Scientific Evidence for an Immaterial Mind - aka the Soul

Yes, we do have some evidence that the mind is separate from the brain.

1) cerebral localization

It's been known since the 19th century that for motor and sensory function there are very specific locations in the brain that seem to mediate those functions. Hand movements are controlled by a specific part of the opposite cerebral hemisphere. Vision is controlled by a very discrete area in the occipital lobes.

However, Higher intellectual functions, such as abstract thought, mathematics, ethics, are not localized like that. There is no calculus center of my brain. There's no ethics center in my brain.

The brain seems to be necessary for doing calculus and doing addition and thinking about concepts like justice and mercy, and so on, but it's not localizable. The belief that higher abstract thought was going to be localizable was held by materialism in the 19th century, and they developed the theory of phrenology from that. He has the idea that all of these individual higher intellectual Functions have a spot in the brain that controlled them. Phrenology has been discredited. It's been shown to be wrong.

Because only certain things in the brain seem to be mediated by the brain other aspects of the mind, don't have a spot in the brain. The implication there is that they're not really material, but they're an immaterial power of being able to reason and use logic. And frankly, that's a very old dualist idea. It was an idea proposed by Aristotle. So for thousands of years duelists have predicted that and modern neuroscience, for now, confirms that.

2) split brain operations

Back in the 1960s, Roger Sperry, a prominent neuroscientist did a series of studies on patients, who had split brain operations due to severe epilepsy. An epileptic focus would begin in one hemisphere of the brain and travel through the corpus colosum, which is a bundle of fibers connecting the two hemispheres, and cause a generalized seizure.

It was recognized by surgeons in the mid-20th century that if you cut the fiber bundle that connected, the two hemispheres of the brain that you could prevent the seizures from becoming generalized, and you could greatly improve the quality of the patient's life. So a number of patients had this operation called corpus callosotomy. The patient's seizures would get better. But they really weren't much different, that is that their brains were essentially cut in half, but they still seem to be a unitary person. They still seem to be fairly normal. Sperry was a neuroscientist who studied these people in detail, and he did find that there were some subtle abnormalities as a result of cutting the brain in half, but the abnormalities were very subtle; so subtle that the experiments he won him the Nobel Prize.

And what that implies is that the human mind is not purely generated by the matter of the brain, otherwise cutting the brain in half would have profound effects on the human mind. It might make two people. Certainly, it should create a profound difference in a person's state of consciousness, but it doesn't. You've cut the brain in half and the person can't tell the difference, except that he has fewer seizures.

3) epilepsy neurosurgery

Dr. Penfield was the first neurosurgeon to systematically operate on the human brain when people were awake; he would work on the brain while they were awake in an effort to identify the focus of their seizures and to remove the focus from the brain. So their seizures would stop, and he operated on upwards of a thousand patients like this and very carefully recorded his results. He believed that all the mind originated from activity of the brain., but by the end of his career, he was a passionate dualist.

He repeatedly observed that there were aspects of the patient's mind that no matter what he did to the brain he couldn't affect. He could elicit memories, make a muscle move, or make a patient have a sensation. But he couldn't change their consciousness, he couldn't change their intellect, he couldn't change their sense of self. There was a fundamental core, that no matter what he did to the brain, remain the same. So, he said there was something he couldn't reach.

He asked the question, why are there no intellectual seizures? When people have epilepsy, commonly a person will have jerking of a muscle. Sometimes so many muscles jerk that they actually go unconscious. Sometimes they have a tingling on their skin, or sometimes they'll have a funny smell, or sometimes they can even have a little behavioral tick.

But they never start doing calculus. They never contemplate, justice or mercy. They never think about Shakespeare. So Penfield says, why aren't there intellectual seizures? If the mind comes from the brain entirely, the mind is material in some sense, then you ought to have seizures that make you do addition. Or think about politics. But you don't. What that implies is that the intellect is not the brain.

4) vegetative state brain function

Neuroscientist Adrian Owen looked at brain function in people who were in persistent vegetative state, Persistent vegetative, where a person has such severe brain damage that they show no sign of consciousness. And sometimes their caretakers will say something like, *I get the sense that the person is there that they understand things*, but there's no clinical evidence for it. Doctors would examine them, but there's no sign of any reaction at all and scan their brains are shrunken and obviously severely damage.

So Owen did a fascinating experiment. He used the technique called functional MRI imaging, which is mRI machine that images changes in blood flow in the brain that seems to correlate with brain function. So if you're moving your arm, the part of your brain that involves moving your arm lights up on the functional MRI. If you're thinking about stuff, your frontal lobe, slide up, things like that. So what Owen did is that he took a woman who had been diagnosed for several years and persistent vegetative state from a car accident, who showed no sign at all of any awareness, deep common, put her in the MRI machine and ask your questions. He said, pretend that you are playing tennis. Or imagine that you're walking across the room. He asked her to imagine all these things, and her brain kind of lit up in places.

But you could say that the brain lighting up, doesn't mean she was understanding anything. Maybe the sound coming into her ears, was causing a reflex or something. So, he took 15 normal people. And he did the same thing with them. Stuck them in a machine, put an asked the same questions. And then he asked, neurobiologists to look at the functional MRI images of this woman and the 15 normal people, And see if you can tell a difference between the two and they couldn't. Her pattern of reaction was identical to the normal people. That seemed to imply that she could understand what he was asking.

But perhaps the lighting up of areas in her brain and the lighting up of the area is a normal people's brains was just because of the reception of the sound, and didn't really understand. So what he then did is he took the same words that he had asked her before, but he took away the semantics. And just left some syntax. And her brain stop stopped reacting. As did the normal controls. Her brain only reacted when what he said to her made sense. It didn't react from just sound.

And this has been repeated by a number of different investigators that show the same thing that he found. That even when your brain is so massively destroyed and there's no clinical evidence for any mental activity at all, functional MRI can find that these patients are capable of thinking. Some patients who can do mathematics, ask "what's six plus six" and then give them different answers and when you hit the right answer of the brain lights up. So, very clearly, there are aspects of the mind that cannot be destroyed by severe brain damage. That's what Owen's work is showing us. It's showing us our aspects of the mind that aren't connected tightly to the brain, our minds are immaterial.

Conclusion

So not only is this a blow to a naturalistic understanding of the world it is also evidence for the existence of the soul, since in religion and philosophy, the soul is often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.

And while this doesn't show how an immaterial mind could interact with the physical brain in A Scientific Case for the Soul Robin Collins offers some idea how the immaterial mind can interact with the material brain - see sections 4 & 5.

This added with the argument that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting is additional evidence that a physical only view of the world is not sufficient to explain it; i.e. there must be some supernatural, nonphysical, element at play in the world

Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery

Update: see here for the numerous debunk attempts on this post 

These 7 facts prove that slavey as outlined in the Bible was indebted servitude, not chattel slavery.

Definitions

Chattel slavery - allows people to be bought, sold and owned, even forever

Indentured servitude - a form of labor where a voluntarily person agrees to work without pay for a set number of years

The seven facts

1) Ebed - The English word "slave" and "slavery" come from the Hebrew word Ebed. It means servant, slave, worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals.; it does not necessarily mean a chattel slave in and of itself, thus it is incumbent upon those who say it does to provide the reasons for that conclusion if they are going to use.

Whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.

2) Everyone was an Ebed - From the lowest of the low, to the common man, to high officials, to the king every one was an Ebed in ancient Israel, since it means to be a servant or worshipper of God, servant in the sense as prophets, Levites etc, servant of Israel, and as a form of address between equals.

It's more than a bit silly to think that a king or provincial governors were chattel slaves - able to be bought and sold.

3) Ancient Near East [ANE] Slavery was poverty based - the historical data doesn’t support the idea of chattel slavery in the ANE. The dominant motivation for “slavery” in the ANE was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--not by the "owner"--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects). 

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law - HANEL). This work surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery.

A few quotes from HANEL: 

"Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)

 "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)

"Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery are by reason of debt or famine or both…*A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave.*" (1.664f)

"On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)

"The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self-sale. All these cases clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)

[If interested, HANEL is available for download for free at academia.edu - see here - though you might have to resister]

Quotes from other sources  

Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel slave in the sixth Century BC in the neo-babylonian context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households]

Westbrook states: At first sight the situation of a free person given and pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]

Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves and Households in the Near East

Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands, transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant, slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such practices in Israel [Stewart Douglas, Exodus - NAC]

So, it would seem that there was no need to go through the trouble of capturing people to enslave them since a lot of people were willing to work in exchange for room/board. 

But it gets worse for an Israelite if he wanted to make one a chattel slave because of the...

4) Anti-Kidnap law - Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” [Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]

This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT.

5) Anti-Return law - “You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]

Some dismiss DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23 Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin.

I'll quote from HANEL once again, Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

**The importance of Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law**

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

6) Anti-Oppression law- “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them. 

In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Campbell, Ken  (ed).  InterVarsity Press: 60]

7) The word buy - the word buy - The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that team - [Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus: (The New American Commentary)

The verb buy/acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".

Objections

A) The Anti-Kidnap law has Nothing to do with slavery

The response: in order to enslave someone, you must take and hold them against their will. So, Exodus 21:16 does apply to slavery

B) Exodus 21:4 says that a woman and her children are slaves for life!

The verse: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.

The response: Ex 21 was for protection of the rights of both worker and employer. The provisions for what you refer to is: if an already married servant contracted for a term of service, that servant should have built into the contract some provisions for the keeping of a spouse (i.e., the boss had to figure in the costs of housing, food, and clothing for the spouse as well). But if a boss allowed a woman already serving him to marry the servant he had hired while single, there had to be a compensation for the boss's costs incurred for that woman servant already serving him. Her potential to provide children was also an asset—considered part of her worth—and had to be compensated for as well in any marriage arrangement. Therefore, as a protection for the boss's investment in his female worker, a male worker could not simply “walk away with” his bride and children upon his own release from service. He himself was certainly free from any further obligation at the end of his six years, but his wife and children still were under obligation to the boss (“only the man shall go free”). Once her obligation was met, she would be free. [Stewart Douglas, Exodus - NAC]

C) Deut 20:10-15; if you sack a city you can enslave them!

The verse: ″when you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”

The response: 

The surrounding text makes clear that these nations live at some distance outside the territory of Israel. Israel was allotted the land, but the boundaries were quite clear and quite restricted by God. Their dominion (via vassal treaties) could extend further, but their ownership could not. There was almost zero-motive, therefore, for Israel to fund long-distance military campaigns to attack foreign nations for territory, or for the economic advantages of owning such territory.

Dominion could be profitable since it left people to work the land for taxes/tribute; but war always siphons off excess wealth, thus reducing the 'value' of a conquered country, but displacement, ownership, colonization was much more expensive. These cities (not nations, btw) are enemies of Israel, which can only mean that they have funded/mounted military campaigns against Israel in some form or been key contributors to such.

"...the verse indicates that the Israelites were to offer to the inhabitants of such cities the terms of a vassal treaty. If the city accepted the terms, it would open its gates to the Israelites, both as a symbol of surrender and to grant the Israelites access to the city; the inhabitants would become vassals and would serve Israel." [New International Commentary on the Old Testament]

"Offer it shalom, here meaning terms of surrender, a promise to spare the city and its inhabitants if they agree to serve you. The same idiom appears in an Akkadian letter from Mari: 'when he had besieged that city, he offered it terms of submission (salimam).' In an Egyptian inscription, the prostrate princes of Canaan say shalom when submitting to the Pharaoh. The same meaning is found in verse 11, which reads literally "If it responds 'shalom' and lets you in," and in verse 12, where a verb derived from shalom (hislim) is used for 'surrender'" [Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary]

"Literally, as 'forced laborers.' Hebrew mas refers to a contingent of forced laborers working for the state. They were employed in agriculture and public works, such as construction. In monarchic times, David imposed labor on the Ammonites and Solomon subjected the remaining Canaanites to labor...see 2 Sam 12:31; 1 Kings 9:15, 20-22; cf. Judg. 1:28-35. When imposed on citizens, such service took the form of periodic corvee labor. [corvee means unpaid labor - as toward constructing roads - due from a feudal vassal to his lord] Solomon, for example, drafted Israelites to fell timber in Lebanon; each group served one month out of three (1 Kings 5:27-28). It is not known whether foreign populations subjected to forced labor served part-time or permanently." [Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary]

"The likely meaning is that the city, through its people, was to perform certain tasks, not that individual citizens were to be impressed." [The Torah, A Modern Commentary, Union of American Hebrew Congregations]

"Israel must give its enemy an opportunity to make peace. Those who accepted this offer were required to pay taxes, perform national service, and, if they were going to live in the Land, to accept the Seven Noahide Laws." [Tanaach, Stone Edition] 

This forced, or corvee labor (cf. Gibeonites in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called chattel slavery since it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). 

So, no Deut 20:10-15 does not support/endorse chattel slavery

D) Deut 20:14 says the Israelites could rape women since they are plunder

The verse: See above.

The response:

Notice that nothing is said about rape, and no reference to sexual intercourse is made in the text. However, in the next chapter this is not true. 

When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NASB)

The captives in Deuteronomy 21:10 are the women and children in Deuteronomy 20:14. The event of chapter 21 is an example of case law. That is, in the event that one of the captives pleases the male who took them. It is not the case for every female whom he captured. The Scripture concerns one man and one woman. Some critics presume that because the text says the Israelite has “a desire for her” (the woman POW) that he already has raped her, but this isn’t so. At least the Hebrew cannot be made to indicate that he raped her. The Hebrew word (H2836) means to love, be attached to, or long for. The word is used eleven times in the Old Testament, and never used for raping a woman.

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." Hebrew Law in Biblical Times.  Falk, Ze'ev 127]

E) Exodus 21:7- a father can sell his daughter into sex slavery!

The verse: 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

The response: Most critics stop reading at verse 7 but if they continued, they'd see that this is about marriage not sex slavery. If the family was poor and needed money, they could give her away in marriage to an interested suitor (v. 8) where there was a dowry.

This ensured that the woman was to be cared for in a family system that had enough, and that the family could be cared for by the dowry. Even today the dowry system exists in many cultures, and it has its benefits. 

But if the new husband found her to be bad or evil (the meaning of “displeasing” in the text v. 8), then he was not to divorce her and give her away to someone else for a dowry of his own. That would be evil as already he is “acting treacherously” towards her. But the family could get their daughter back and return the dowry if she was found to be bad/evil.

If the man got her as a wife for his son, then the man must deal with her as full rights and provisions of a daughter. He is not to deal with her any other way. She has the full privileges of family.

And if the man (or his son presumably) takes another wife, in no way was he to reduce his care for her. He is to make sure she has equal food, clothing and marital rights as the first wife. If he does not provide fully in these areas for her, she is free to leave and return home and the family is under no obligation to return the dowry money.

Verse 11 states “she shall go free for nothing, without payment of money.” The husband and his family cannot invoke the card of her being formerly a servant and therefore she’s obligated to stay and work for them. This is where the normal protocol of marriage is important mentioned in verse 9. In the instance where she has the right to leave her husband under the conditions of verse 10 and 11, since there are the normal customs of marriage back then, she can go back to her family who have the dowry from the husband and thereby she can survive - she has more protection than a male servant!

F) Leviticus 25:44-46: says you can buy foreign slave and you can bequeath them to your children!

The verse: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The response:  First one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion. One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”.  But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract. And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that, this passage loses all of the bite that critics assume it has.

They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.

Furthermore, Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.


To properly evaluate passages Leviticus 25, we have to look at the regulations God gave previously as a foundation and they completely destroy any idea that Leviticus 25 is talking about chattel slavery.

First would be the anti-kidnap law: “*Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death*” in Exodus 21:16,

Second the anti-return law in Deuteronomy 23:15–16, “You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.”

Critics ignore these two foundational laws and try to interprete the practice in Lev 25: 44-46 sans this foundation. That is their error.

What Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery.

And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:

But yes, one could make a debt slave permanent if that was the desire of both sides. One side gets an experienced servant and the other gets security.

G) Slaves could be beaten

The verse: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. – Exodus 21:20-21

The response: 

Corporal punishment has nothing to do with the slavery question since free persons could be beaten as well. You have moved the goalposts from chattel slavery is condoned/endorsed in the Bible to the question of whether corporal punishment is bad.

The law allowed disciplinary rod-beating for a servant (Ex 21.20-22), apparently under the same conditions as that for free men:

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word for property, btw).

Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Beating by rod (shevet) is the same act/instrument (flogging (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19. If two people fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual damage done to the free person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, there doesn't seem to be any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant vs a free person.

H) Scholar X or the consensus of scholars say the Bible endorses/condones chattel slavery

The response: 

First, scholarship disagrees on almost every subject.

Second, to accept a claim merely because a scholar says so is not critical thinking - one must examine the arguments presented.

Third, this objection presumes that a scholar or a scholarly consensus cannot be wrong, this is most assuredly wrong.

Fourth, the "consensus of scholars" isn't how scholarship works; it's who has the Best Explanation of the Data

Fifth, I cited multiple scholars in my argument. I don't mean to imply a tit-for-tat scholar v scholar, just that my view is supported by scholarship.

I) I can't believe yet another Christian is trying to defend slavery!

The response: No, what I am doing is defining slavery. "Slavery" can mean different things: chattel slavery, indentured servitude, a hired servant, etc,  I'm arguing that forced, involuntary labor [i.e. chattel slavery]  is outlawed in the bible. 

J) Indentured servitude is evil!

The response: 

So, one should not work to pay off a debt? this seems likely to encourage people to incure a debt that they know they won't have to pay back. 

K) Your argument is full of "disingenuity, red herrings, obfuscation, false comparisons, and fallacies"

The response: 

I asked if they would specify where exactly where the "disingenuity, red herrings, obfuscation, false comparisons, and fallacies" were; they replied "No" - So this can be dismissed as a baseless accusation 

It's an easy thing to say that my argument was "dissected and destroyed"; much more difficult to prove it. But it sould be easy for you since all you have to do is copy/paste wha you think refutes it.  

L) Lev 25:46 says "...but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly".  This seems to imply that God is okay with being ruthless to others just not your fellow Hebrews. 

The response: 

You are reading too much into the verse. The Bible says treat one's wife with respect - does that imply that we can be dis-respectful to all others? No.  The Bible says not to exasperate our children, does that imply that we can be exasperate all others? No. 

In context the prohibtions are: Do not make him work as a indentured servant. Do not take interest of any kind from him, You must not sell him food at a profit. [Lev 25:35-46]

Conclusion: History shows that chattel slavery was rare in the ANE, there were so much poverty that there was no need to go out and capture another for forced labor as people were willing to work for food to pay a debt or simply for food and shelter.

The word translated as slave or slavery has a wide range of meaning that doesn’t necessarily mean “chattel slave”. One would have to show from the text what that meaning is.

The Biblical text is clear that kidnaping/buying/selling/possessing someone is punishable by death. And that if a slave escapes they are not to be returned, and all slaves are not to be oppressed. The word “buy” doesn’t have to mean buying a person, but can mean buying one’s services/labor.

Thus, it is clear that the Biblical text and history do not support the idea that the Bible or God endorsed, sanctioned, or condoned chattel slavery. In fact, God and the Bible outlawed chattel slavery

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:

S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens.
H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S.
No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does.
Therefore, it is probable that H is true.

Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:

Inference to the Best Explanation - Peter Lipton

Inference to the Best Explanation - An Overview

Pushbacks

We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.

Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,

Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing. 

The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely. 

Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod. 

This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation. 

Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.

Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.

Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.

Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false. 

But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments.  That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable. 

But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts. 

Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation

1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses.

2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses.

3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.

4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.

5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.

6. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (5) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.

Why nipples on males?

Evolutionists often raise the "Why did god make nipples on a male" question as an objection to the concept of a creator God. After all, if there were an all-knowing Creator, why would He design men with a structure for which they have no use? In females, the nipple has an obvious function, that is, to breastfeed a baby. So what’s the purpose for nipples on males?

Very early in the maturation process, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female.

In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all start out female. The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus, the programming for male and female is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female. 

Useless male nipples?

If nipples and breasts are useless to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are useless to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child. It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested; nipples respond to sexual stimulation in both sexes.

Male nipples as vestigial organs

Furthermore, to say that male nipples as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?

If male nipples are vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? What is the evidence for this?

Male nipples as nascent organs

If male nipples are nascent, what developmental changes has the male nipple undergone since in the last five million to seven million years? If there has been no evidence of development, why believe that they are nascent?

Do evolutionists have any explanation that fits their theory and is backed by the evidence?

Alternatively, the evolutionist could argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate; but again where is the evidence?

Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female was already in place in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve, since there were already male/female reptiles?

Far from being a problem for creationists, it is in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario. The creation model provides a far better explanation for the presence of nipples in males than any evolutionary model. Especially since the evolutionist never offers a theory for male nipples that is backed by the evidence.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality

 

If Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, does that mean it’s okay?

First, Jesus didn’t need to say anything about homosexuality. No first century Jew questioned whether homosexual sex was morally permissible. That’s because every Old Testament reference, poem, or metaphor that addresses sex and marriage positively presumes heterosexual relations. Furthermore, every reference to homosexuality in the Old Testament is negative. There was no debate as to what the biblical witness was on that behavior. God-fearing Jews already believed homosexual sex was prohibited.

Second, even if it turns out Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so what? What follows from that? Jesus’ silence on the matter wouldn’t mean He approves of homosexual sex. That would be an argument from silence, a type of faulty reasoning. Besides, Jesus didn’t speak about every immoral behavior. Should we infer that drunkenness, child sacrifice, and neglecting the elderly are morally appropriate since Jesus never said anything about them either? That would be absurd. Jesus addressed moral issues of His day as they arose in conversation.

Third, we know what Jesus would have said about homosexuality if asked. Jesus was an observant Jew living during the Mosaic Law. He had not yet instituted the New Covenant. That’s why He often referenced the Law. For example, Jesus cited the two greatest commandments of the Law (Matthew 22:37-39) and told the rich young ruler to uphold the commandments of the Law (Mark 10:17–22). Therefore, if asked what He thought about homosexuality, Jesus would have cited the Mosaic Law again (Leviticus 18:20 & 20:13), which unequivocally states that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Fourth, Jesus did voice His opinion on matters of sex and marriage. When asked about divorce, Jesus cited the Genesis creation account: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:3–6). 

Jesus believed that God’s design in Genesis, making male and female join together to become one flesh, was the intended blueprint for sexuality even for His day. His view about sex and marriage is one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. Indeed, Jesus emphasized that the one-flesh union described in Genesis is a God-ordained institution (“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”). A male-female union has the Father’s stamp of approval. If that was Jesus’ view on sex and marriage, then every other type of sexual act, including homosexual behavior, is disqualified.

Fifth, Jesus does basically say homosexual behavior is a sin. In Mark 7:21–23, Jesus says, “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery...all these evils come from inside and defile a person.” The Greek word translated “sexual immorality” is porneiai, which is a term that includes many sexual sins, including homosexuality. First century Jews who heard that word would think of the sexual sins listed in the Mosaic Law, which includes homosexual sex.

Sixth, saying “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” mistakenly presumes that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture. But it is the Holy Spirit—God Himself—who inspired all the words of Scripture. That means Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:9–11, where homosexual behavior is specifically condemned, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit and are the authoritative word of God. Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and are in perfect communion through all eternity, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with the Holy Spirit about what He’s inspired to be written in Scripture.

So, yes, the Bible and Jesus did say something about the homosexuality, and He condemned it as sin. 

Theists are TERRIFIED of this CRUCIAL argument - Rationality Rules - A response

[Here's the vid]

The argument is that a perfectly Loving God who has created this perfect world would not create worms that eat children's eyes. Thus, a perfectly Loving God doesn't exist. 

Where do you get the idea that this world is what God intended? It's not, it's a fallen world. This atheist's error is presuming that we live in a perfect world. 

So this "argument", is based on a strawman fallacy - distortion of someone else's argument or view by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position, it's much easier to attack their view and present your own position as being reasonable; but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. 

The fact is, that God created various forms of life according to their kinds, with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18). Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and "bad bugs" like the worms referenced are descendants of that which was non-harmful. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22). 

Why would a loving God "create" a worm that destroys children's eyes? This is what is known as a loaded question - a complex question that contains an assumption or accusation that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with, or a question that has a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. 

The most famous example is: Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes, and at best, you are a former wife-beater. But this is the tactic used; the question assumes that God created the worm in question. But, He didn't.

Furthermore, the question posed by those in the vid is valid; if one thinks that only the physical exists [i.e. Philosophical Naturalism] - and thus every event/action in the world must be the result of the interaction of particles in antecedent physical states, in accordance to the physical laws - how can they say that anything is bad or evil?  All actions/events are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

So in their worldview, how can anything be said to be bad or good? 

A further problem is, how can they say that they are reasoning or thinking critically - defined as "careful thinking directed to a goal" [per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] if they have no dominion of their thoughts? They cannot make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws; i.e. their thoughts must come via interaction of particles in antecedent physical states in accordance to the physical laws.  Again, all actions/events [including human thought] are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

Thus, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting as a physical-only model of the world cannot account for human reasoning - i.e. goal-directed thinking. 

Rationality Rules seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism, which leads to used two self-refuting statements; the existence of morality and the existence of reason are not grounded in Philosophical Naturalism. Rationality Rules used that plus two logical fallacies to try to refute Christianity.   So, FOUR fatal errors in one short vid - an interesting strategy by a You-tuber by the name of "Rationality" Rules. 

[this assumes that Rationality Rules is a Philosophical Naturalist - but given his vids with regard to miracles, it's likely true]

Different Kinds of New Testament Textual Variants

 

Textual variants in the New Testament are different versions of the New Testament that arise when copyists make deliberate or unintentional changes to the text. Variants are usually put in four categories:

1) Neither viable nor meaningful

Most of the variants fall into this category. For example, differences in spelling make up 70% of all textual variants. These are very easy for Greek scholars to detect, and they don’t alter the meaning of the text.  

2) Viable, but not meaningful

These are variants that could be part of the original text. However, they ultimately make no meaningful change to the text. For example, New Testament manuscripts spell John’s name two different ways in Greek, both are viable options but do not affect any doctrine.

3) Meaningful, but not viable

These are variants that do change the meaning of the text, but they could not possibly be in the original. For example, the earliest and most important manuscripts of Luke 6:22 say, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man.” However, we have a single eleventh century manuscript, Codex 2882, which says, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil.” It doesn't include the phrase “on account of the Son of Man.” But since this aberrant reading only occurs in one late manuscript, it is not viable.

4) Viable and meaningful

Meaningful and viable is the smallest and most significant group of variants. These have a good chance of being authentic, and they change the meaning of the text. This group accounts for less than 1% of all textual variants. If you do the math, less than 4,000 variants of the 400,000 total variants are both viable and meaningful. Note: The reason the NT has so many variants is that are so many copies; the same variant found in 100 manuscripts counts as 100 variants.

A few examples of viable and meaningful variants: 

1 John 1:4

New Testament scholars debate over whether 1 John 1:4 should say, “And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete” or “And we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete.” In the original language, these two words differ by only one letter. The meaning of 1 John 1:4 is clearly altered depending on which rendering is used.

1 John 5:7-8

"For there are three that testify: in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

Most modern English translations don't contain the italicized portion above. The majority of the earliest manuscripts do not contain the questionable section, but it found its way into the King James translation in the 17th century, which didn't utilize the earliest manuscripts. Most scholars, conservative ones included, say that this section was not in the original writing.

Theologically, this can be perceived as a problem because these words so clearly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. However, a case for the Trinity can be made without them

Mark 16:9-20

Sometimes referred to as the "long ending" of Mark, this portion of Mark's Gospel is not considered by most authorities to be in the original. Most English translations mark this section with brackets, and note that our earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain it. It speaks of drinking poison and picking up snakes (which is probably a bad idea!), but it also mentions the resurrection of Jesus. Considering that the resurrection of Jesus is affirmed elsewhere in Mark's Gospel and in the New Testament, this variant also does not impact any core doctrine.

The case for the "long ending" of Mark 

 

The case against the "long ending" of Mark 

John 7:53 - 8:11

This is a difficult variant for many Christians because it is the only place in the Bible where one of the most beloved stories about Jesus' life is recorded.  Many of us are inspired by Jesus’ words to an angry mob when a woman was caught in the act of adultery: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." and "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

Most scholars, including conservatives, agree that this story was not originally in John's Gospel, yet many believe it has a good chance of being historical. (1) In any case, this variant doesn’t challenge any core tenet of the faith.

But again, what doctrinal difference does any viable and meaningful variant make? Here’s what Bart Ehrman [famed atheist/agnostic NT scholar] says in the appendix of his book Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are NOT affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

(1) See Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration p. 319-320; Dan Wallace, "My Favorite Passage That's Not in the Bible," 

The Exodus: Did it Happen?

Okay, right off the bat: There’s no archaeological evidence for the Exodus account. However there is compelling internal evidence for it. 

First, concerning the lack of archaeological evidence, to conclude that the Exodus didn't happen just on that basis would be the logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance. Usually described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Secondly, the Egyptians kept only records of their victories, never their defeats, and the Exodus would surely have been a defeat for them.

The Egyptians kept no record of defeats, only victories not just due to pride but because the Egyptian religious belief that once anything is written down or spoken it may have the ability to be perpetuated and perhaps repeated, something that is part of the nature of Egyptian religious beliefs.

We see examples in the Egyptian’s desire to have their names spoken after death in order to maintain their existence in the afterlife, and so the idea that writing an event down will also make it possible for the event to continue, perhaps recurring at some future point. Surely so catastrophic an event as so many slaves being let go at once would not be something the Egyptians would wish to commemorate.

Thirdly, even if there had been such records, they would never have survived in the damp delta area. We have virtually nothing of this nature, archaeologically speaking, from the Delta. The fact is that the entire area is simply too wet for papyrus to survive. The ancient ground level is now some twenty feet or more below the modern surface, and the water table is so high in the area that most current excavations must employ the constant use of pumps to keep the diggings dry.

So there’s little external evidence for the Exodus. But what of the internal evidence?

1) The straw in the bricks.  Moses and Aaron go to Pharaoh and say, ‘let my people go’ and to celebrate a festival to our God. And Pharaoh replies In Exodus 5:6-8

That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and overseers in charge of the people: 7 “You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. 8 But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don’t reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are crying out, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ 

Bricks in Egypt were made with straw to give it strength. But they were not made that way in Canaan. The fact points to an authentic account of someone who knew Egypt, not a made-up-later tale from a Canaanite outsider.

2) They were said to have worked with bricks, and not the stones that a later writer might suppose from the pyramids and tombs and the storage places for Pharaoh, namely, Pithom and Raamses.” (Exodus 1:11)

3) The way that the Hebrews got into their bondage (Exodus 1:8-10) fits in well with how Egypt pushed back at Libya, taking captives, as the Egyptians always minded when foreigners become too numerous. It was okay to have a few, but when they became a large body to be reckoned with, they didn’t like that. 

4) Pharaoh lays plans to kill off the newborn Hebrew boys in Exodus 1:16, in which Pharaoh lays plans to kill off the newborn Hebrew boys. He instructs the midwives to put the child to death if it is a son.

The Hebrew word for “stool for childbirth” literally means “two stones,” as in ‘a stone under each buttock.’ Egyptians did give birth that way [see pg 116] and it can be seen in their hieroglyphs, and it makes more sense than the modern way of lying prone, for it allows for gravity to assist. 

According to the descriptions in the Bible, women in the process of childbirth either kneeled or sat on someone's knees.(Genesis 30:3). See here as well. 

5) What of the frequent expression that Pharaoh’s “heart was hardened?”  The Egyptians believed that a person thought with his heart. After all, it is the heart that beats faster when someone is excited.

6) The name “Moses,” and says that it’s a purely Egyptian name. It means “birth.” It is incorporated into the names of several pharaohs: Ahmose, (“the moon god is born”) Thutmose. (“Thoth is born”) In Greek, the name with its appended suffix becomes Amosis and Thutmosis. Ramesses is similar in pattern: (Re is the one who bore him)

If this Egyptian etymology is correct, it makes an even greater point for authenticity, because the Bible writer doesn’t appear to know that, and he attributes a Hebrew setting to the name, a play on the verb mashah (to draw out [of water]). We read that the weaned infant was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter, “so that he became a son to her; and she proceeded to call his name Moses and to say: ‘It is because I have drawn him out of the water.’” (Exodus 2:10) The application doesn’t quite fit, say some, for the word construction implies that Moses does the drawing, whereas the text says otherwise, and the only way to solve the difficulty is to ignore it. Moreover, why would Pharaoh’s daughter name the child with Hebrew etymology and not her own? Without intending to, the Bible writer gives added reason to regard the account as genuine.

7) There is a document, known as the Leiden Papyrus, from the time of Ramses the Great. It contains an instruction to "distribute grain rations to the soldier and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great Pylon of Ramses". Some connect Apiru (it means “stateless people”) with the origin of the “Hebrew” that it sounds like. It fits well with Exodus 1:11, “they appointed chiefs of forced labor over [the people of Israel] to oppress them with hard labor, and they built storage cities for Pharaoh, namely, Pithom and Raamses.” Source. Note: I have not had any luck is seeing a transliteration of the original 

Ramses the Great ruled for 67 years, had about 100 children, of which 52 were sons, and outlived many of them, including his firstborn, Amunhirkepshef. It is his 13th son, Merneptal, who succeeds him as pharoah. Of his early military campaigns, Merneptal has recorded in his fifth year that “Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe; Ashkelon has been overcome; Gezar has been captured; Yano’am was made nonexistent; Israel is laid waste, its seed is not.” The Merneptah Stele is the first (and only) mention of “Israel” in ancient Egyptian records.

It is telling how the word “Israel” is written. At the end of every other mention is a hieroglyph of three hills. It means “country.” At the end of “Israel” is the drawing of a man and a woman. It denotes Israel is not yet an established place, not yet a country. It is still a people wandering in the Sinai wilderness. 

If this had been a story that was made up decades later, they would not have known all of these particulars. Thus given the evidence it's likely that the Exodus occurred, even though we do not have all the details

Jesus Said More about Hell Than Anyone in the Bible

Descriptions Jesus used for hell

Jesus spoke of hell more than anyone else in the Bible. He referred to it as a place of “outer darkness” where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12). In other words, all the joys that we associate with light will be withdrawn, and all the fears that we associate with darkness will be multiplied. And the result will be an intensity of misery that makes a person grind his teeth in order to bear it.

Jesus also refers to hell as a “fiery furnace” where law-breakers will be thrown at the end of the age when he returns. “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:41–42). He calls it “the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22), “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43), “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46).

This last description—“eternal punishment”—is especially heartrending and fearful because it is contrasted with “eternal life.” “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” In this contrast we hear the tragedy of loss as well as suffering and endlessness. Just as “eternal life” will be a never-ending experience of pleasure in God’s presence, so “eternal punishment” will be a neverending experience of misery under God’s wrath (John 3:36; 5:24).

Hell Is Not a Mere Natural Consequence of Bad Choices

The word wrath is important for understanding what Jesus meant by hell. Hell is not simply the natural consequence of rejecting God. Some people say this in order to reject the thought that God sends people there. They say that people send themselves there. That is true. People make choices that lead to hell. But it is not the whole truth. Jesus says these choices are really deserving of hell. “Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to [that is, guilty of, or deserving of] the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22). That is why he calls hell “punishment” (Matt. 25:46). It is not a mere self-imposed natural consequence (like cigarette smoking leading to lung cancer); it is the penalty of God’s wrath (like a judge sentencing a criminal to hard labor).

The images Jesus uses of how people come to be in hell do not suggest natural consequence but the exercise of just wrath. For example, he pictures the servant of a master who has gone on a journey. The servant says, “My master is delayed,” and he “begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards.” Then Jesus says (referring to his own sudden second coming), “The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 24:48–51). This picture represents legitimate and holy rage followed by punishment. 

Jesus told another story to illustrate his departure from the earth and his return in judgment. He said, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. . . . But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us’” (Luke 19:12, 14). When the nobleman returned in his kingly power to reward those who had trusted and honored him with their lives, he punished those who rejected his kingship: “As for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me” (Luke 19:27). Again the picture is not one of hell as a disease resulting from bad habits but of a king expressing holy wrath against those who rebuff his gracious rule.

Fear Him Who Can Destroy Both Soul and Body in Hell

This is why Jesus said, “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). The fear he commands is not fear of hell as a natural consequence of bad habits, but of God as a holy judge who sentences guilty sinners to hell. This command to fear God as a holy judge seems discouraging at first. It seems as though following Jesus means leading a life of anxiety that God is angry with us and is ready to punish us at the slightest misstep. But that is not what Jesus calls us to experience as we follow him.

It seems amazing to us, perhaps, that immediately following his warning to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell,” Jesus says something designed to give us deep peace and full confidence under God’s fatherly care. The very next sentence goes like this: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:29–31).

In the same breath Jesus says to the unrepentant unbeliever, “Fear God who casts into hell” and to the repentant believer “Do not fear because God is your Father who values you more than the sparrows and knows your smallest need.” In fact, the all-providing care of God to the believer is one of Jesus’s sweetest and most pervasive teachings:

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? . . . Therefore do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall we wear?” For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. (Matt. 6:26, 31–32)

God Is to Be Feared, and God Is to Be Trusted

How does Jesus mean for us to experience these two truths about God—he is to be feared, and he is to be trusted? It won’t do to simply say that “fear of God” means “reverence for God” rather than “being afraid of him.” That does not fit with the words, “Fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!” (Luke 12:5). Of course, it is true that we should reverence God, that is, stand in awe of his holiness and power and wisdom. But there is also a real fear of him that can coexist with sweet peace and trust in him.

The key is that God himself is the one who removes his wrath from us. Our peace does not come from our removing the God of wrath from our thinking, but from His removing His wrath from us. He has done that by sending Jesus to die in our place so that, for everyone who believes in Jesus, God’s wrath is taken away. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,” Jesus said, “so must the Son of Man be lifted up , that whoever believes in him may have eternal life . . . . Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:14–15, 36). When Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), he was experiencing the wrath of God’s abandonment in our place—for he had never done anything to deserve being forsaken by God. And when he said finally from the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30), he meant that the price of our salvation—our deliverance from God’s wrath and into all God’s blessings—had been paid in full.

The reason we do not live in the discomfort of constant fear is because we believe.

Jesus had said that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28), and now the full ransom was paid, and the work of absorbing and removing the wrath of God was finished. Now, he says, everyone who believes has everlasting fellowship with God and is fully assured that the wrath of the Judge is gone. “He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).

Fearing Unbelief and it's Consequences 

What then is left to fear? The answer is unbelief. For those who follow Jesus, fearing God means fearing the terrible prospect of not trusting the one who paid such a price for our peace. In other words, one of the means that God uses to keep us peacefully trusting in Jesus is the fear of what God would do to us if we did not believe. The reason we do not live in the discomfort of constant fear is because we believe. That is, we rest in the all-sufficient work of Jesus and in our Father’s sovereign care. But at those moments when unbelief tempts us, a holy fear rises and warns us what a foolish thing it would be to distrust the one who loved us and gave his Son to die for our anxiety-free joy.

Closeness to God Takes Away Fear

If we will trust Him and enjoy Him and throw our arms around his strong neck, he will be everything we ever hoped for in a friend. But if we decide that there are other things we want more than him and turn to run away, he will get very angry. Jesus said this as clearly as we could wish in Luke 19:27, “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” Fearing God means fearing the terrible prospect of running away from the merciful, all-providing, all-satisfying reign of King Jesus.

Hell Means That Sin Is Unfathomably Serious

Jesus’s command that we fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell teaches us to see sin as more serious than we ever dreamed. The reason so many people feel that eternal hell is an unjust punishment for our sin is that they do not see sin as it really is. This is because they do not see God as he really is. When Jesus tells us what he will say to those who are going to hell he says, “Then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). They are workers of “lawlessness.” That is, they break God’s law. Sin is against God first, then man.

Therefore, the seriousness of sin arises from what it says about God. God is infinitely worthy and honorable. But sin says the opposite. Sin says that other things are more desirable and more worthy. How serious is this? The seriousness of a crime is determined, in part, by the dignity of the person and the office being dishonored. If the person is infinitely worthy and infinitely honorable and infinitely desirable and holds an office of infinite dignity and authority, then rebuffing him is an infinitely outrageous crime. Therefore, it deserves an infinite punishment. The intensity of Jesus’s words about hell is not an overreaction to small offenses. It is a witness to the infinite worth of God and to the outrageous dishonor of human sin.

The Precious Gift of Godly Fear

Therefore, give heed to Jesus’s clear command to fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Hear it as a great mercy. What a wonderful thing it is that Jesus warns us. He does not leave us ignorant of the wrath to come. He not only warns. He rescues. This is the best effect of fear: it wakens us to our need for help and points us to the all-sufficient Redeemer, Jesus. Let it have this effect on you. Let it lead you to Jesus who says to everyone who believes in him, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

The atheist Euthyphro Dilemma

 The Euthyphro Dilemma is usually formulated against Christians as:

1) Does God choose what is good because it is good,

2) or does God chose what is good?

For the Christian, neither choice is acceptable.

To affirm that God choose what is good because it is good is to establish an autonomous moral principle that has authority over Him

To affirm what is good is whatever God has said it is to render morality arbitrary

The solution for the Christian is a 3rd option: God is Good itself. Since God is simultaneously the source and the measure of all goodness, the dilemma disappears.

But the atheist has an Euthyphro Dilemma of their own concerning the source of their morality:

A common atheist view of morality is that human instinct/society has decided that human well-being [Or harm mitigation] as the root of morality. Both atheistic views of morality often require people to act against their interests.

However:

The Marquis de Sade an atheist philosopher, concluded that Nature teaches us the principle that the strong ought to rule over and therefore exploit the weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche atheist philosopher, said a healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person.

Both philosophers chose instincts such as the desire to dominate and cruelty, which are the antithesis of the "human well-being/harm mitigation" morality. The question therefore arises: why should we choose a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over those of the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche?

To argue that our morality’s source is human instinct/society means that we have no reason to prefer a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche’s, since their moralities are derived from the same human understanding as today's atheists who should be aware of the fact that there are humans who do not have the same instinct for compassion as they do. So why prefer one morality over another?

Why should the human instinct/society be the arbiter of what is good? We look to history to see that it has been wrong in the past: Abolitionists held the minority view during most of human history, yet their anti-slavery philosophy is now almost universally accepted, except for the minority who continue to enslave people today.

If, as atheists assert, human instinct/society is the source of their "well-being or no harm mitigation" morality, a Euthyphro-style Dilemma arises.

The atheist Euthyphro-style Dilemma is this:

1) is a "well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" good because human instinct/society says so, or

2) is it morally good because it is a good?

If they say it is morally good because human instinct/society says so, then they run into the problem of those who feel/operate according to different instincts - aka Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. Why well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" over Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade?

If we say it is morally good because it is good or benevolent, then we admit a morality is external to us.

Whereas theists argue that morality’s external source is God, atheists who wish to adhere to an external morality have the burden of demonstrating this morality’s external source.

I suppose that a 3rd option would be that which best helps humans survive as a species, but why humans? What makes us special? Why not cockroaches or rats or the tardigrade? If it's about well-being or harm mitigation, those 3 probably caused less harm than humans combined...