“The Lord spoke to Moses: ‘Go up from here, you and the people you brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land I promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: I will give it to your offspring. I will send an angel ahead of you and will drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hethites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go up with you because you are a stiff-necked people; otherwise, I might destroy you on the way.’ When the people heard this bad news, they mourned and didn’t put on their jewelry. For the Lord said to Moses, ‘Tell the Israelites: You are a stiff-necked people. If I went up with you for a single moment, I would destroy you. Now take off your jewelry, and I will decide what to do with you.’ So the Israelites remained stripped of their jewelry from Mount Horeb onward.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
Have you ever wounded a relationship? The odds are pretty good that you have. We all seem to possess a remarkable ability to hurt the people around us even when we don’t mean to. In such situations, being forgiven is a wonderfully freeing thing. That extension of God’s grace is incredible to experience. But forgiveness is no the same as restoring the relationship. That takes something more. That takes repentance. And while forgiveness is a very good thing, an invitation into repentance is even better. Let’s talk about what we see happening in this next part of our story.
Just so we’re all on the same page, we are in the aftermath of Israel’s completely blowing it in their relationship with God. They could probably have made a bigger mess of their relationship with Him if they had given it a little bit more effort, but it’s honestly hard to imagine how. The flagrantly violated the very first two commands God had given them as part of their being in a covenant relationship with Him. Before any other instructions He gave them, God told them to worship only Him and to not make images of Him. That was literally what they did with the golden calf.
In His grace, God didn’t destroy them. Oh, there were consequences for their rebellion. We talked about that last week. Even though He had been that gracious with them, God didn’t have to do more than that. He could have left them in the desert to rot on their own. The people had already demonstrated quite proficiently that they couldn’t handle much on their own. Whenever they ran into trouble, rather than even trying to solve the problem on their own, they cried out for help almost immediately.
But as we see here, God didn’t even do that. He was still angry with them. It was a simmering rage now as opposed to the white hot fury it had been before, but the wound was still fresh. We see that in the twice repeated idea here that if He got too near to them He would destroy them. His presence was not going to be with them the way it once was. There was going to be some separation now that there hadn’t been before. Of course, even that anger seems to cool later on in the story as several features of His presence come back as the people continue their journey. But the relationship has been wounded by their actions, and it won’t be the same again.
You have perhaps experienced this kind of thing for yourself. You did something or you had something done to you to grievously wound a relationship. Once that thing happened, even if the relationship was restored on the other side of the offense, it wasn’t the same any longer. Maybe you did the hard work and made it stronger than it was in the beginning, but it wasn’t the same. Sin like this changes a relationship. Once it has happened, it’s not possible to go back to how things were before. Once that initial innocence and trust and intimacy are lost, they won’t ever exist again like they did before.
In spite of all of that, though, God doesn’t just write them off. He doesn’t go back on His word. The relationship He entered into them was not a contract that had an escape clause. It was a covenant. Covenants exist until they are fulfilled, not merely until the other person does something to really badly violate it. Because the relationship God initiated with them was a covenant, His promises to them are still live. As a result, He reaffirms them once again. He is going to fulfill the promise He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is going to send them to the Promised Land. He is going to send them to a good and rich land that will be a blessing to them.
There’s just one condition on this all happening now. They have to take off their jewelry. At first this command and response by Israel seems a bit random. Why remove their jewelry as an act of mourning? Because this wasn’t primarily an act of mourning. It was an act of repentance. It was their jewelry that had been used to make the golden calf. That was the symbol of their rebellion. By removing their jewelry, they were demonstrating their intention to not walk this path again. They were demonstrating a spirit of repentance.
When we want to see a broken relationship restored and we are the ones who contributed most directly to the brokenness, while forgiveness is necessary on the part of the other person, we have to be willing to walk a path of repentance. We have to be willing to actively take steps that demonstrate our intention to turn away from whatever sin we committed, and to walk in the opposite direction. Some of these steps can be taken verbally, but many of them are better expressed physically. We put in guardrails to keep us from that path. We get rid of the things that led us there in the first place. We create new patterns that will foster trust once again.
Repentance is the only way to see broken relationships restored once forgiveness has been granted. And we can demonstrate a posture of repentance on our part even before the other party has extended forgiveness. Sometimes that posture of repentance is what can help them reach the point of forgiveness in the first place. And, once someone has invited to walk a pathway of repentance by virtue of forgiving us, we dare not refuse the invitation. Few people can resist leaning in the direction of genuine repentance. This is because we were all made in the image of a God who always responds to repentance. If you’ve created a burden for someone else because of your sin, repent of that. Walk the pathway that leads to restoration and life. You’ll most definitely be glad that you did.
The Nexus 
Out of interest, how exactly does your god, Yahweh, “always responds to repentance”?
LikeLike
That’s a clear as can be when you read the text with an eye toward taking it at face value rather than with an intentionally skeptical bias. Go through the Scriptures, find all the examples of someone repenting, and see how God responds in each and every instance.
LikeLike
Well, I have read the bible and certain parts several times. The times when Yahweh is smiting and destroying have tended to stick in the memory rather than any nice gestures, so as you are one of his ‘earthly liasons’ if you like, I would rather read an example or two from you.
LikeLike
God’s calls to repentance and His willingness to accept us when we do (especially in Christ) is one of the most significant themes across the Scriptures. If you have missed that in your reading in the past, I would encourage you to read it again a little more carefully. Passages that come quickly to mind that highlight His invitation to and acceptance of repentance include nearly all of the book of Judges, the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-12, how God interacts with Nineveh through the story of Jonah (ignore the giant fish part and focus on God’s interactions with the Ninevites and Jonah), and Jeremiah 29-31.
LikeLike
But specific examples in your own words, would be preferable of how exactly your god, Yahweh responds to repentance, especially in a more modern day sense.
Use yourself as an example if you like?
LikeLike
I can do that, but you are asking for a testimony that is intensely personal and doesn’t have any kind of empirical evidence that could be lab tested to accompany it. Are you honestly interested in that?
LikeLike
Okay then skip that.
Go back to my original question and answer in your own words rather than direct me to bible passages
LikeLike
Unless you are willing to reread those passages, my summaries aren’t going to help you very much. The people sinned, they faced the consequences of their sin, the people repented, God received their repentance, forgave them, and the relationship resumed. That pattern repeats itself over and over and over again throughout the Scriptures.
From what I can tell, it’s been a long time, perhaps even a very long time, since you’ve read the Scriptures for a reason that wasn’t to criticize it or to find justification for some criticism you already had of it. We tend to be able to find what we are seeking. You’ve been seeking reasons to justify your unbelief (not constantly or all the time, but as near as I can tell, the only thinking you do on matters of belief is aimed at and serves to justify your unbelief) and lo and behold, you’ve been able to find them everywhere you look. In doing this with the Scriptures, though, you’ve obviously missed out on a major theme that fairly well leaps off the page when you read it with an eye toward taking the authors on their own terms rather than the ones by which you insist they must abide.
LikeLike
But these are simply stories.
Seriously, how does one even know if Yahweh communicates with his followers let alone forgives them?
As I mentioned the Bible is full of tales of your god, Yahweh commanding the genocide or slaughter of this tribe or that person.
The Samuel passage is a good example and how on earth do you know that Yahweh sent a message to David via the prophet? “Yeah, Dave, no sweat, Yahweh says you’re good. Oh, and by the way, he’s happy with Solomon.”
The mere notion is risible on the face of it.
I don’t need to justify my lack of belief as it is the default position.
You on the other hand as the one making the positive claim should provide justification, which is what I am asking you for.
As a proselytizing religion, have a go at a summary.
How does your god, Yahweh respond to repentance?
And, of course, how would you know?
LikeLike
Several things to respond to here…
Historically speaking, a lack of belief is not the default position. Thinking only in modern terms, it is not the default position. It is an adopted position that is held against what has always been the natural inclination of people. So, yes, it needs to be justified. And the thing is, you can’t justify it on evidentiary grounds any more than you think I can do so. This is because it a position primarily rooted in philosophy which then becomes a lens for interpreting the data (i.e., evidence) of the natural world in accordant ways.
But, as we have talked about before, you’re jumping ahead of first principles and making arguments and asking questions that are resolved easily if you get those right. You don’t believe God exists in the first place. Questions and debates over finer points of His character don’t matter if He doesn’t exist.
Third, the Bible is not even remotely “full of tales of [my] god, Yahwe commanding the genocide or slaughter of this tribe or that person.” Stories of repentance far outnumber them, for instance. You are finding what you are looking for. Take the authors on their own terms rather than merely the ones you insist on and you just may start to see things differently.
As for how one knows if Yahweh communicates with His followers, that’s easy: they say, “God spoke to me.” Then, you take the message they believe God gave them and compare it with the full record of the Scriptures. If it is consistent with what we find there, then there’s a good chance God really did communicate that to them. Once again, you are asking for something that is intensely personal and not able to be subjected to empirical measuring sticks the likes of which you generally insist are the only ones that can count as knowledge (which is a self-defeating position, by the way). In other words, you’re asking for something that you aren’t willing to receive in the first place. Why would I try to furnish that for you?
There’s perhaps more, but that’s all I have time for right now.
LikeLike
Atheism is the default position.
Theism has to be instilled.
Do no confuse religion with agency.
Thus your assertion that lack of belief (in gods) needs to be justified is false.
You made the initial claim you should have the integrity to provide the evidence.
The Bible and especially the OT is loaded with Yahweh’s acts of genocidal rage and commands to enslave or slaughter.
Consider some of the verses in Joshua as a glaring example.
And of course we have the perennial favorite bed time story for kiddies, the genocidal Noachian Global Flood tale.
Charming, I’m sure.
“God spoke to me! ” Much as he did to the poor woman in the States a while back who then drowned her four kids in the bath.
Now that is rightly labelled insanity, but when your god, Yahweh is credited with curing a kid’s terminal cancer after he is claimed to have spoken to a congregation through their minister this is called a miracle.
Meanwhile…. several thousand children died of illness and disease and we are told this is because of sin or Yahweh works in mysterious ways… “Your ways are not my ways,” so says Yahweh, right?
And when Yahweh instructs his minions to destroy this tribe or that…. “You must destroy them totally, ” this is called Divine Command Theory ( if memory
serves?)
So in truth, this theory of how Yahweh responds to repentance is all simply something created in the mind of the believer.
A way of abrogating responsibility to obtain an imaginary Get out of Jail free card.
Another term for this is delusion.
LikeLike
You should pop over and engage.
One of my regular believers is giving my non-believing blog pals a run for their money.
As a professional it might up the ante
😊
LikeLike
Looks like he’s mostly just giving you a run for your money. He’s right, though, you kept changing the subject instead of actually responding to or answering his questions. You do that to me here all the time. I may pop in. We’ll see.
LikeLike
No, he is wrong.
Read the topic of the OP.
It is repentance as per your post.
The question has yet to be answered.
It would be interesting to see how the non believer a on my site engage with you.
LikeLike
I saw the topic. But he asked you a question and you kept ignoring it and changing the subject rather than answering it.
LikeLike
He did not respond to the OP.
And if you follow the thread I did allow for his assertion atheism is stupid and your god Yahweh is real.
Yet, he still did not respond as to how one would know Yahweh heard the confession of repentance and how Yahweh would respond.
But you can answer those questions if you are up to it?
LikeLike
He asked you a different question and made an assertion for your response other than what the post was about. You didn’t answer him. Acknowledging “atheism is stupid and your god Yahweh is real,” while implicit perhaps in his comment, was not the point. By waving that around you were avoiding actually dealing with his question/comment.
On atheism, you believe that the world came into existence entirely on its own. That is a position of faith, not evidence. That was his point, and to that point, you didn’t respond unless you have since I looked this afternoon.
Your regular insistence that atheism is simply a lack of belief in any God or gods also serves as a handwaving away of genuine criticisms of and problems with atheism as a philosophical position (which is what it is). Atheism is the active belief that there are no gods, not merely an absence of belief. As a philosophical position, it is built on the positive proposition that there are no gods. Otherwise, it necessarily allows for the existence of gods in which case it’s really theism, or else it pleads ignorance in which case it is really agnosticism. But the positive proposition that there are no gods is a position of faith, not evidence. Thus atheism is a kind of anti-supernatural religion.
And I gave you the start of an answer to your question about repentance. It is an intensely personal experience for which there is not going to be the kind of evidence you insist you have to have before you will count something as knowledge (which is scientism). It is an experience shared between you and God that brings a great sense of freedom and love and peace and joy all at the same time. But, because you don’t believe in God in the first place, that is all going to sound like so much nonsense. First principles matter.
That’s all tonight, and it’ll be a busy next few days celebrating our oldest’s turning 16 with a trip to see his favorite baseball team play. It may be Monday before I’m back in touch. Have a good weekend.
LikeLike
His question was off topic. Period. It was a way of not dealing with the topic of repentance and how the believer knows Yahweh hears the confession and how your god responds.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Nothing else.
Atheism is no more a positive position than non stamp collecting is a hobby or abstinence is a sex position. We know how the world( earth) came about. To suggest otherwise displays a profound degree of wilfull ignorance.
It is the lack of evidence for gods not that there are no gods, an assertion I have never made. To suggest I have is a blatent lie.
That you are unable to deal with this fact and, like so many theists, try to drag atheism into the realm of a religion and the supernatural is indicative of your own insecurities of theism.
Your answer regarding repentance is covered by the term faith.
There is no evidence that your god, Yahweh either hears or responds in any manner whatsoever.
Your reply of “God spoke to me” is farcical and THAT is hand waving at its finest.
Another term for this is delusional.
One reason I encouraged you to engage with some of those on the post. They are former believers.
I was interested to see how you deal with those who have been under the thrall of religious indoctrination who can ask and answer more pertinant questions.
LikeLike
It was off the topic of the post you wrote, but you still didn’t answer it in any kind of a meaningful way. It’s your blog. You can decide what you will and won’t answer. But don’t get defensive when someone calls you out for not answering their question whether it’s on topic or not. I’ve told you your comments and questions are wildly off the topic of a particular post before, and you have responded essentially that you wouldn’t have asked it if you didn’t feel it was on topic. Hold your commenters to the same standard you use on here.
As for atheism, I understand that you don’t believe in any gods. But what you don’t seem to be able to grasp is that there are philosophical implications of that position. Are you sure there are no gods? How sure? If you are not totally sure, then what you really are is an agnostic, not an atheist. If that’s the case, that’s obviously fine, but be honest about it.
You say you know how the world came about. Do tell. How exactly? By what mechanism? Or was that a typo? And if it was a typo and you meant that we DON’T know how the world came about, then how can you say it couldn’t have happened by supernatural means? If you don’t know, then you don’t know. You assume ultimately on faith that it happened naturally because you have committed yourself to a naturalistic framework, not because there is anything like the kind of evidence you insist can only be considered as evidence available to justify that position as anything more than faith. And, because yours is ultimately a position of faith, yours is religious position. Yours is simply a non-supernatural religion.
And I told you that there isn’t something like empirical evidence to somehow “prove” that God spoke to one person or another. You are trying to make sense of something that is inherently supernatural through the lens of naturalism. You won’t ever be able to understand it as long as you keep doing that. You are asking a question, but a priori ruling out the only answers anyone has ever given because of your philosophical commitments. I really can’t help you with that anymore.
Finally, I don’t accept that they are honestly former believers any more than you accept that Dr. Wise is a former atheist. When you are willing to operate by a different standard there, I’ll be willing to consider one. And if the kind of dialogue I saw on that post is par for the course, my contributions won’t have much of an impact. Besides, I use up what little time I have to engage with commenters on blogs just keeping up with you on here ;~)
As before, have a good weekend. I’ll be back in touch Monday or so.
LikeLike
Read my latest post regarding a-theism and feel free to leave your views.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of mostly just sniping back and forth there. No thanks, I’ll stay out of that one. While I don’t agree with Jimoeba that a person’s claiming atheism offers up some kind of a neat and tidy pathway to predict other social positions (although he’s right that there are general sociological trends associated with atheism that do have some predictive powers), he is right that claiming atheism comes with a set of philosophical implications that you either don’t understand or are otherwise unwilling to acknowledge. But then you and I have already talked about that several times before to no avail. Why waste time hashing back through debates in which neither of us are going to move from our positions?
LikeLike
I do appreciate that I manage to give you so much fodder for your own blog :~)
LikeLike
I think religious stupidity and it’s indoctrinated proponents is, sad to say, currently a bottomless well.
But you really should make an effort to pop over and engage with some of my non believing visitors.
Making snide and uninformed comments from over here in the cheap seats really is not helping your case one iota.
I would even agree to sit out and let you and them have at it as the saying goes.
Personally, I consider you would he chewed up and spat out in very short order, and that is not said with the intent of dangling a carrot but based on your continued hand waving over numerous topics we have crossed swords.
Maybe I should encourage some to visit here?
Here’s a suggestion. Why not do a series of posts on the archaelogy of the Exodus narrative, or Noah and his ark?
I would be fascinated to see if your argument for your “atheist worldview” stood up to scrutiny.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not aware of any snide or uninformed comments that I’ve made from over here, but I’ll still pass on engaging more on your site. I don’t have the time for it, or, honestly, the interest. You’re welcome to invite anyone to read mine that you’d like. You’ve asked as much before, and I gave you the same answer then. For what it’s worth, though, my perception of your responses to challenges I’ve set before you is pretty much on par with what your perception of mine to yours seems to be. For some reason, though, you seem to enjoy running around in the same circles we always make. My best guess is that it’s because of your evangelistic commitment to atheism, but I could be wrong.
LikeLike
Won’t you allow an atheist some fun?
You have time to engage here, sometimes with endless streams of your worldview specific jibber jabber yet have no time to engage elsewhere?
Not even for five minutes? My, my.
Perhaps you may feel you would be somewhat under the cosh to venture outside your comfort zone?
I mean, we are only talking about a bunch of mostly uniformed Christian deconverts, am I right? Seriously, how much time would it take to trash every argument they make?
🤷
LikeLike
Oh, you didn’t answer if you would be prepared to do an Exodus post or one about the Noachian flood?
If I am to direct readers your way at least make it worth their while.
So, how about it?
“The Exodus… A Christian Worldview specific approach.”
Pastorjwaits.
LikeLike
I was trying to mete out the disappointment in bite sized bits, so I didn’t leave you totally overwhelmed with it. No, I’m going to keep plugging away doing what I’ve been doing for more than seven years now. The purpose of this blog is primarily devotional, not apologetic. Over the course of working through various parts of the Scriptures, I will address all manner of different issues because they do, but I’ll take them as they come. If you choose to direct folks this way for what I do offer, by all means. That’s up to you.
As for extra time to jump into your comment sections, this is my blog. I feel a bit of a duty to engage with folks who take the time to engage with me here. I feel no such compunction with your blog and your posts. I’ll be content to merely be a source of content for you.
LikeLike
But I appear to be the only one you engage with. And Thomas on rare occasions. Where are all the members of your flock?
LikeLike
Most of my readers aren’t members of the church here. I have a pretty good portion all over the world. Occasionally other folks decide to engage, but otherwise people just read. I’m okay with that. When folks here have questions about something I’ve written, they ask me in person. That’s part of the benefit of being in the same church as the author. Most people generally don’t engage with comment sections like you do relative to the total number who read something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair enough. But I would have thought as you are commanded to spread the word, as much interaction to make your case, even to the poor lost baa lambs, would be your aim?
Surely you would like to reconvert those who have gone astray?
What better way to bring the word of your god, Yahweh, than to enlighten and correct any misunderstandings they may have regarding such a paramount tale as the Exodus.
I for one would be fascinated to read your understanding of all the exploits of Moses and Joshua.
LikeLike
While I appreciate your confidence in my writing abilities, I don’t have any near-term plans on that kind of a project. Honestly, I can think of many much better ways to advance the Gospel than getting into comment squabbles with folks who all seem pretty set in their thoughts on the question of the Exodus.
As always, you put too much stock in the importance of that particular story to the larger Gospel narrative. As I have explained before, while it unquestionably provides important background, whether or not someone has trouble with the idea of its historicity doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they accept that Jesus rose from the dead. To put that another way, you are laser focused on matters that don’t affect whether or not someone can be saved at all. So then, again, why get into comment thread arguments with people about it something that doesn’t affect their salvation?
As for converting or reconverting, as you put it, folks on your blog, while I hope and pray God puts faithful believers in their path and softens their heart such that they will be willing to genuinely listen and receive the Gospel, they’re not my primary audience. That’s the folks in my congregation and community. If they want to come and read my blog and ask questions about it, by all means. I’ll engage with them as much as I can as I do with you. But I’ve got more than enough to keep me busy without your comment thread.
Plus, while Jesus absolutely commanded His followers to spread the word, He also said to focus on spreading in places where it is likely to gain a friendly and receptive hearing. If someone doesn’t show any interest, He said to move on to the next place to try there instead. From the looks of it, most of your skeptical cadre have heard and rejected the Gospel many times over. Why take time away from sharing it folks who might actually be interested in accepting, so that I can make arguments that have already been rejected to folks who, unless I’m much mistake, don’t seemed very inclined to receive it? Unless you can make a better argument than Jesus on the matter, I’m personally inclined to go with Him.
LikeLike
The point I am trying make here is if you are laser focused on the resurrection tale for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, why do you steadfastly avoid engaging with the Exodus tale for which there is also no evidence whatsoever, especially as the character Jesus of Nazareth seemed to consider Moses to be a genuine historical individual.
LikeLike
No, as we have talked about before, because of the worldview commitments you have made (notably methodological naturalism and scientism), you are not able to consider all the evidence there is for the resurrection. I’m not interested in engaging on the kind of evidence you will accept for the Exodus because it’s not a salvation-determining issue. It’s a second-tier issue at best. And, if (for clarity’s sake, that and the ones that follow are first-class conditional “ifs” that really should be read like “since”) Jesus rose from the dead, then He really is the Messiah, and if He really is the Messiah, then I’m perfectly willing to take His perspective on the historicity of the Exodus at face value. Everything comes back to the resurrection. Paul made as much clear in 1 Corinthians 15. Go back and give that one a read if you haven’t recently. It explains pretty well why I keep steering things back to that point every time.
LikeLike
What evidence for the resurrection?
This has absolutely nothing to do with my “worldview”, but with fact.
And the facts are straightforward and fairly simple. There is NO evidence for the Exodus, this puts any claims supposedly made by the character Jesus of Nazareth dubious at best.
To deny the findings of archaeologists who have worked this issue for decades is to acknowledge you are wilfully ignorant and /or your indoctrination is do complete you are in the same league as flat earthers and YEC.
LikeLike
We’ve talked about that before. Multiple times. There’s no reason to go back through it again.
LikeLike
And yet you refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of your position.
Jonathan. Serious question. Are you so immersed in your faith you simply cannot contemplate your position may be false or, do you suspect it probably is false and are afraid, even if only slightly, of the consequences admitting to the fact and where it may lead?
LikeLike
You know, I wonder the same thing about you. On my part, there’s no hypocrisy to my position at all. You simply can’t see that because you are coming at things from such a paradigmatically opposing worldview position. And I can absolutely contemplate that I may be wrong. We’ve talked about that before and you commended me for it. I’ve spent a fair bit of time examining the arguments for and against. The arguments against simply aren’t nearly as strong or compelling as the arguments in favor.
LikeLike
Of course there is hypocrisy!!
You accept archaeological evidence for a whole host of things yet deny the evidence which uses the same methodology that refutes the Exodus tale.
So, as you have no doubt thoroughly examined both sides, what arguments for the Exodus are stronger than the archaeological evidence that demonstrates it is nothing but geopolitical foundation myth to which many hundreds of professional archaeologists have devoted a large part of their lives?
For a change no hand waving, let’s see the colour of your money as the saying goes.
Your up….
The floor is all yours.
LikeLike
It’s my blog. The floor is always mine ;~)
We’ve talked multiple times before about my thinking on the question of the historicity of the Exodus. You are more than welcome to go back and find those conversations and read them again if you’ve forgotten how they went. I feel not even the slightest need to rehash it with you here.
LikeLike
So, as I stated… blatent hypocrisy.
Therefore, once again, are you too afraid to approach the issue honestly in case of what it will reveal about your faith?
LikeLike
Only if you are coming at the relevant questions from the standpoint of the worldview framework you have adopted for yourself. Given that I reject that particular worldview framework in its entirety, your continuing to accuse me of hypocrisy really doesn’t move the needle for me at all.
And, taunting aside, I was pretty clear in my response. We’ve covered that topic before. More than once. If you have forgotten how it went, by all means, search back through, find its various iterations, and refamiliarize yourself. Why waste time rehashing old ground that won’t result in a different outcome?
LikeLike
Worldview has zip to do with evidence unless you are shamming it, and you know this. In fact, to deny the evidence and assert it doesn’t apply to you is not only hypocrisy but lying, plain and simple.
Again, the question remains.
And a+are you capable of bring honest?
Why do you reject the archaeological evidence that flatly refutes the Exodus narrative?
LikeLike
Worldview has a great deal to do with evidence. We’ve talked about this before, but you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the philosophical reasons for it. You can go back and review those conversations as well if you need to. On the rest, you’re asking the same questions you’ve asked many times before. The only reason a question remains is because you haven’t been willing to accept the answers I’ve given. You are again welcomed and encouraged to go back and review those past conversations if you’ve forgotten how they went. My responses now won’t be any different than they were then.
LikeLike
Worldview has nothing to do with the archaeological evidence that has refuted the Exodus narrtive.
In fact, those who first had access to the Sinai went with the objective of finding the evidence to verify the bible tale. But the more they dug the more it became apparent that there was nothing to find.
In fact, what evidence came to light refutes the Exodus narrative and established the Israelites emerged from within the general Canaanite population.
But you KNOW all this already, and you also know that worldview does NOT alter the evidence, it is the interpretation.
Therefore, once again, why do you deny the Exodus narrative is simply a geopolitical foundation myth and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that has refuted the Exodus narrative as told in the bible?
As someone as well respected as David Wolpe recognizes these facts I am trying to understand the reason for your intransigence over this matter.
If not hypocrisy, or fear, or indoctrination what possible motive can you offer for your continued refusal to engage with the evidence?
LikeLike
Once again, I invite you to go back through the conversations we’ve already had more than once on this very subject. You’ve asked these same questions before. I won’t answer them differently now than I did then. Neither will I take time I don’t have to write it all back out.
LikeLike
I cannot remember your answers.
If you are not afraid to confront the truth give me the brief version.
Let me help:
“I reject the archaeological evidence that demonstrates the Exodus narrative is a geopolitical foundation myth because” : (insert reason here)….
LikeLike
If you can’t remember what I’ve said before when we’ve had this same conversation at least three times, why on earth would I want to invest any more time in giving you answers you won’t remember and won’t move the needle for you anyway? It’s like a broken record. After the third or fourth time it skips at the same place, you stop playing it and find a new one. If you need to characterize my unwillingness to waste my time when I’ve already directed you (four times now?) to where you can find the answers to your questions all by yourself as fear or ignorance or indoctrination or whatever other intentionally demeaning adjective you want to choose in order to feel better about your position, by all means, but you’re really not accomplishing anything by it. So, once again, when you’re ready to invest your own time in finding those past conversations and reviewing them for yourself, have at it.
LikeLike
I’ll make a point to copy it this time.
Link me to a specific post if you aren’t willing to explain your reason here.
LikeLike
You want the answers. You do the work.
LikeLike
Okay. I will look back on some of the posts. But just to confirm: You do reject the evidence that hundreds of archaeologists have worked on, some for much of their professional lives that demonstrates the Exodus narrative is a geopolitical foundation myth, yes?
LikeLike
I have looked back on some of our dialogue and as I have mentioned over the course of our chats everything for you rests on faith (belief in the veracity of the texts, no matter how outrageous) and flatly refusing to accept evidence because of supposed worldviews.
Let us approach this from a slightly different angle.
Consider the Exodus narrative and your vague claim regarding the Israelites and Pharoah’s army.
Egypt, like a number of regional powers of the time kept extensive records, and although they someones had a penchant for erasing records of military defeats the devastation of an entire army by any means, let alone supernatural would have had serious ramifications.
Yet, this was not the case with the unnamed Pharoah and his entire army that was erased without a trace.
As far as records go things seemed to carry on pretty much as normal. Even the Armana letters make no mention of this catastrophic military defeat, and the assumption would suggest the Pharoah was alive and kicking. You are aware of the Armana letters, I presume?
Consider also the fact there is no record of the Israelites ever being in Egypt as described.
You could also consider Kadesh Barnia where the Israelites supposedly stayed for around 38 years. Try to imagine what sort of infrastructure would be needed to support such a vast community over this length of time.
Deaths alone would have numbered in the tens of thousands. Where are the bones?
How about sanitation, water, food.
Imagine the town /city where you live having close to two million people residing practically in your doorstep. If this multitude weren’t intent on wiping your community off the face of the earth there would most certainly have been some inter community comings and goings.
And yet Kadesh has revealed absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was ever occupied to this extent. Nothing.
Now take a moment and think about all the other surrounding communities who would have become aware of such a vast number of people and animals camped practically right on their doorstep.
Are you aware of the amount of written communication, inter community trade, etc etc that went on over the three decades while the Israelites stayed at Kadesh?
Do you know how many written records exist among all the nations and tribes and even individuals that must have come into contact with this seething mass of humanity over 38 years that document in ANY way shape or form their presence?
Tell me in all honesty how this could have transpired without a single mention anywhere or in any form.
LikeLike
Well, no wonder my stats were up so high yesterday, and with so many views from South Africa!
First, to answer your question on your other comment, no, that’s not what I’m saying. That’s what you keep saying. That’s the box you keep trying to pin me down into. I have not once conceded in either direction. The position I hold is one that is laden with tension that is both difficult and sometimes impossible to resolve. I’m okay with that. You are the one who insists that there has to be neat and tidy answers to all of these questions, and if there aren’t in the way you insist they must exist, then the answer must be unavoidably no.
As for the rest of this here, I was just reading a book on my shelf this morning that works through all of these issues and a whole lot more. You might find it interesting if you can still find a copy of it online. Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple. It’s an edited volume by a diverse collection of biblical scholars who are well-credentialed in the fields they represent.
In skimming the relevant chapter, there are several frank admissions that you would likely cheer. They are honest about the overall lack of the kind of archaeological evidence you insist must exist for the story to be anything other than a “geopolitical foundation myth.” What they also confidently assert, though, is that there is an historical core to the story that is impossible to deny with any intellectual credibility. The evidence for this comes from a wide variety of sources, some of which are admittedly circumstantial, from which we can say with a fair level of confidence that a group of Israelites migrated to Egypt, sojourned in Egypt for a while, and then migrated back to Canaan.
They are willing to acknowledge that many of the details we find in the story may not be historical in the way we think about historical details today, but this doesn’t mean they take away from the overall historical reliability of the story. We have put ourselves in the mindset of the original authors (Moses and later editors are who at least conservative biblical scholars would credit it) and what and how they were trying to convey what they did.
They actually address your last question in some detail with a reference to the city of Dibon-gad. “The Israelites encamped at Dibon-gad (Numbers 33:45), east of the Jordan, where presumably there was a settlement if not a city. The site is confidently identified as Tell Dhiban, which, like Kadesh-Barnea, has been extensively excavated. No settlement from the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.C.E.), when the Israelites encamped at Dibon, has been found there. Since this is the invasion route of the Israelite tribes, one might expect to find a destroyed Late Bronze Age settlement of some sort. That is not the end of this particular story, however. The 15th-century B.C.E. list of cities in this area carved by Thutmosis III on the wall of the Temple of Amun in Karnak includes a site named Dibon! According to Thutmosis, there was a city at Dibon at this time even though it is not attested archaeologically! What does this tell us about the absence of early remains at Kadesh-Barnea?”
In short, the scholars you cite are all well-reputed and for good reason. Their work has been detailed, extensive, and valuable. But they may not have found everything.
Consider it in these terms. You have expressed a ready willingness to accept the idea of a multiverse without even the slightest shred of evidence as an explanation for how our finely-tuned universe came into existence because of your worldview commitment to methodological naturalism and in order to avoid even the slightest chance of a supernatural explanation for it. This willingness on your part is an article of faith, not evidence. Because of the worldview commitments I have made and because of the number of times skeptical archaeologists have insisted one Biblical reference or another must be fabricated only to later uncover evidence supporting it, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the overall historicity of the Exodus narrative. I do this in part on faith, but in part on the number of pieces of admittedly circumstantial evidence that point in the general direction of some core of historicity. That we haven’t found the kind of detail archaeological records to prove it beyond all doubt like we have of other ancient historical happenings doesn’t mean we know everything or that there’s no historicity to it at all.
I’ll let you conclude whatever you need to from all of that, but the charge of willful ignorance or indoctrination really don’t carry much weight. I’ve examined the relevant questions and a fair bit of the evidentiary arguments (though admittedly not as thoroughly as you have because this is a hobby horse of yours and it isn’t for me), and I have yet to find anything, nor have you presented anything, that leads me to conclude that your position is the correct one. And, whether you like it or not, it is our respective worldview commitments that lead us to our divergent conclusions.
And before you respond back, know well, this is all the time I can give to this today. It’ll like be Monday before I can respond to anything else.
LikeLike
You may enjoy this.
John Zande wrote a series of articles on the Exodus narrative and was in direct communication over an extended period with the rabbis in question.
I realize you will assert that you will cling to your faith no matter what, an assertion I am sure made by every devout believer who ever had the courage to admit it was all lies and then deconverted.
The evidence is what it is.
John is a fine writer and his research is impeccable.
LikeLike
Interesting. Not particularly persuasive, and little more than a repetition of things you’ve already argued to me and to which I’ve responded to one extent or another at various times, but interesting. I’ve tried to explain before, though, and you don’t seem to grasp the point, that what Jewish rabbis think about the Old Testament has very little to no bearing on my own views as a Christian.
LikeLike
The opening line is very telling
Would you lie to your children.
Your views have no bearing on evidence and fact. They are mired in supernaturalism, probably prompted by death anxiety as a result of indoctrination, cultural or otherwise.
This is one of the mains points I have been explaining to you almost from the word go.
Those that eventually become open – minded enough to approach their religion from a non religious worldview, accept evidence and fact, then have a habit of deconverting.
Perhaps you are not ready yet?
LikeLike
Your arrogant disdain and total lack of meaningful understanding of religion is noted. More than that, though, your total inability to fathom why someone would be inclined toward religion at all let alone Christian religion is glaring. It is an effect of your worldview position that says a great deal more about you than about religion as an institution. Until you get past that, you will never be able to understand this thing for which you have so much breathtakingly ignorant disdain. Alas…it is the position you have chosen.
LikeLike
I am perfectly aware of why someone would be inclined toward religion- emotional insecurity of one sort or another ( death anxiety for example) and indoctrination, cultural and otherwise. You are a product of your birth, geographical location and environment. I doubt you ever give any serious thought why you aren’t Muslim, Hindu or a Jain, do you? I would not be at all surprised if you consider the USA as partbof your god’s plan!
This is why the Rabbi quoted in John’s piece had the humility to acknowledge the true nature of the position and ask the question:
“Would you knowingly lie to your children?”
You can’t seem to grasp the enormity of this and the implications. Or rather you very likely refuse to.
Oh, and I did get past “that”.
This is why , unlike you, I do not hold to unsubstantiated supernatural drivel.
Furthermore, as you refuse point blank to explain or even be remotely honest about what you consider is my ” breathtaking disdain” then it is you, Jonathan that is not only wilfully ignorant but also so full of hubris you cannot get past that forest of splinters in your eye.
LikeLike
You may want to reconsider your first paragraph’s worth of arguments there. You make several statements of faith, not evidence, and I know you aren’t typically a fan of those.
On your second paragraph, I grasp the nature of that question perfectly well. I simply don’t lie to my kids. You will continue to disagree because of the worldview framework out of which you operate, but as I have said to you many times, because I reject your worldview framework (…wait for it…evidence doesn’t have anything to do with worldview…there, I saved you time writing back out your retort…you’re welcome), your assessment on the point isn’t consequential to me at all.
And on the last part, no, you haven’t gotten past your disdain for religion by any stretch of the imagination. You wallow in it. Go back and read the last several of your comments with a bit of objectivity if you can. If you can’t see the disdain you have for religion dripping from them, then I really can’t help you at all.
LikeLike
1.Exactly what about the first paragraph is a statement of faith? You will need to be specific.
2. If there is anything regarding the bible text you convey to your children as historical fact / truth when the evidence flatly refutes the faith based position then you are lying.
The “that” in my final paragraph was in reference to your assertion that I cannot fathom why people are inclined towards religion.
And I have already told you why.
Now, go back and read the last several of your comments and see if you can address the evidence rather than equivocate.
LikeLike
You made several confident statements about why someone in general and why I in particular hold to religious beliefs. But, you don’t actually have any real evidence regarding those matters beyond what I have told you, and you flatly reject that. Thus, you are making statements of faith. You believe certain things about religion and religious people to be true. And then you operate as if those were true even when you don’t have empirical evidence to back up those beliefs. Thus they are statements of faith.
You and I don’t agree on what is true in the Scriptures and what isn’t. As a result, any answer I give to your second question that doesn’t accord with what you have accepted as true (which is not the same thing as acknowledging whether or not it is true) you will consider to be lying. I reject your positions on pretty well all those matters, though, so again, your assessment of my honesty or dishonest is irrelevant to me.
And you cannot honestly fathom why people are inclined toward religion. You can only speculate from out of your worldview lens which is severely limited and rejects many personal testimonies regarding why which function as the only actual evidence (using your definition of evidence) you have available to you. Thus your ongoing inability to honestly fathom it.
LikeLike
Let’s tackle each issue one at a time.
1.Firsg and PLEASE do not hand wave this question.
If not cultural or actual indoctrination or emotional insecurities (death anxiety, for example) what other possible reason can you offer for someone turning to religion?
LikeLike
I can give reasons, but if you’ve already decided on what the range of possible reasons could be, why would I bother? And to be clear, you’ve been very forthright in your belief that there aren’t rational reasons for religion. Why bother answering a question like this given that?
LikeLike
These are the only ones I am aware of. However, this, dies not mean there aren’t others. Therefore, if you have any, please tell me so I can add them to my list.
LikeLike