Is the Bible real?

Attached: Moses-and-the-Ten-Commandments-GettyImages-171418029-5858376a3df78ce2c3b8f56d.jpg (768x512, 119.21K)

Wasn't there some evidence that the Jews were never in Egypt and that Egypt probably took the place of some less significant nation in the story, as the years went by?

You have to understand we're a people of faith, and that we've our foundation in which we view the universe. It's the same for everyone, but for those who don't have an overarching sense of perception, will be blind towards certain knowledge and few will be quick to abandon qualities just to spite on the fact that they're blind.
You can witness this in the quote you just posted.
All the evidence suggest that if the exodus did occured, it had during the the 15th century. Then it's no wonder why these "archaeologist" are unable to produce anything that resemble the exodus.

solipsism says yes

Moses was raised in Pharaohs household. Seems like just more academics making names for themselves by making claims.
FYI Wikipedia is not an unbiased source. Wookieepedia is better in that aspect

What OP?

Attached: Red Sea crossing.jpg (640x625, 109.75K)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I wish this were true but a few quick checks shows this image is a fake from fake news sites. Any real discovery like this would've been picked up by legitimate Christian academics

Begone, satan! Bible is the ultimate life manual and any doubt should be considered as heresy!

Hoffmeier's books are a good source on this subject. There isn't any direct, silver bullet proof of the kind claims exist, but there is some indirect evidence, and the story isn't as impossible as it's often made to be.

Attached: 51iU6a4kJEL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (362x550 43.75 KB, 31.46K)

The names Moses and Aaron are Egyptian. There's also ancient hymns from the 10th century B.C. like the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 which mention that YHWH "went out from Seir", and "marched from Edom" and also being on Sinai. Also, explain the Levites. There has to be a historical core to the Exodus.

Gee i wonder why

True, but you have to remember that Egyptian chroniclers had a tendency sweep any events that painted Egypt in a less than favorable light under the rug. Like when they actively tried to destroy any mention of that village that was flooded by the Nile because they wanted their people to think the Nile was a gift from the gods. Or when they had a battle with the Hittites and claimed they won even though the Hittites were the actual victors.

Not necessarily. There have been discoveries of work rosters with Hebrew names on them so there is proof that the Israelites were Egypt around that time. As for the Sinai wilderness, what kind of evidence would a nomadic group leave in an area they only occupied for 40 years? All of their settlements would have been made of tents and they would have only carried things like water in sacks of animal skin.

Like said, Moses did not come from humble origins.

No

...

I don't doubt that there is little evidence of Moses. Moses lived long ago, much of history around his time is lost. Quick: name a contemporary of Moses not named in Exodus. As pointed out, it's not out of place, given the story, for there to be little evidence of it. Egyptian government changed history all the time. There were carvings on the sphinx saying a certain dynasty created it. Modern archeologists looked at those carvings, and found that dynasty didn't create the sphinx, and a later king had actually carved over the original inscription in order to boost his own credibility. However, if Moses didn't exist, the story of David wouldn't exist as it is in the Bible, nor would the story of Jesus, or the story of Paul. There is plenty of historical evidence for David, there is plenty of historical evidence for Jesus, and there is plenty of historical evidence for Paul; therefore Moses must have existed, as these men both pointed to him. Unless you deny the God of the Bible, but that makes no sense in light of the resurrection.

...

The death of a pharaohs son would definitely be big news even if it were a supernatural slave revolt. ESPECIALLY, even.

>(((scholarly consensus)))
According to wikipedia, the tribes of israel were established right about the time of the bronze age collapse. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?

Attached: 22e675dffe37475bd8772c24db62ba655540c18ec9134b2998cc950115b0b66d.jpeg (691x625, 162.37K)

>The (((scholarly))) consensus

You'd think the Bible and Christianity would get at least ONE thing right, just by the law of averages!

Wew, so this is the power of the "Higher Criticism"!

Theres your problem. Wikipedia is abhorrently dishonest when it comes to Christianity. They like to quote scholars with an obvious agenda or who hold a minority view or who are not actually legitimate scholars.

I made the point in the QTDDTOTT that since there are disagreements in the gospels about the exact circumstances of events in Jesus' life, the Bible must be flawed. It cannot be held as perfect, infallible scripture.

I thought the OT was considered noncanon anyway

NT is placed above OT but OT is in no way non-canon.

Attached: 328e619f5cfa474edfe5db9e9db8db5b0997f8ef86c42c30247dd5d147334b4b.mp4 (360x360, 425.25K)

Than why are things like Leviticus retconned as far as rules for us to live?

Just because they were meant for the Jews?

Correct. The ritual mandates of the old testament were just to distinguish the Hebrews from their godless neighbors, only the moral statements apply to Christians.

BEGONE HERETIC
Any Christian who says that couldn't be more wrong in that assertion. In order to understand God, His will, His prophesies and His character you ought to read the Old Testament, and I mean the whole Old Testament, so preferably the Apocrypha or a Catholic/Orthodox Bible based on the Latin Vulgate or Textus Receptus and Septuagint. The New Testament is based on the law, teachings and prophesies of the Old Testament, to never read it but only the New Testament is utterly foolish. For some people the New Testament is enough to accept Jesus Christ and ultimately God and live by His word, but anyone who genuinely wants to understand Christianity and our one true God then it is one's utmost imperative to read the whole Bible accordingly.

Attached: f371f5908cfe3824f1146575969b8357b6c9d7244606fbb2ee4d73e7847c93b2.png (1185x1028, 564.8K)

I think he meant the law of the NT supersedes the law in the OT.

...

I'm not sure if you're arguing against the Book of Exodus, but either way I believe the account of the story, the plagues God unleashed upon Egypt, which gave God a reason to be so angry at the Israelites in the wilderness for their complaining, whining, and unfaithfulness.

I've been to a religious school in a conservative state within the Bible belt, and the stuff they have you read about the Bible is very concerning and shatters any faith a baby Christian would have. I was pretty shocked myself and can understand why many pastors of churches today are very weak and powerless (not to demean the church or pastors in any way, we should all be praying for them regardless).

You first need to believe and understand that there is a spiritual realm before you even proceed with the Bible in my opinion. Else, you're going to interpret the Bible through some faulty lens and you might as well not read the Bible in the first place because the reason why you should read it is lost on you in the first place. I believe in the Bible, I take it as the book of the supernatural, I believe in the story, I believe in the death, burial, and most importantly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's not important if you believe in literal creation or not, or this or that, what is important is that you believe in Jesus Christ and His Word. God bless.

Tell you what, if it's not true, that's a massive relief, because it'll unhook conservatives from worshiping the Jews that put Christ on a cross and killed many prophets. They can finally start taking the spiritual lessons the stories intone, rather than taking them literally.

Because that was the Old Covenant, and we live in the New Covenant.
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back at things is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62)
God mandates these things called covenants throughout certain times within the history of Mankind. For example, it's clear that Adam and Eve after they were kicked out of the Garden were not Jews in a sense. Although they did practice sacrifice (most likely taught by God Himself to Adam and Eve), the Mosaic Law did not come to the Israelites until after they had left Egypt. There is also the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, etc. When Jesus came, He was the fulfillment of the Law and as Gentiles we do not have to abide by the Law. The important Law to follow is loving God and loving thy neighbour.

No, the Bible is real and true, all of it. The problem is the way people interpret the Bible which causes many problems. The important thing is to Seek God and have the Holy Spirit guide you. God may not answer all your questions immediately, but He will answer them in this life or the next.

wikipedia is shit and truth doesn't depend on "majority of scholars", this isn't islam

How do we tell the difference between moral statements and ritual mandates? Honest question

Stop being a Marcionite. Christ came to create the New Covenant in order to replace the Old Covenant. Judaism is bad because it rejects the New Covenant in favour of the Talmud, while Marcionism is bad because it rejects the reasons for which the New Covenant was created and instead accepts Gnostic ravings. Also keep in mind that it’s literally the Jews (the sneaky ones at least) who are promoting the modernist critical attitude to the Bible, and the product of this scepticism (atheists, agnostics, liberal “Christians”) are puppets, not enemies of the Jews. The fact that dispensationalists/zionists misunderstand the Old Testament and fail to differentiate between the Israelites of the Old Covenant and the infidels of today is no excuse for YOU to reject the validity of the Old Testament.

BTFO!

Link is not available in the states

The Bible is real. The gods of Egypt were toppled by the Lord through Moses. There is actually more evidence suggesting that the Book of Exodus took place, rather than not. The vast majority of scholars that delve into this subject are atheist by nature, and seek to prove the 'invalidity of the Bible'. If you want to trust them over your Lord, then that is your failure and not His.

The version I recently heard was that the Hebrews in Egypt were mercenaries and that the Pharaoh only chased after them when they started pillaging his land on their way back.
Since "Israel was founded by thieving, plundering mercenaries" doesn't quite sound as nice, they portrayed themselves as the victim.

No idea if this is true. Just heard a guy say that recently.

...

>(((Historical Criticism)))

Attached: 1e19ffc2dc3464c72d50f00bd762f79ab75b17a2d048fa9351bdec1ac102bd15.png (911x196, 13.13K)

There is no such thing as a Pharoh. Its not an Egyptian word.