rationalskepticism.org

hackenslash wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:Agrippa: [sic]

As our resident historian, you should take careful note of all documentary evidence, not least that which appears appended to each of Agrippina's posts (not least because of who the original Agrippina was). Your mouth is issuing condescending cheques your brain simply can't cash here.

Thank you.
There are a lot of things I don't know, but when it comes to the ancient world, I do know what I'm talking about, and if I am in error about something, it is a challenge to me to find where my error is, and to correct it, or otherwise to show why I haven't made a mistake.

I appreciate what your post tried to do, but you said some things which are on the wrong side of things, I think.

Let's see how far off the mark you manage to land here:

Which then leads to an examination of what evidence there is. As there is no evidence for the existence of people wandering around the desert for 40 years, it may be assumed that it didn't happen. This is where assumption and deduction come in.

Error. Assuming something didn't happen because you've found no support for it yet, isn't scientific, and doesn't demonstrate good Historical research practice either. The correct way to handle such things, is to say simply that there is no evidence to support such and such a Biblical claim. "Assuming" is NOT a recommended, or respected act by any disciplined Historian.

Actually, this is total bollocks. I would tend to agree that, while dismissing something as non-existent on the basis of nothing other than lack of evidence is problematic, being skeptical of claims is still and always the rebuttable position. Moreover, in the case of something like the preposterously fictitious exodus, it isn't simply the absence of evidence (which is evidence of absence, regardless of absue of a particular mantra), it's the absence of evidence where we should expect to find a fucking abundance of it. No movement of such a large group could be expected to occur without leaving masses of physical evidence behind.

There's even more.
In Exodus chapter 7, the writer claims that Moses and Aaron walked around Egypt, touching every single container of water with their "rods" to change the water contained in such vessels, into blood. At the very outset of the story of the exodus we find a ridiculous claim that two 80+ something men were able to walk the length and breadth of a country that is almost 400,000 sq miles, and to touch every single vessel of water that people were using to contain water, in the matter of a few hours, or even days. If the first part of the story is total and utter bullshit, then why should we even read the rest of it? Why should we bother to begin to look for reasons why the changing of the Nile into a bloody mess could've been possible if the verse say not just the river but:

Verse 19: And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.

Then in the next few verses, it says that the king's magicians helped them:

Verse 22: And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments

So not only would the writers have us believe that the two old coffin-dodgers were able to achieve this, but that the king's magicians helped them! And there's not a single record on the walls of the Egyptian edifices that tell this story. It would be a big deal don't you think? Two old farts change all the country's water into blood and the magicians, seeing the magic, helped them!

and to assume as well that after the fall of the Empire, that it's conquerors carefully preserved all of those records, is silly, as soon as one actually looks at it.

Here's the real problem, and it displays an ignorance of history so profound that, from here on in, when you describe yourself as a historian, I'm going to laugh my cock off at the very idea. The Roman Empire wasn't conquered, it morphed into the Christian empire, and guess where all the fucking records are?

Indeed.

You should try to curb your condescension, not least because every time you glibly assert your authority on anything, you follow it up with abject fuckwittery.

Indeed.