricks is authentic? 3. Does the stated composition of the bricks match the account in Exodus? Those are pretty direct questions Artem, I should like direct answers. Vicki Modified by vicki at Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 12:56:04

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Why is any of that relevant?
Re: Re: Say what? -- vicki		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/29/2002, 14:28:36 Author Profile Mail author

The answers to those questions don't matter in the slightest, for even if all the answers are in the positive, it goes no distance at all towards validating ANYTHING significant about the Bible, which we KNOW to be mostly mythical. You seem to be blustering again, Vicki. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Why is any of that relevant?
Re: Why is any of that relevant? -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Artem ® 11/29/2002, 20:56:19 Author Profile Mail author

Martin: The answers to those questions don't matter in the slightest... That's exactly what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to expand on is logical fallacy of ANY such evidence in support of the Bible's validity as a holy book. As far as I understand people generally fall into 3 categories in what they think about the Bible (if you don't count the people who don't know and/or don't care). Some believe it is entirely true, some believe it is somewhat true and is a holy book and others who believe it is somewhat historic but is just a collection of myths (like myths in other cultures). Using the evidence of bricks you can't dispute any of these claims. This is why I think it is irrelevant. Evidence that would be interesting is proof of the supernatural aspects of the stories in the Bible. If you still want my answers to those questions you posed, all of them are "I don't know, might very well be, but who cares?"

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

(Aside to Artem)
Re: Re: Why is any of that relevant? -- Artem		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 11/30/2002, 12:25:10 Author Profile Mail author

Artem, You have apparently misunderstood how this forum works. Please note that my post falls under and is intended one level from Vicki's post, not yours. That means that my previous post was NOT a response to your post at all. In fact, I agree with you and was questioning Vicki's interest in those questions and what she imagines it would demonstrate if they were all answered to her liking (which is a point that me and others have already made to her without avail). So please be sure a post is directed at you before answering, okay? Welcome, by the way. - Martin

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I disagree
Re: (Aside to Artem) -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Aaron V. ® 11/30/2002, 23:50:25 Author Profile Mail author

You write: So please be sure a post is directed at you before answering, okay? This is an open forum, and any so inclined individual may respond to any post -- by definition. Tell me, if this were a forum rule (as you say), how many times would have you broken it? A hundred? Two hundred? Aaron

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

C'mon, Aaron -- You've misunderstood me!
Re: I disagree -- Aaron V.		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 12/01/2002, 08:46:52 Author Profile Mail author

C'mon, Aaron. Please take a breath and stand back a bit and look things over. You've greatly misunderstood my intent by over-interpreting my words. If you review the relevant subthread again, I believe you will see that your words of scorn are undeserved. Let me lay it out for you, starting from Artem's post: (1) Artem's post: Re: Say what? In that post, Artem challenged the relevance and importance of Vicki's claims about Pithom. - - (2) Vicki's response: Re: Say what? In (2), Vicki asks several specific empirical questions. - - - (3) My reply to Vicki: Why is any of that relevant? In (3), I asked Vicki why she thought those questions were relevant and what she thought they proved. - - - (4) Artem jumps in in the wrong place, assuming that I was questioning HIM whereas I was actually questioning Vicki: Re: Why is any of that relevant? In (4), Artem, because he is so new to the board, mistakenly thought that I was asking him about the relevance of Vicki's questions, when it should have been clear to him that I was asking Vicki, not him! His reply is mistakenly directed at me, even though it is perfectly clear that I already agreed with his own questioning of the relevance of Vicki's questions! That was his perfectly understandable error, and that is exactly what my "aside" post was all about. My goal was simply to point out that my response was to Vicki and not to him, as demonstrated by the proper placement and indentation level. That's all! - - - Then you come along and -- entirely misinterpreting the actual context and intent of what I actually said -- criticize me on the grounds that you think I was telling Artem to shut up or not interject his posts or something stupid like that, which your own words demonstrate I would have been very stupid to have done! You took my words you quoted above out of their necessary context. I had written: You have apparently misunderstood how this forum works. Please note that my post falls under and is intended one level from Vicki's post, not yours. That means that my previous post was NOT a response to your post at all... So please be sure a post is directed at you before answering, okay? If you take my words out of context, I can see how you might think I was telling Artem to "butt out" or something, but that interpretation can't be sustained if you look at my entire post in context. The latter sentence was meant to say nothing more than that Artem should check to see if a given post is actually responding to his own post before treating it as if it were directed at him. If he had done that, he wouldn't have have written his post (4) in the way he did, interpreting my response to Vicki as if it were a response to him. Try to understand, Aaron: the only "forum rule" I was talking about was that when a post is shown as underneath and indented one level in, that post is in response to the post above and to the left of it. That's all! I neither said nor meant what you appear to believe I said and meant. Respectfully, - Martin Modified by Martin at Sun, Dec 01, 2002, 08:52:01

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: C'mon, Aaron -- You've misunderstood me!
Re: C'mon, Aaron -- You've misunderstood me! -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Aaron V. ® 12/01/2002, 09:59:47 Author Profile Mail author

It seems clear to me that Artem's post was directed at you, and that its purpose was to expand and agree upon your thoughts. That would put my own post in the proper context as a response to your own. The complication of Artem interpreting a post as if it were a response to him, in the case that it is not, is really meaningless if Artem simply chooses to do so (as he did). In short, I don't see any mistake on Artem's behalf. I do accept your clarification that you did not intend to imply this is not an open forum. Aaron

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I'm afraid you're still mistaken
Re: Re: C'mon, Aaron -- You've misunderstood me! -- Aaron V.		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 12/01/2002, 10:06:24 Author Profile Mail author

Aaron, I'm afraid the position described in your first paragraph is quite untenable. You simply cannot get your mistaken view to gibe with Artem's statement: "If you still want my answers to those questions you posed, all of them are 'I don't know, might very well be, but who cares?'" Please see Dan's post: Re: I disagree Thank you, however, for your final sentence. - Martin Modified by Martin at Sun, Dec 01, 2002, 10:36:09

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Pity frickin' sakes Aaron!
Re: I'm afraid you're still mistaken -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: vicki ® 12/01/2002, 10:22:56 Author Profile Mail author

Artem's reply was meant for ME! He clicked on "post reply" to Martin's post instead of mine! How hard is that? Vicki Do you see Aaron? I just did it here!

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Whatever
Re: Pity frickin' sakes Aaron! -- vicki		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Aaron V. ® 12/01/2002, 11:30:41 Author Profile Mail author

This who debacle is really too stupid to continue with.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

This "who" debacle?
Re: Whatever -- Aaron V.		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: vicki ® 12/01/2002, 11:38:42 Author Profile Mail author

Aaron, You should have read the exchanges more carefully before commenting. Simple as that. Vicki Modified by vicki at Sun, Dec 01, 2002, 12:14:32

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I'll tell you what's stupid...
Re: Whatever -- Aaron V.		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: