Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the time frame most Bible scholars place the Exodus.

Perhaps you might have been exposed to the idea if you didn't have a bias that says the Bible is crap.

Use bible scholars for religious matters but when wanting dates choose an historian.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why? Modern man is smart enough to "get" the message.

Although looking around, maybe not.

I would say that most modern people are smart enough to ignore or twist the message to fit into a 21st Century world, which is very fortunate because otherwise I'd most likely be dead by the hands of some devout Christian.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Use bible scholars for religious matters but when wanting dates choose an historian.

Judaism has a long tradition of dating the Exodus in the year 1446 BCE. Anthropological evidence is scant. Most estimates are based on other events in the Bible.

The Babylonian Exile was in 586 BCE, so saying the Torah was written in 500 BCE is problematic, merely from that standpoint alone.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I would say that most modern people are smart enough to ignore or twist the message to fit into a 21st Century world, which is very fortunate because otherwise I'd most likely be dead by the hands of some devout Christian.

"Ignore" or "twist"? A more tactful word might be "modify", although nothing really needs to be "modified". It was written for an entirely different time. It still has messages for today for those who are thoughtful.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the time frame most Bible scholars place the Exodus.

Perhaps you might have been exposed to the idea if you didn't have a bias that says the Bible is crap.

Wikipedia says:

The historical consensus is that Moses is not an historical figure.

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

Now it was my understanding that you poo poo people that take Genesis literally and discard the scientific consensus on the age of the earth. Why do you go against the 'historical consensus' when it comes to Moses and instead stick with Jewish tradition?

Does the Bible state that Moses wrote the Torah?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Judaism has a long tradition of dating the Exodus in the year 1446 BCE. Anthropological evidence is scant. Most estimates are based on other events in the Bible.

The Babylonian Exile was in 586 BCE, so saying the Torah was written in 500 BCE is problematic, merely from that standpoint alone.

The Torah is based in part on an oral tradition which means that it went some time
before being fixed and written down.
This means that there is no contradiction in the Torah as we know it today being
written around 500 BCE [+/- a century or two] when the events that spawned it
happened centuries or even millennia earlier. [assuming that those events were
real historical events and not mythical ones]

In the same way that the present day bible was built from many different 'books' that
were written and brought together [some rejected/edited] to produce what we know
today as 'the bible' in all its different forms and that this process took centuries.

It's highly likely that the process of creating the modern Torah also took a long period
of time especially as you consider that the farther back in time you go the less things
were written down.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Wikipedia says:

The historical consensus is that Moses is not an historical figure.

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

Now it was my understanding that you poo poo people that take Genesis literally and discard the scientific consensus on the age of the earth. Why do you go against the 'historical consensus' when it comes to Moses and instead stick with Jewish tradition?

Does the Bible state that Moses wrote the Torah?

Yes

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually old bean the preceding verses make it rather clear that the entire passage of Deuteronomy 25 is dealing with the rights of someone to establish progeny and the consequences of preventing it. Let it serve as a lesson to refrain from vociferously fabricating unwarranted assertions while ignoring the immediate context.

Two thumbs up given by complete Bible noobs, now thats scandalous! 😵

That is just plain not true. Here's Deuteronomy 25:4:

4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

and what follows Deuteronomy 11&12 is:

13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. 14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. 15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

which also has nothing to do with reproductive rights, although I concede that Deuteronomy 25:5-10 do I don't think you can conclude anything from that, ancient law codes were not written in any logical order, they were just plonked down in the order that those writing them thought of them. You see this in codes as varied as the Code of the Nesilim and the Anglo-Saxon law codes; the Bible is no different. Here are two (chosen for entertainment value) excerpts from the Code of the Nesilim, note the distance in numbering:

187. If a man have intercourse with a cow, it is a capital crime, he shall die. They shall lead him to the king's hall. But the king may kill him, the king may grant him his life. But he shall not approach the king.

199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment [Note - I checked this with a medical professional and horses are the riskiest for zoonotic diseases, this is not based on risk]. But he shall not approach the king [I can see why the king wouldn't want that], and shall not become a priest [Note that ritual uncleanliness is implied by this]. If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man, and they shall kill it [Interesting that a substitute is required]. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.

A modern law code would tend to put the bestiality clauses together and separate from the ones concerning humans. I love the inconsistency, shagging pigs and dogs is an automatic death penalty, cows are an each way offence, but horses are fine!

You simply cannot conclude that verses 11 and 12 of Deuteronomy 25 have to do with reproductive rights just because 5-10 do. Ancient law codes are not organised that way.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That is just plain not true. Here's Deuteronomy 25:4:

4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

and what follows Deuteronomy 11&12 is:[quote]13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. 14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. 15 But thou shalt have a perfect a ...[text shortened]... do with reproductive rights just because 5-10 do. Ancient law codes are not organised that way.

yes it is true, here are the preceding verses taken from Deuteronomy 25:7 onwards, the verses which immediately preceded verse 12 cited and which form the immediate context

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

All to do with the perpetuating of progeny and punishments for its prevention Now I take it i will not need to point out the rather glaring an obvious references to you inherent in the passage. We should not make the mistake of ignoring the immediate context otherwise we form all kinds of absurd ideas.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I hear that a lot, but then nobody actually explains what the 'context and times' are and how that justifies the terrible things in the verses. If you chopped off a woman's hand 2000 years ago, did it hurt less?

Well, grabbing a man by the testicles with long, ragged, dirty fingernails from behind while he's fighting for his life probably hurts too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it is true, here are the preceding verses taken from Deuteronomy 25:7 onwards, the verses which immediately preceded verse 12 cited and which form the immediate context

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “[b]My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s nam ...[text shortened]... make the mistake of ignoring the immediate context otherwise we form all kinds of absurd ideas.

You cannot conclude that verses 5 to 10 form a context for verses 11 and 12, otherwise verses 1-5 and 13 onwards would not be about treatment of livestock and weights and measures. What is more unless she uses such force she actually ruptures a testicle then she is not going to damage his reproductive chances and they will have been perfectly aware of that in ancient Israel - medicine was surprisingly competent in those days. Your case that the reason for the punishment is connected with reproductive rights is faulty.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, grabbing a man by the testicles with long, ragged, dirty fingernails from behind while he's fighting for his life probably hurts too.

And yet it hasn't actually harmed my marriage once in 25 years.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You cannot conclude that verses 5 to 10 form a context for verses 11 and 12, otherwise verses 1-5 and 13 onwards would not be about treatment of livestock and weights and measures. What is more unless she uses such force she actually ruptures a testicle then she is not going to damage his reproductive chances and they will have been perfectly aware of t ...[text shortened]... . Your case that the reason for the punishment is connected with reproductive rights is faulty.

On the contrary, anyone that looks at the passages in the book of Deuteronomy with a reasoned and rational mind can readily discern that chapters are not divided into neatly contrived homogeneous parts. Sometimes they deal with agriculture, sometimes they deal with the perpetuation of progeny all in the same chapter.

To attempt to make the argument that verses which immediately precede a verse cannot be considered as the immediate context because the verse which preceded it deal with an entirely different subject matter is unreasonable and clutching at straws. Clearly verses 7-11 deal with the perpetuation of progeny and its not unreasonable to state that v 12 and the punishment for endangering that perpetuation of progeny constitute one and the same subject. To attempt to use the idea that the verses which precede verse seven and which deals with an entirely different subject matter somehow renders verses 7-11 as not being the immediate context is simply a desperate attempt to ignore reality for reasons already cited.

I repeat it again, you should have considered the immediate context prior to making your assertion and you would not now be thrashing trying to find a pretext no matter how unreasonable or far fetched.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
To attempt to make the argument that verses which immediately precede a verse cannot be considered as the immediate context because the verse which preceded it deal with an entirely different subject matter is unreasonable and clutching at straws.

And yet this is exactly what you yourself do when you cite Acts 15:28-29 (indeed you surgically extract the two words "from blood" from it, specifically in order to take them out of their context and then attach different out-of-context 'legal' meaning to them) to claim blood transfusions are forbidden by the Christian God figure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious as to why you think that. Were you told by your pastor? Did you see it in a dream? Did you find it online somewhere? If it was the last one, can you provide a reference?

1 Kings 6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.

.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple

The biblical source, 1 Kings 6:1, puts the date of the beginning of building the temple "in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel". The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are circa 970 to 931 BCE. This puts the date of its construction in the mid-10th century BCE.

That gives enough information to calculate the date of the Exodus as being approximately 1446 BCE.