Trusting Science and Talking to Agnostics

 Trusting in science 

The world and society we live in today is part of a paradigm, which is a way of looking at things.  It rests ones understanding - on a set of accepted truths. Go back through the centuries and the paradigms have changed.  Medical treatments just a hundred years ago involved using electrical shock for various ailments. Go back farther, some treatments involved blood-letting, which today would be considered foolish and barbaric.  Since the Bible was also more widely believed in earlier times, society today tends to discount both.  In other words, since people in the past believed various myths, eg. trolls and goblins, and now we know better, therefore the Bible is simply a legacy of our past that was superstitious. The thinking goes on to conclude that we are progressing in our knowledge and it is our own understanding of the world and the science that goes with it which we must put our confidence in.  Science, over time promises to lead us to the answers that once were steeped in religious myth.

Where science falls short

It's common today, at least in the western world to put faith in technology and science.  Unless it can be proven physically or empirically, it's either a fabricated lie or opinion, or something to that effect. It is then relegated to the sidelines unless it agrees with today's paradigm, its theories and mathematical models. The world we live in today, while having produced great wonders of technology, has also failed to explain what the Bible refers to as evil.  How can there be so much pain and suffering in the world if a god really exists?  Where did we come from and why are we here? 

Polite Disbelief

At best, those who trust science for answers to age-old problems, will lump all the worlds religions in the same basket.  Then they will proclaim that all religions basically teach the same thing - be kind to others, do good things and behave yourself.  This just happens to be the direction many of the established religions are taking also, including those claiming Christianity, and will ultimately lead to a common religion for the whole world.  This includes especially the Catholic church, who for years now has been attempting to bring the worlds religions together. Some distinguish between an agnostic and an atheist, but the Bible only regards two distinctions on the matter of belief - you either believe the God of the Bible or you don't. 

Come, let us reason together

The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, invites you to know the truth.  Go ahead, try to investigate the claims of the Bible, see if you can prove them wrong.  Just be honest with yourself.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Things to consider:

(1) What are the odds that the world we live in would be created with so much complexity, by mere coincidence?

(2) What are the odds that so many cultures in the world, separated by great distances, have a story of a great flood in their distant past. 

(3) What of the scientists and geologists who refute the idea of billions of years for the creation of the grand canyon and accept the Biblical account of a great flood, which involves not a small amount of water over long periods of time but instead, involved large amounts of water over a relatively short time.

(4) What are the odds that there were men who lived hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus was born, who foretold of someone the Bible calls a messiah.  They tell of the timeframe of his birth, the location, the family, what others would say of him, the things he would say and do, how he would be forsaken, and how he would be killed.

(5) What are the odds that there would be an ancient canal diverting water from the Nile in Egypt that to this day, bears the name of Joseph. The Bible refers to a man named Joseph who was a Hebrew sold into slavery, and yet the Egyptian pharaoh elevated him above all his other men and helped Egypt through a great famine. This same Joseph the Bible describes as having interpreted Pharaoh's dream which involved cows and the Nile river and a resulting time of plenty followed by a time of famine.

(6) What of the archeologists that accept the Biblical account of Moses and the Exodus? Why would they do that?  Maybe you should investigate?

(7) What of the independent, non-Christian accounts of Jesus and his followers, such as the Roman senator Tacitus? 

Summary

Science can neither prove nor dis-prove the existence of God, or the miracles and diety of Jesus Christ. However, we do have written, first-hand accounts of the things said by Jesus and his miracles witnessed by scores of individuals, all contained in the gospels of the Bible. All of creation itself bears witness of a creator.  In the end, it comes down to whether someone is willing to place their faith in something they cannot see.  

Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The Trail of Blood - 2007 Sermon by Pastor Dan Ferrell

 I'm Baptist Because...

Love this old sermon from a few years ago.  Lots of history covered in just over an hour.  The phrase that has stuck with me - "history is what you know, heritage is what you keep!".  Mentions groups like the Waldenses. Long story short - there have always been groups of believers that shared the same basic beliefs of Baptists, long before they were called by that name.

Early American Law and Punishment

 Crime and Punishment in 1650 America

Go back far enough in American history and you will find laws and the punishments for breaking them, taken straight out of the Bible!

source: The Code of 1650, being a compilation of the earliest laws and orders of the General Court of Connecticut, archive.org, page 30

Dispensationalism, Scofield, and Ryrie

Dispelling Dispensationalism

The word dispensation appears only 4 times in the Bible, and only in the New Testament: I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10 & 3:2 and Colossians 1:25.  In each case it is referring to a giving of the gospel.  From here, depending on who you read or listen to, the root word became an "ism" to a doctrine or teaching called Dispensationalism.  

This post is simply a collection of some of my thoughts on the subject. I've also included a few examples of things to highlight in the various "study Bibles" that promote this doctrine.  However, there is a documentary that pretty well sums up both what this doctrine teaches, but where it began as well.  Watch this when you get a chance.

Dispensation of Heresy

Overview

The basic premise of Dispensational-ism is that there are a number of different identifiable periods in the Bible in which God dealt with man in different ways. What the Bible does teach however, is that God spake with man differently in times past, as we read in Hebrews 1

1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,  

1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

However, the key doctrines of Dispensationalism, are more or less:
- A number of distinct "dispensations", typically 7
- A distinction between Israel and the church
- A rapture of believers before the end times begin, although some do vary on this.
- Salvation required works in the Old Testament and will again also in the end times, although this view varies also and is less common today.

Supposedly, I Timothy 2:15 justifies dividing up the Bible into these dispensations.

Variations of Dispensationalism

There seem to be at least two that I am aware of and the primary distinction being that of whether salvation was always by faith alone, or did it involve works of some sort in the Old Testament.

Who is CI Scofield and why should I care

Cyrus Scofield is a name who most are familiar with only by way of his "study Bible".  I wont focus on his personal life, but merely on his work that is included in his and subsequent "study Bibles". That work being that of notes and references included in various "study Bibles". These notes and references suggest and teach the doctrine of dispensationalism and a pre-tribulation rapture, among others. 

Scofield Study Bible

At one time, it was a very popular study Bible, and to this day still influences many pastors, especially Baptists. A while back, while researching the issues with Scofield and his footnotes, I decided to find both an original and a newer version on eBay.  I managed to find an original 1917 Scofield, still in the box!

Problems with Scofield and his Bible. 

First, see the photos below of the Introduction in the "Old Scofield", specifically section XI.  Scofield is questioning the Authorized Version (KJV) in which he is placing his notes.  He states he would prefer to use the newest version (then it was the RV). He then goes on to heap praise on men like Westcott and Hort for "clearing the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) of minor inaccuracies".

Old Scofield preface - iii

Old Scofield preface - iv

 

The New Scofield

This is a "new" Scofield, from 1967, yes they are different editions. Those familiar with the Scofield Bible are aware of the "updates".

Key things to note in the Scofield

- Both the original or "Old" Scofield and the "new" casts doubts on the authority and infallibility of the KJV translation accuracy
- Both the Old and New Scofield promote notion that the physical nation of Israel as being God's elect in Matthew 24:34
- Both suggest another creation period in Genesis 1 that is in a "dateless past"
- The "new" Scofield however, takes things a step further in at least one area, see II Thessalonians 2:2, it actually changes the text of the verse itself from  "...the day of Christ is at hand" to "the day of the Lord is present". The original Scofield makes this suggestion in its notes (as does the new), but does not change the actual text of the verse.

 

Ryrie Study Bible

Along the same lines as Scofield, another popular "study" Bible that emphasizes a pre-tribulational and dispensational teaching in its various footnotes and references. 

Below is a photo of a Ryrie KJV "study" Bible, opened to II Thessalonians 2.  Note what is mentioned in the footnotes regarding verse 2, with the use of "better manuscripts".  Ryrie is likely referring to the same "better" text that Scofield did who favored the Greek text of men like Westcott & Hort.

My Thoughts

I reject the use of the word dispensation as an "ism" and the teaching that comes along with it. Just give me a King James Bible without man's words to tell me what I'm supposed to think it says.

- I have a hard time trusting a man which questions the King James Bible but yet wants to teach me what these Scriptures mean.
- Many people who rely on a Scofield KJV, read the notes as if they were Scripture and yet are not aware that Scofield himself doubted the accuracy of the King James Bible and its translators.

- God told Jeremiah that the day would come when He would bring a new covenant, as the children of Israel had failed to keep the former, see Jeremiah 31
- Yes, God spoke in different ways at different times, yet salvation has always been by faith alone, regardless of the law. Further, there is now neither Jew nor Greek, we are all one in Christ - to those that believe. See Galatians 3

Poking Holes In The Pre-Trib Rapture Doctrine

 The Pre-Trib Doctrine

Note - this post is more or less a reformatting of 10 Common Reasons and Questions about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, see here.
Ever since I can remember, any Baptist sermon that involved, or even mentioned end times, included one or more of the following:

- Christians will not go through "THE tribulation" as we are not appointed unto wrath, referring to I Thessalonians 5:9

- The rapture was not taught before Paul, since he refers to it as a "mystery" in 1 Corinthians 15:51

- "THE Tribulation" refers to the entire 7 year period

- Since Matthew 24:36 says no man knows the day or the hour, Jesus could return at any moment

The above seems to be "cherry picking"...

Ok, if you've accepted the views above, then stop for a few minutes and consider the following:

- If the entire 7 year period is known as "THE Tribulation" and is also God's wrath why is it that God's wrath doesn't start until AFTER the sun & moon are darkened in Revelation 6 (see here)? In other words, if God's wrath doesn't start until other things have occurred, then are those other things also God's wrath, or something else? Either way, the 7 year period has already begun by the time the wrath begins. Could it be, that tribulation is something being done by the devil, but when the wrath begins, it is those things that God Himself is bringing about?

- If we let the Bible define itself, where else (do a search here) is the word "mystery" used and does it imply something wasn't known before? See Mark 4:11

- Paul tell us that the antichrist has to be revealed before the day of Christ in II Thessalonians 2:1-4. Since the antichrist is revealed DURING the 7 year period, how can the rapture occur before this period even begins?

The Adventure of English - The Battle For The Language of The Bible

 The English language we speak today is the result of changes over time going back hundreds of years. There was a point at which if one wanted to hear or read the Scriptures, it was in something other than English. The mere act of trying to produce a Bible in English was risking ones own life. The KJV translators mention this trouble in their message to the readers.

The documentary below is primarily concerned with a history of the English language, but in this episode it picks up with the story of translating the Holy Scriptures into English, leading to what we know today as the King James Version.

The Adventure of English, episode 3

I have heard some suggest that since the more modern KJV Bibles differ in the English being used from the original 1611 version, this is evidence that the "Bible has been changed".  The language may have changed, but God's Word has been preserved.  This cannot be said for others such as the NIV, ESV etc with verses missing and rearranged to suggest a different meaning.  

The KJV came about at a time when several confluent efforts were underway, one of which was a standardization of the English language itself.  One interesting point mentioned in the documentary that there was a point at which English differed depending on what part of the country you were in.  It was only under the consolidating efforts of the King when he made it known that official documents would only be in English, rather a myriad of other languages, namely French.  This helped consolidate the variances in the English language itself so that when the efforts began to translate the Scriptures into English, there was a consistent language to use.  The result speaks for itself.

Is Genesis History?

The accepted view today of how the world was created and the story of a great flood, is that of mainstream science and academia. That story involves billions of years and a series of floods that didn't cover the entire earth.  However, it wasn't too long ago that many held as truth, the Bible's account of how the earth was formed and what occurred during Noah's flood.  

 A while back I watched a documentary with the same title "Is Genesis History".  The first 20 minutes or so I began to realize that which I had not yet been aware of.  That being the numerous scientists and geologists that actually do support the Biblical account of the flood.

Here is the documentary.  

One of the more notable subjects discussed involves the Grand Canyon.  A number of geologists, whom mainstream academia have largely sidelined, actually support the Biblical account of a global flood. This is covered in the first 20 min or so of the documentary.  The walls of the canyon give us a glimpse into the earth. Considering that there seems to be no evidence of erosion between the layers of strata in the canyon, brings into question the billions of years narrative.  In short, there is far more evidence for a large amount of water over a short time period - as opposed to a small amount of water over a really long time.  What other account can you think of that involves a large amount of water and a short amount of time? It's recorded in the Bible, starting in Genesis chapter 6.

I think you will enjoy the documentary, I know I did.

Early Christian History of Britain

 

British History

Go just about anywhere in Britain, scratch the dirt and you are likely to find anything from medieval period metal to Roman or even pre-Roman pottery. This little island nation is rich in history, as are the surrounding areas of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It is also very complex, involving multiple kingdoms and nations. 

Why bother with all this you say? As I heard a pastor once say, history is what you know, heritage is what you keep. The King James Bible is one of the best history books you can read.  Paul had told the church at Corinth earlier, in I Corinthians 10:11 not to forget the past, especially what had happened to their fathers that were with Moses. In Ezekiel 26 we read about the destruction of Tyrus (Tyre) and how it happened, yet not who specifically conquered it.  The Bible does name others who were to come against Tyre, but not the people that eventually conquer it. We can however, from historical records say that it was Alexander the Great and the methods he used, namely building the causeway out to the island for his forces to cross, is exactly as the Bible describes. 

A little background is due here.  At the time of Paul's journey to Rome, the Roman empire had already invaded Britain over 100 years earlier under Julius Caesar and then again (with a larger force) later in 47 AD under Emperor Claudius (see wiki here). So in the time period of II Timothy, Rome had already had connections with Britain.  It is also worth noting that according to some historians, there had been trade routes between the Mediterranean and Britain going back hundreds or even thousands of years, see this: wiki.  It's interesting to consider that at the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Romans had been in Britain (then called Britania) and in about 61 AD, although being outnumbered 20 to 1, the Romans still defeated Boudica at the Battle of Watling street link here ==> wiki (although the exact location is still debated).

Wales

I suppose I should note that it was the subject of Wales that started much of my research. While watching various history content, there was a trend I was noticing.  That being the idea that the western and northern sections of Britain were never fully conquered or subdued by either the Romans or the Anglo-Saxons that came later. That is important when it comes to the notion of how Christianity came to this area. The Catholics and the Church of England, claim Britain had been under papal authority since earliest times.  We know there were English language Bibles before the King James Bible of 1611.  We know of the numerous persecutions of the Romans against Christians and later by the Catholic church in the 1400 and 1500's. That leaves a big window of time that little seems to be known about just what was going on in Britain.  Also, how did the Gospel come to Britain in the first place?  The conclusion of my readings is that there seems to have been holdouts from the earliest times in the west of Britain, having been pushed that direction first by the Romans, then by the Anglo-Saxons.  More importantly, while the towns and settlements accepted the demands of the Catholics, there seems to have been a remnant in their mountain holdouts, which resisted the demands of Catholics, namely infant baptism and the authority of the Pope. This seems familiar with the case with the Waldensens of Italy (see this post).  

In his book "History of the Welsh Baptists", published 1835, there is an interesting account of a Catholic monk,being sent by pope Gregory, referred to as Austin the monk - who, in about the year 600, confronted some folks that were already Christians in the area of Wales. Demanding that they submit to the pope and sprinkle their chidren. They seemed to have (more or less) told the monk to go pound sand.  Apparently, Roman Catholicsm had just now reached these people, who promptly rejected it.  They, as did the Waldenses, suffered greatly for their faith.

Joseph of Arimathea in Britain?

First off, the Bible makes no mention of this and none of this really matters in regards to Scripture, but as a "shade-tree" historian, I was interested.  Additionally, the further back you go, most historical sources you will find regarding Christianity are from Catholic sources.  The claim is that Joseph of Arimathea, mentioned in the Gospels (eg. Matthew 27) was Mary's (mother of Jesus) uncle and was a wealthy man who was involved in the tin trade.  Britain was a well-known source of tin on already established trading routes with the Mediterranean. Listen to these documentaries below for background info on this subject. 

 

II Timothy chapter 4

In the last chapter of II Timothy, we see mention of 2 people named Claudia and Pudens and nowhere else. All we can really say is that they were with Paul for some amount of time.  What if there were historical evidence that this same Claudia was a Welsh princess, or rather the daughter of a Welsh tribal chieftain?  Wales is in the UK - a long ways from Rome. To me, if true, would be a fascinating connection for the people and history of Britain and the Bible. I can't recall where I first read someone mention this (possible) connection, but I am pretty sure it was while reading a bit on Baptist history. Please note, I am not advocating this to be historical fact, yet it is something that seems to have some merit and something I will be looking into further. So, as someone who is more inclined to watch a history documentary than a football game, the notion of a woman named Claudia being connected with Britain caught my attention and I will be reading more on this subject.

Sources for further reading:

• History of the Welsh Baptists
• Gildas
• Bede

Regarding the Waldenses - Interesting Old Book by Samuel Morland 1658

As one starts to read about the Waldenses, you will sooner or later come across mention of this book.  The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by Samuel Morland 1658. The writing is in the older Elizabethean style, the same as the original 1611 King James Bible.

I will be adding to this post later, with notable mentions, but it is full of accounts of who the Waldenses were and what they believed. In short - salvation by faith alone and believers baptism, long before the reformation ever started.

I found a used hardcover version on ebay and it.  It's a 1982 reprint of the original 1658 edition.  If you have read "The Trail of Blood", this is something I would recommend as well. I doubt if I read the entire thing from front to back, but sections at a time.

Fold-out map of the valleys of the Piemont that was in the front of the book I found. This area is in northern Italy.  History is what you know, heritage is what you keep...and we are loosing ours fast.

You can also find a PDF copy of this book, which typically contains two volumes - on archive.org here:
https://archive.org/details/historyofevangel00morl

My Premium KJV Bible Buying Guide

Short answer:
Look at Cambridge Bibles. You can get them at one of several places:

(1) evangelicalbible.com (I have bought several here)
(2) thekjvstore.com
(3) amazon.com (can find used if patient)
(4) ebay

 
Background:
So you want a new KJV Bible with a leather cover that's easy to read and carry?  There are tons of options, but for myself I seem to like Cambridge, especially their Concord.  I Have or had one of the following:  Allan, Cambridge and Church Bible Publishers (CBP). Another option Ive considered is TBS (Trinitarian Bible Society).  However, it's not the cover that matters, but what's written on the pages inside!  Still, when one goes looking for Bible that will last, it's things like the printers, the binding and paper used that one starts to consider.

With Cambridge, I like the fact that they include the Translators to the Reader, which few publishers do nowdays. However, it's the text layout itself that is much easier to read.  The Allan uses the Oxford text which is an older style font and layout. Both Allan and Cambridge use Royal Jongbloed printers in the Netherlands, which are reknown for their quality.

My current KJV Bible collection includes several Cambridge and one Allan which I'm not sure I will keep.  My collection, which includes more than those in the photos below, fill one row of a bookshelf.

From top to bottom:
Allan Ruby 103 reference edition 
Cambridge Concord personal edition
Cambridge Concord w/calfskin full yapp cover

Here is the Allan Ruby and Concord viewed from the top

Concord - Personal sized and full compared

My 1st Concord from a few years ago, which has a goatskin cover but not the yapp.  The cover is very "floppy", which can be kinda like carrying a wet noodle 😀

 

Yes, that makes 4 Cambridge Concords.  I think Im done for now. If I had to only have one, it would probalby be the Personal sized Concord.  A leather cover is nice to hold on to, but a very readable text that I have no reason to question, is easily carried and pages turn easy are the things that matter to me the most.  The Personal sized Concord can be found < $50 on Amazon, which is probably why I have 2...

Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

Recently, I watched the documentary "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy", directed by Tim Mahoney. I was fascinated by things he mentioned, enough so to go and watch the previous documentary he did on the Exodus, namely "Patterns of Evidence: Exodus". Tim Mahoney's own testimony is interesting as well.

Here is the trailer

 It seems the accepted view among "credible" scholars and archaeologists, is that the Biblical account of the Exodus is a work of fiction.  This view somehow gained acceptance in the academic community when a female archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon did work at the site of Jericho in the 1950's and determined there was no evidence of destruction matching the Biblical account. She was looking in an area that represents the late bronze age, but it's just not there. However, like many ancient sites, cities, castles, forts etc. are often built on top of previous sites.

In short, this whole controversy in the archeological debate mostly seems to be centered around the timeline or chronology of events.  The timeframe of the Exodus, which scholars doubt happened at all, is said to have occurred during the reign of Ramses, which is much later during Egypt's new kingdom. Since no evidence exists in that time period, well it was settled among academics that the Biblical account must be little more than fairy tale.  

The different stages of the Exodus, once put in the timeframe known as the middle kingdom, rather than the period known as the new kingdom, evidence starts to line up with the Biblical account.  Yet, this evidence has yet to gain acceptance in academic circles for various reasons.  These stages, the documentary categorizes like this:
- Arrival
- Multiplication
- Slavery
- Judgement of Egypt (the plagues)
- Exodus
- Conquest of Canaan

The question then becomes - surely there is evidence of these things in the historical and archeological record?  What is not well published, is there IS evidence, just not during the time period that is accepted by the dominant scholars of our era.

What follows are a brief list of some of the evidence discussed in the film that I had never heard of, except one - the Merneptah Stele.  Some of the most compelling evidence is covered by someone who is a self-avowed agnostic, David Rohl, which you would think would remove any claim of bias that a Bible-believing Christian might be accused of.

- Joseph's arrival in Egypt and rise to a position, 2nd only to the pharaoh.
- The city of Ramses, where there is little evidence for the Hebrews ever existing, lies on top of an older settlement known as Avaris where there is evidence of Semitic peoples.  This evidence also includes signs that they were initially doing very well, but then seemed to have much shorter lifespans, consistent with being put into slavery.
- A canal which diverts water from the Nile river, which to this day is called Bahr Yussef or "waterway of Joseph"
- About the time the Biblical story of the 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine are to occur, there is evidence of a decline of power of the various regions of Egypt, being concentrated in one area and in the hands of pharaoh alone. This was during the time of Sunusret and Amenemhat III (not Ramses).
- An Egyptian papyrus document known as the Brooklyn Papyrus, lists names of slaves and a large number of these names are Semitic. Note that it's sometimes confusing when Canaanite or Semitic people have historically been referred to as Asian. You can see this in the writings of several early British scholars. 
- An Egyptian document that recounts events remarkably similar to those of the plagues mentioned in the Bible. This papyrus known as the Ipuwer Papyrus, or "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage", is in a Dutch museum. 
- The Merneptah Stele, a large stone that records a number of military conquests and at the very bottom, a section that refers to Israel as a people. King Merneptah was just prior to His immediate successor, Ramses III. Yet his immediate predecessor was known as Ramses the Great, and its this Ramses that scholars still associate as the pharaoh of the Exodus. More evidence that the Exodus wouldn't have happened then as Israel is already referred to as a nation on the Stele.

There is lots more, but I highly encourage you to find and watch this documentary.  If for no other reason, than to see and hear evidence that is largely obscured by modern scholars that, when taken together, seems to vindicate the Biblical account of the Exodus.

 

Very interesting - "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy"

The world we live in today has many of the academics and scholarly types giving their findings that contradict and cast doubt on the Bible. I am no scholar, archaeologist or theologian, but I do love history.  The Bible claims that God told Moses to write down the events of the Exodus. 
Exodus 17:14
17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

I have heard or read comments over the years about how some scholars suggest that Moses could not have written the first 5 books of the Bible. They make this claim based on their research which shows them the Hebrew language as we know it today, didn't exist at the time of Moses.  The claims typically go on to suggest the "documentary" style of development to the first five books of the Bible, with having several authors, which are said to have been "developed" over time.  This "development" would then have been embellished with stories like the parting of the Red Sea etc.  So the thinking goes.  Amazon is full of books on this subject.

Yesterday, I watched "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy", purchasing and watching it on youtube.  No this is not click-bait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5a7koxKABQ

Wow, I can honestly say I learned a lot from watching that.  I had no idea there were this much activity in this area.  Especially interesting however, are the things brought up in this documentary as counter-weight to the skeptics and scholars who cast doubt on the Bible account.  None of the evidence individually is likely to sway any of these scholars, nor the skeptics that rest on their work.  However, the phrase from the title of the documentary eg. "patterns" which include a number of things, when taken together, form a body of evidence that I have not seen mentioned before. These things, when taken together, dispel the notion that Bible is a fairy tale and has no historical basis.  In the end however, it still comes down to belief.  Nothing that can be dug out of the ground, by itself, is going to show the world that there is a God and that this same God said and did all the things in the Bible.  It didn't take but a few generations after Noah, for man to doubt God. Today, believing in the God of the Bible is largely considered "foolish" or childish, especially if one takes the Bible literally.

1 Cor 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1 Cor 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Cor 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

However, for those that believe the Bible, there are things that this documentary discusses that can strengthen our faith.  Archaeology isn't needed to believe, but a few things discovered along the way, sure seem to help stop up the mouths of the skeptics.