Strong Evidence for a Literal King Solomon proves the Exodus is literal history

[Roy]

@Tim_nz

@EDC1

It is unlikely zebras would survive in the cold weather of the alps, not to mention the higher altitudes.

Except that the Australian Alps are not particularly high or particularly cold, particularly in comparison to Europe’s Alps and New Zealand’s Southern Alps.

I originally misread ‘Australian’ as ‘Austrian’, and only realised after seeing ‘brumbies’. @EDC1 may have done the same.

[EDC1]

I did indeed. And have also had to look up brumbies after the fact!

[EDC1]

I did understand endogenous to to be referring to peoples already living in the locale, as opposed to a new group coming into the land. I think that was a reasonable understanding of what you said. You are still arguing there is no need to suggest an external people group, with new behaviours, moving into the area at a certain time. That is being put forth as a real possibility. It remains a possibility even if you think it is improbable. You should know Occam’s Razor doesnt always fit with reality.

[Tim_nz]

@EDC1

I did understand endogenous to to be referring to peoples already living in the locale, as opposed to a new group coming into the land.

“Endogenous” is not a synonym of “indigenous”.

OED defines “endogenous” as “growing from within”. In this context, I meant an “endogenous explanation” to be one “growing from within” the known facts of a scenario. An “exogenous explanation” would be one that would have to hypothesise new facts.

@EDC1

You are still arguing there is no need to suggest an external people group, with new behaviours, moving into the area at a certain time.

Correct.

@EDC1

That is being put forth as a real possibility. It remains a possibility even if you think it is improbable.

That was never my point.

My point is that the facts can be explained without the introduction of “an external people group”, therefore these facts fail to distinguish between their absense and presence. Therefore these facts do not “tend to prove or disprove” either conclusion (per the definition of “evidence”). Therefore these facts are not evidence for either conclusion.

Note that I said “either conclusion” – these facts are no more evidence against the arrival of “an external people group” than for it.

And I am in fact not saying that the arrival of “an external people group” simpliciter is “improbable”. I’m sure that this happened frequently – though in most cases we would not have evidence supporting the entry of a particular group, or even of the particular group’s identity.

[Tim_nz]

@Roy

I originally misread ‘Australian’ as ‘Austrian’, and only realised after seeing ‘brumbies’. @EDC1 may have done the same.

An interesting fact is that, in spite of the similarity of these two countries’ names, they come from very different, and in fact contradictory, roots.

Australia comes from the Latin Terra Australis – southern land.

Austria comes from the German Ostmark, eastern march, as it was originally the eastern “march” (border territory) of first the Frankish Empire, then of East Francia, and then of Bavaria.