What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?

[kendemyer]

I am looking for the best sources that support a early date exodus which is the traditional view (a Jewish Exodus of 1446 B.C ). I am also looking for anti-late date Exodus arguments.

I am not looking for sources or arguments that disagree with the focus of this thread. I am also not looking for comments indicating that I am a narrow or small minded person just because I want to concentrate on this view. I have reasons for believing the Exodus happened as per the Bible. For example, I believe the Dr. Macht study published by John Hopkins provides evidence that the Torah was divinely inspired (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27048 ).

With that in mind, here are my favorite early date sources that I have found that I believe provide excellent arguments with the best arguments given first:

1. Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia under the topic heading "Exodus, the" (Wycliffe Bible Enycyclopedia, Moody Bible Press, 1986, pages 573-576, Chicago). These are the pages that focus on the date of the Exodus although the Exodus article is longer (I like the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia because it is very scholarly, concise, and reasonable in my estimation).

2. The Date of the Conquest by Bruce K. Waltke
Westminster Theological Journal 52.2 (Fall 1990): 181-200. which can be accessed here: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_date_waltke.html

3. I also liked reading the early date arguments of Bruce Waltke, Charles Dyer, Douglas MacCallum, Lindsay Judisch, John Bimson, and Bryant Wood for the early date view (see: http://www.angelfire.com/nm/massimolorenzini/exodus.html ).

4. From the rabbinical sources I like Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb's commentary regarding the Exodus which discusses archeology plus his discussion of the "Kazari principle" in defending the Exodus. The Kuzari principle is a classical work of Jewish philosophy by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi. (the see: http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-5.htm and "kuzari principle" at: http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-6.htm ). I also liked Rabbi Ken Spiro's articles regarding the Exodus and archeology (see: http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Exodus.asp and http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp ). Here is a related article regarding the fragmentary and imprecise/interpretive aspects of archeology: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185

(Being a Christian, I do not necessarily endorse everything that may be found at the above sites [who Jesus was, etc.)

5. I also liked the Christian Courier article called: Myth or History: Did Jericho’s Walls Come Down? by Jason Jackson published on Monday, January 1, 2001 which is related to the Exodus (see: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/january2001.htm ). Bryant Wood's findings are also defended here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

6. Here is an interesting web article which discusses the Exodus in regards to a volcanic eruption and the Biblical account of the events surrounding the Exodus: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/thera.html

However, there is some controversy to this issue as can be seen here:

The eruption of Thera occured around 1450-1500 B.C.E. according to archaeological dating which is during the same time frame as the scriptural dating for the Exodus of Moses (1447 B.C.E.)

(Note that dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating, supports an ealier date, 1628/7 B.C.E., for the eruption.)

taken from: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/thera.html



7. Here is an interesting history of the early/late date Exodus controversy which discusses the work of the archeologist Glueck in light of subsequent archeological finds: http://www.bga.nl/en/articles/oostjor.html

8. I also liked JP Holding's Scythians/exodus commentary below:

"What about all the bodies of the people who died during the Exodus?" What about them? The Scythians only buried their most important people (quite obviously, in huge mounds) and there must have been tons of them who weren't buried over the course of thousands of years, yet does anyone complain that we don't find their bodies today? It is interesting to note Tippett's comment that if it were not for these royal graves and the writings of Herodotus, the existence of the Scythians at their earliest stage "might never have been known at all." What then of the mere 40-year trail of the Exodus?

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/af/exoduslogistics.html




Addendum:

I realize that David Rohl's supporters are quite orthodox and believe the Exodus occured as per the Bible (see: (http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html and http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm ).

[kendemyer]

Here is something I read about a late date Exodus that is not encouraging to a late date Exodus theory:



The Case Against an Exodus during Dynasty 19 or 20-



In seeking an archaeological sitz im leben for the Exodus narratives mainstream secular humanist scholarship understands that the archaeological picture reveals that Israel is settling the land in the Early Iron I period as described in the book of Judges, and therefore, if there was any kind of an Exodus, it ought to be dated to the 19th or 20 Egyptian Dynasties. However, Weinstein makes a penetrating observation about proposals for an Exodus in this time period :

"The only question that really matters is whether any (non-biblical) textual or archaeological materials indicate a major outflow of Asiatics from Egypt to Canaan at any point in the 19th or even early 20th Dynasty. And so far the answer to that question is no." (p.93, James Weinstein, "Exodus and Archaeological Reality," Ernest S. Friedichs & Leonard H. Lesko, Exodus : The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1997, ISBN 1-57506-025-6)

taken from: http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html




Here is something else I read:



The content of the Exodus text, like the Sargon stories, can be checked for anachronisms. Is there anything that conflicts with a Late Bronze Age date (13th century B.C.)? On the other hand, are there features that suit that period well? Exodus is a long book with a variety of contents, so we shall look at only a few examples.


The name of the pharaoh who set the Israelites to work making bricks is not given, an omission modern scholars sometimes find very annoying, and a contrast with later references in the Biblical books of Kings, which mention Pharaohs Shishak and Necho. But it was normal for people in Egypt to refer simply to "the pharaoh" in the New Kingdom period, when the Exodus presumably occurred.(5)

The place names Ra'amses and Pithom in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile Delta. The city of Ra'amses, which is currently being excavated by Manfred Bietak, was a royal city in the Delta during the period of the Exodus, but was replaced by Tanis (Biblical Zoan) in the middle of the 12th century B.C. The other Exodus store city, Pithom, may be located at Tell er-Retabeh or, less likely, Tell el-Mashkuta. At Tell er-Retabeh building blocks have been found bearing the cartouche of Ramesses II (1279-1213 B.C.), thus confirming a Late Bronze occupation, so Tell er-Retabeh could well be Pi-Atum (Biblical Pithom). Tell el-Mashkuta also appears to have been occupied at this time, but it may be Succoth rather than Pithom.(6)

The desert Tabernacle is described as a portable prefabricated shrine. The structure has close Egyptian parallels in the second millennium B.C. and even earlier.(7) The Ark of the Covenant may be compared with the portable clothes chest found in the tomb of Tutankh-amun (1336-1327 B.C.), with its carrying poles slipped through metal rings on the base. Moreover, there is no reason why such an artifact could not be manufactured by the departing Israelites. The myth of "primitive Israel" in the wilderness of Sinai, unable to do more than pasture her flocks, should be dispelled. If we follow the Biblical record, the people who left Egypt were not all or always oppressed brickmakers. Some, like Bezalel (Exodus 35:30-36:2), had other skills, and earlier generations would have been exposed to Egyptian traditions and craftsmanship.

Worship of a single deity, not acknowledging any others, had been the policy of the "heretic" pharaoh Akhenaten in the 14th century B.C. That the Israelites adopted his doctrine seems unlikely, centered as it was on the figure of the king. Still, the appearance of Akhenaten's revolutionary cult warns us against assuming that another form of monotheism could not appear in the next century.(8)

taken from: http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/how_reliable_is_exodus.htm



I would also refcommend this article:

THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN: HOW AND WHEN? byGarry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9410a.htm

[kendemyer]

Here is one other source that I found interesting:



Evidence for settlements

The second argument against the traditional date for the Exodus is based mainly on the work of archaeologist Nelson Glueck in the 1930s, which failed to find evidence of permanent settlements in the Transjordan and the Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 B.C. This region should have shown a sizable presence of Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites at that time, since the biblical account mentions their strong opposition to the Israelites.

However, more-recent excavations have shown many settlements in the area that Glueck did not find. Archaeologist John Bimson notes that "Glueck’s initial conclusions were definitely wrong (indeed he later retracted them), and it is disappointing to find scholars citing them as if they were still valid evidence. All too often the 13th century date for the Exodus has been perpetuated by the baseless repetition of outmoded views" (Biblical Archaeological Review, September-October 1987, p. 44).

Widespread destruction

The third argument used to date the Exodus to the 1200s B.C. is the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan.

Yet, if the traditional 1400s date for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence seems to fit much better, for This would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Joshua 13:1; Judges 3:1-6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process.

Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes: ". . . The signs of widespread destruction

at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest (by Joshua). These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace" (The Stones Cry Out, 1997, p. 147).

Dr. Merrill adds: ". . . Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor" (Kingdom of Priests, p. 73).

We find, then, that the archaeological evidence better fits the traditional date of the Exodus backed by the Bible.

Recent discoveries


Another argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment every item had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few or no traces that could be found 3,400 years later, especially in the shifting desert sands.

taken from: http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn039/exodus.html




Here is some information I found due to some material I read before regarding the Dream Inscription found at the Sphinx and this source talks about the Dream Inscription providing evidence of an early Exodus plus discusses some other material as well (the Wycliffe Bible Enycyclopedia provides some excellent early date Exodus material. I highly recommend it):



The Tenth Plague—which smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne (Ex.xii.29 J)—ought, however, to be capable of archaeological verification. Is there any record on the monuments that the eldest son of Amenhotep II came to an untimely end?

That he did so certainly seems to be implied by the curious Dream Inscription of Thothmes IV, Amenhotep's immediate successor, showing that Thothmes was not that sovereign's eldest son.

On an immense slab of red granite near the Sphinx at Gizeh it is recorded that Thothmes IV, while yet a youth, had fallen asleep under the famous monument, and dreamed a dream. In this the Sphinx appeared to him, startling him with a prophecy that one day he would live to be King of Egypt, and bidding him clear the sand away from her feet in token of his gratitude: which, on his accession, he did.



It is clear from this inscription that Thothmes' hopes of succession had been remote, which proves—since the law of primogeniture obtained in Egypt at the time—that he could not have been Amenhotep's eldest son. In other words, there is room for the explanation that the heir apparent died in the manner related in the Bible.



As to the historical situation in general, there is no reason to doubt the possibility of the Exodus occurring about the beginning of the reign of Amenhotep II. The records show that on the death of the puissant Thothmes III the whole of the outlying parts of the empire broke into revolt. At the instigation of the Mitanni in the far north a rebellion against Egyptian supremacy involved the whole of Syria and Palestine. Amenhotep soon moved against the confederates and crushed them, but it may well be that the distractions of this campaign early in his reign created a diversion of which Moses was not slow to make use.



Thus, though we have no explicit proof of the Exodus story outside the Bible, 'there is', in the words of T. E. Peet, 'yet nothing in the monumental evidence which throws doubt on the general credibility of the Biblical narrative. On the contrary, the picture presented by the latter agrees remarkably in general features as well as in detail with the picture presented by the monuments.'


THE WILDERNESS WANDERING

The duration of the Wilderness Period is fixed by one of the oldest written passages in the Bible as 'forty years'—/ led you forty years in the wilderness (Amos 210; cf. 525)—with which all other Biblical references agree. Forty may, of course, be no more than a round number, but to make the duration of the Wandering much more or much less than a generation would be to do violence to the firm tradition. We may therefore assign this interlude to the years 1447-1407 BC or thereabouts, commencing with the Exodus and ending at the latter date with the entry of Joshua into the Promised Land.



Archaeologically, in the nature of the case, one can expect little additional light upon the Biblical narrative of these forty years during which the Hebrews were in hiding from the long arm of Egypt. But we can at any rate reconstruct the imperial background against which they moved.



Amenhotep II survived the Exodus for twenty-seven years, being succeeded about 1420 BC by a younger son Thothmes IV, whose tomb was discovered by Carter in 1902. It was adorned with pictures of his warlike exploits, but of course makes no reference to the Hebrews then lurking in the wilderness. He was succeeded in 1411 by Amenhotep III, whose reign inaugurated one of the most brilliant epochs of Egyptian history. It was claimed that his empire extended from Nubia to Mesopotamia, and the great North Road through Palestine resounded to the tramp of his armies. Palestine itself was held in subjection to the Pharaoh by a system of vassal kings or chieftains, mostly Amorites, whose embattled fortresses (though weakened by previous Egyptian assault and spoliation) were held in fief to guard the roads from Bedouins and bandits, or if need be to hold the frontiers against more dangerous enemies until Egyptian reinforcements should arrive.



That the Egyptian supremacy in Palestine involved more than merely military occupation is clear from the innumerable remains of a peaceful and domestic type discovered by the excavations. Scarabs of the XVIIIth Dynasty are plentiful everywhere, thus dating the discoveries. [Scarabs: typically Egyptian ornaments or charms made in the shape of the sacred beetle of Egypt, and often containing the name of the reigning Pharaoh. They are thus the ancient Egyptian equivalent of date-stamps.] Other typical relics include 'Horus Eyes' (charms to avert the Evil Eye), statuettes of Nilotic deities such as Isis, Osiris, and Hathor with her lotus-flower, draught-boards and men, models of sacred cats, apes, and hippopotami, dolls, jewellery, and so on. There are many signs, too, that the Egyptian religion was not without its influence on the cults of Canaan, and that in more ways than one this influence was reciprocal.



It has frequently been suggested, indeed, that Canaanite influence may have penetrated to the Court of Egypt itself through Amenhotep's wife, Queen Thi, who is said (apparently without much proof) to have been of Semitic blood. It was this Queen Thi whose parents Yuaa and Thuaa were buried in the dazzling tomb discovered, with all its treasures still intact, by T. Davies in 1905. Her son Akhnaton's religious reforms, however, show no trace of Semitic influence, but are purely Egyptian in expression.



Under Amenhotep, Egypt attained a peak of wealth and splendour never touched before. A whole chapter might be written on his treasure-stores, his works of art, his magnificent temples and palaces, his towering monuments (of which the so-called Colossi of Memnon are so well known in picture), and his munificent endowment of the sacred Apis bulls.



While this mighty monarch was at the height of his power, it was clearly useless for any invader of his frontiers to expect success. We can well understand that Moses and Joshua, biding their time in the wilderness, must have felt that the opportunity for claiming the Promised Land was not yet.


THE ROUTE OF THE WANDERING
During these forty years (c. 1447-1407 BC), therefore, we are to picture Moses building up his people into a nation in the security of the wilderness. The wandering itself probably would not last very long: he would make as directly as possible for the well-watered camping-grounds by Sinai and Kadesh, there to settle down and develop his resources in peace. [The J narrative says nothing of detours, but makes the Israelites march direct from Egypt to Kadesh.]



The precise route of his journey thither will probably never be agreed. None of the place-names mentioned in the Biblical narrative have been certainly identified [Even the identification of the 'Red Sea' (Heb. the Sea of Reeds) is in doubt.], and excavations in the Sinaitic peninsula have failed to find any trace of the Hebrews.



Petrie's excavations at Serabit-el-Khadem, it is true, have proved the existence of Semitic quarrymen and turquoise-miners in the peninsula at this time. Quite unlike the free-roving people of Moses, they were clearly prisoners or slaves, held down to their work under Egyptian overlookers. Yet they were allowed a certain amount of religious freedom, as is shown by a temple dedicated to 'Hathor, Queen of the Turquoise', where the cult-objects are of distinctly Semitic type—altars of incense, sacred pillars, and the like. If our chronology is correct, this temple was actually in use at the time of the Exodus, and Marston makes the interesting suggestion [C. Marston, New Knowledge about the Old Testament (1933), p.137.] that it was used by Moses as a pretext for visiting the peninsula—let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God (Ex.v.3 J). Petrie here discovered, among the interesting inscriptions described in our first chapter, a group of characters which he read as MNSHEH [It is more likely to be Manasseh.] and which some have tried to identify with the name Moses.



It is unlikely, however, that the route of the Exodus ever descended south into the peninsula at all. The name 'Sinaitic', and the identification of the Jebel Musa (Mount of Moses) with Mount Sinai go no farther back than the third century of our era, while the 'dotted line' showing the 'journey of the Israelites' in most of our Scripture atlases has no real authority. As a matter of fact the peninsula was probably the last hiding-place that any one would choose who was anxious to escape from Egyptian pursuit. From the days of Senerkhet of the 1st Dynasty onwards, its mines of precious stones and metals had been treasured possessions of the Pharaohs: to this day the hills of 'Sinai' are strewn with the marks of Egyptian occupation. The whole country was known and charted; indeed 'a papyrus chart—the oldest map in the world—has been discovered which reveals how the Pharaoh marked out the route across the desert to the goldmines in that region' [Knight, Nile and Jordan, p.228 (1933 edit.).]. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that the Israelites would dally long in a land so overrun by their enemies.



A very reasonable conjecture would place the Holy Mount of Sinai, or Horeb [Horeb and Sinai are probably only different names for the same mountain, Horeb perhaps being the more primitive (W. J. Phythian-Adams, The Call of Israel, 1934).], not in the peninsula, but east of the Gulf of Akaba in the volcanic region of northern Arabia. There are many indications in the oldest Biblical tradition that Sinai was a volcano (e.g. Ex.xix.18 E: Mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace). Now there are no volcanoes in the peninsula, but in Arabia there are several. It has been observed that 'the extensive volcanic region of Awaridh contains an isolated volcano called Tadra which appears to satisfy the requirements of the Biblical record concerning Sinai.... A number of Arab traditions still associate it with the exploits of Moses.' [Ibid.] Others suggest a more northerly volcanic area near Petra. From the crater of such a volcano at the height of its activity the light could be seen for many hundreds of miles, and it has been suggested that this was the pillar of fire by night that guided Moses in a direct line from the crossing of the Red Sea to the Sacred Mount.



The Land of Midian, which according to the Biblical narrative was in close contact with Sinai, must accordingly be located east of the Gulf of Akaba in Arabia, and not (as in the Scripture atlases) west of it in the peninsula. This fits in well with the Biblical narrative, where Midian is clearly in the neighbourhood of Moab and Edom—compare the very ancient Song of Deborah, for instance (Jdg.v.4-5): and is in accord with a statement in Ptolemy the Geographer, and with the Septuagint translators, which imply that Midian took its name from Maon [Maon-ites is translated by Midianites in LXX. For survey of evidence for this identification of Midian see Jeremias, op. cit.] (Minaea) in Arabia.



The importance of thus localizing Sinai and Midian lies in the fact that it brings us back once more to Arabia, the original motherland of the Semitic peoples and now (as it seems) the home of the Mosaic Law. Recent scholarship tends to lay far more stress on Arabian archaeology than formerly, and it is much to be desired that the country of Mohammed, so long almost closed to European explorers, should be more thoroughly excavated. Among the discoveries already made are the remarkable Minaean Inscriptions of south Arabia, dated by many scholars as early as the fifteenth century [But others regard them as contemporary with the Sabaean kingdom many centuries later. See Montgomery, Arabia and the Bible (1934).], in which are found many parallels to Hebrew religious beliefs and practices, going back perhaps to the days of Jethro, Moses' Midianite father-in-law. And connected (in all probability) with this Minaean civilization are the recently discovered Ras Shamra tablets which contain so many curious reminiscences of the Mosaic legislation.



We also make contact with Petra [A picturesque description of Petra with excellent photographs is in Hammerton's Wonders of the Past (1934), p.83.], that unique rock-hewn city of north Arabia immortalized by Burgon in the famous lines:

Match you this wonder save in Eastern clime,
A rose-red city half as old as time.



The existing temples and typically Canaanite High Places of Petra (called in the Bible Sela, the Rock, or Joktheel) are probably not older than Nabataean times, but the religious importance of the place may date much earlier. Conjecture would connect it with the home of the Kenites, perhaps the ancient shrine of Jethro himself, and the spot, which Balaam had in mind when he sang, Strong is thy dwelling place, and thy nest is set in the rock (Num.xxiv.21).



Phythian-Adams definitely identifies Kadesh (Kadesh-Barnea), where the Hebrews encamped on the eve of the Conquest, with this Petra, rather than with Ain Kadeis in the Negeb. In that district, he points out, there is no stream of any note, while Kadeis means simply a 'paddle', and has nothing to do with Kadesh. The very remarkable rivulet, on the other hand, which runs out of the solid rock through the narrow defile at Petra, he regards as the original of the Massah-Meribah episode (Ex.xvii.2-7 JE). The stream is still called the 'Brook of Moses' by the Arabs, and an adjoining hill is pointed out as the mount where Aaron died.



Such, perhaps, were the surroundings—beetling cliffs, volcanic mountains, fertile oases at their feet where encampment could be made, a district occupied by kindred tribes of no mean civilization nor unenlightened religion—in which Moses sojourned with the Midianites and where he afterwards prepared his people for their entry into Canaan. Here, if Hommel and his school are right, Moses may have spoken that dialect of Arabic which, fused with Canaanite, became the Hebrew tongue; may have learnt the script which evolved into the Hebrew alphabet; and may have renewed the half-forgotten faith of his forefathers under the influence of the mother religion of Arabia.

taken from: http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChVI.htm#Title



Here is another article which says something interesting about the probable pharoh of the Exodus plus some other matters as well:



The Bible nowhere mentions the name of the pharaoh of the Exodus, but Bible students have always been curious as to who he was. No doubt, some Christians will be wary of trying to discover something the Bible has not clearly revealed; but in studying this question one can come away with his faith increased in the Bible as the unerring word of God. Although the Bible does not specifically name the pharaoh of the Exodus, enough data is supplied for us to be relatively sure who he was.

Admittedly, there are two schools of thought concerning the date of the Exodus (i.e., the early date and late date theories). Proponents of the late date theory (1290 B.C.) are clearly in the majority, but they reject clear Biblical statements with reference to the date of the Exodus. Therefore their arguments in favor of a particular pharaoh will not be considered in this article.

In I Kings 6:1 the Scriptures say: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month that he began to build the house of the Lord." One can readily see that the times for both the Exodus and the beginning of the Temple have been specifically stated in God's Word. Scholars have identified the fourth year of Solomon's reign as 966 B.C. (Gleason, A Survey of Old Testamsnt Introduction, 1974, p. 223). Using this 966 B.C. date, we find that the Exodus took place in 1445 B.C. Now, if this information is correct, the Exodus occurred in the third year of the reign of the pharaoh Amenhotep II.

Before concluding that Amenhotep II was, indeed, the pharaoh of the Exodus, we will need to study further other evidence that can be presented. For instance, when comparing Exodus 7:7 with Acts 7:23, we learn that Moses was in Midian approximately forty years. Assuming the pharaohs mentioned in Exodus 1:8, 22 and 2:23 are all the same person, he would have had to reign for over forty years. Amenhotep's predecessor, Thutmose III, is the only pharaoh within the time specified in I Kings 6:1 who reigned long enough (54 years) to have been on the throne at the time of Moses' flight and to die shortly before his return to Egypt. This would make Thutmose III the pharaoh of the Oppression and Amenhotep II the pharaoh of the Exodus.

History tells us that for several years after 1445 B.C. Amenhotep II was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations. This would seem like very strange behavior for a pharaoh who hoped to equal his father's record of no less than seventeen military campaigns in nineteen years. But this is exactly what one would expect from a pharaoh who had lost almost all his cavalry, chariotry, and army at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:23, 27-30).

Furthermore, we learn from the Dream Stela of Thutmose IV, son of Amenhotep II, that he was not the legitimate successor to the throne (J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, p. 449). This means that Thutmose IV was not the firstborn son, who would have been the legitimate heir. The firstborn son of Amenhotep II had evidently died prior to taking the throne of Egypt. This would agree with Exodus 12:29 which says the pharaoh's first-born son was killed during the Passover.

If the Exodus did take place in 1445 B.C., forty years of wilderness wandering would bring us to 1405 B.C. for the destruction of Jericho. Interestingly enough, John Garstang, who excavated the site of ancient Jericho (city "D" in his survey), came to the conclusion that the destruction of the city took place around 1400 B.C. (Garstang, The Story of Jericho, 1948, p. 122). He also concluded that the walls of the city toppled outward, which would compare favorably with Joshua 6:20.

Scholars have been fascinated by a revolutionary religious doctrine which developed shortly after 1445 B.C. that threatened to sweep away the theological dogmas of centuries. These scholars have credited Amenhotep IV, great grandson of Amenhotep II, with founding the religious concept of Monotheism (the idea that there is only one God). The cult of Aton set forth this idea to the Egyptian people and scholars have mistakenly credited this idea to the Egyptians. But it does not seem unusual to me that a people who had been so influenced by the one God of Moses would try to worship the God that had so convincingly defeated their gods. A continually increasing body of evidence indicates that this cult of Aton had its beginning in the reign of Thutmose IV, son of Amenhotep II, pharaoh of the Exodus.

Although the final verdict is not yet in, we can be reasonably sure that Amenhotep II was the pharaoh of the Exodus.

taken from: http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html

[learning]

If you go to www.Christianbook.com, and look under the DVD-video, there is a video or DVD that is called 'Exodus Revealed: Searching for the Red Sea Crossing' (just type in 'Exodux Revealed' in the search button)

I do not know if this fits in with what you are looking for concerning the time line but I found that I'ld like to see what they are talking about when they speak of found evidence of the children of Israel being in Israel.

[kendemyer]

TO: Learning

I have heard about that video but I have not seen it. Thank you for the source.

TO: ALL

I am going to give an article which gives archeological evidence for the prophet Balaam mentioned in the Torah and then give a quotation from the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia which further elaborates on this matter in relation to the Exodus.

First here is an article written by Bryant G. Wood entitled: "Is there any evidence to prove the existence of the prophet, Balaam?" at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a014.html

Here is a quotation from that article:



"In an unprecedented discovery, an ancient text found at Deir Alla, Jordan, in 1967 tells about the activities of a prophet named Balaam. Could this be the Balaam of the Old Testament? The text makes it clear that it is. Three times in the first four lines he is referred to as "Balaam son of Beor," exactly as in the Bible...."

.....The Deir Alla text presents a problem to those who dismiss the Biblical account of the Exodus, Wilderness Wanderings and Conquest as legendary.... If Balaam was a real person, what about Balak, Moses, Joshua and all of the other persons named in the Biblical narrative? They must have been real as well, and the events described authentic.

taken from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a014.html



Here is the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia article:



"In Num 22:5 we read that Balak "went messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, at Pethor on the River, in the land of the sons of Amaw"(JerusB). Pethor is the later Hittite city of Pitru, S of Carchemish on the Euphrates. The statue of Idri-mi form Alakh, dated variously from 1450 to 1375 B.C., says he found sons of the land of 'Amau and sons of the land of Aleppo when he was in exile in Canaan (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, #118, p. 16). Only around 1400 B.C. was the land of 'Amau independent and not under the rule of either the Egyptians or the Hittites. From the time of Suppiluminus (c. 1370 B.C. Carchemish dominated the area, first within the Hittite imperial system and later as an independent city-state."

source: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, "The Exodus", p. 575, Moody Bible Press, Chicago




Here is something from the BBC:



The Admonitions of a Sage

Acquired by the University of Leiden in 1828 and catalogued as manuscript 344, the Papyrus Ipuwer 4 (translated by the Egyptologist A.H. Gardiner under the title The Admonitions of a Sage) is a 19th Dynasty copy of a much earlier document, almost certainly from the Middle Kingdom period. Opinions differ as to its import; some say that it's nothing but an old man's rant, or that the content is some sort of allegory, but others5 believe that it is nothing less than an Egyptian account of the Plagues, and of conditions in Egypt in their immediate aftermath. Whatever the truth, it has to be acknowledged that parts of the manuscript are highly suggestive.

2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
2:10 The river is blood...men shrink from tasting..and thirst after water
2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.

The Admonitions also contain a vital clue as to when these events happened.In the aftermath of disaster foreign invaders invaded the delta.

What has happened?...through it is to cause the Asiatics to come to know the condition of the land.

Admonitions 15:1

footnote 4: Probably the copyist, not the original author

footnote 5: Most notably, and controversially, Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Ages in Chaos

taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1053262





Here is something that elaborates on the BBC article:



A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt [6]. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:

Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.

The river is blood.

That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!

Trees are destroyed.

No fruit or herbs are found...

Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.

The land is not light [dark].

Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the ten plagues. Since modern men are not supposed to believe in such things, it has been interpreted figuratively by most historians. The destruction of crops and livestock means an economic depression. The river being blood indicates a breakdown of law an order and a proliferation of violent crime. The lack of light stands for the lack of enlightened leadership. Of course, that's not what it says, but it is more palatable than the alternative, which is that the phenomena described by Ipuwer were literally true.

When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh's daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for three generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised.

[6] A.H. Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden (1909). Historians are almost unanimous in dating this papyrus to the very beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The events it describes, consequently, deal with the end of the Old Kingdom.

taken from: http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html

* This article was published in the Spring 1995 issue of Jewish Action, put out by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis



Here is an article on the Ipuwer Papyrus (the papyrus was discovered by someone named Anastasi in the area of Memphis, near the pyramids of Saqqara in Egypt. The museum of Leiden in the Netherlands obtained the papyrus in 1828):

http://www.konig.org/wc52.htm

[kendemyer]

Here is a article which provides commentary in regards to Admonitions of an Egyptian sage in regards to scholarship plus it gives the a full copy of the work:

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/Ipuwer.html


Here is another article regarding the Ipuwer Papyrus which compares it to the Exodus:



Excerpt from Ages in Chaos, by Immanuel Velikovsky:

"It is not known under what circumstances the papyrus containing the words of Ipuwer was found. According to its first possessor (Anastasi), it was found in "Memphis", by which is probably meant the neighborhood of the pyramids of Saqqara. In 1828 the papyrus was acquired by the Museum of Leiden or Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in the Netherlands and is listed in the catalogue as Leiden 344.

The papyrus is written on both sides. The face (recto) and the back (verso) are differentiated by the direction of the fiber tissues; the story of Ipuwer is written on the face, on the back is a hymn to a deity. A facsimile copy of both texts was published by the authorities of the museum together with other Egyptian documents. The text of Ipuwer is now bolded into a book of seventeen pages, most of them containing fourteen lines of hieratic signs (a flowing writing used by the scribes, quite different from pictorial hieroglyphics). Of the first page only a third -- the left or last part of eleven lines -- is preserved; pages 9 to 16 are in veryy bad condition -- there are but a few lines at the top and bottom of the pages -- and of the seventeenth page only the beginning of the first two lines remains.

In 1909 the text, translated anew, was published by Alan H. Gardiner under the title, The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden. Gardiner argued that all the internal evidence of the text points to the historical character of the situation. Egypt was in distress; the social system had become disorganized; violence filled the land. Invaders preyed upon the defenceless population; the rich were stripped of everything and slept in the open, and the poor took their possessions. "It is no merely local distrubance that is here described, but a great and overwhelming national disaster."

Gardiner... interprets the text as though the words of a sage name Ipuwer were directed to some king, blaming him for inactivity which has brought confusion, insecurity, and suffering to the people. "The Almighty", to whom Ipuwer directs his words, is a customary appellation of great gods. Because the introductory passages of the papyrus, where the author and his listeners would be likely to be mentioned, are missing, the presence of the king listening to the sage is assumed on the basis of the preferred form of certain other literary examples of the Middle Kingdom. In accordance with this interpretation, the papyrus containing the words of Ipuwer is called, in the Gardiner edition, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Egypt in Upheaval

The Papyrus Ipuwer is not a collection of proverbs... or riddles; no more is it a literary prophecy... or an admonition concerning profound social changes. It is the Egyptian version of a great catastrophe.

The papyrus is a script of lamentations, a description of ruin and horror.

PAPYRUS 2:8 Forsooth, the land turns round as does a potter's wheel.

2:11 The towns are destroyed. Upper Egypt has become dry (wastes?).

3:13 All is ruin!

7:4 The residence is overturned in a minute.

4:2 ... Years of noise. There is no end to noise.

What do "noise" and "years of noise" denote? The translator wrote: "There is clearly some play upon the word hrw (noise) here, the point of which is to us obscure." Does it mean "earthquake" and "years of earthquake"? In Hebrew the word raash signifies "noise", "commotion", as well as "earthquake". Earthquakes are often accompanied by loud sounds, subterranean rumbling and roaring, and this acoustic phenomenon gives the name to the upheaval itself.

Apparently the shaking returned again and again, and the country was reduced to ruins, the state went into sudden decline, and life became unbearable.

Ipuwer says:

PAPYRUS 6:1 Oh, that the earth would cease from noise, and tumult (uproar) be no more.

The noise and the tumult were produced by the earth. The royal residence would be overthrown "in a minute" and left in ruins....

The papyrus of Ipuwer contains evidence of some natural cataclysm accompanied by earthquakes and bears witness to the appearance of things as they happened at that time.

I shall compare some passages from the Book of Exodus and from the papyrus. As, prior to the publication of Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos, no parallels had been drawn between the Bible and the text of the Papyrus Ipuwer, the translator of the papyrus could not have been influenced by a desire to make his translation resemble the biblical text.

PAPYRUS 2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.

EXODUS 7:21 ... there was blood thoughout all the land of Egypt.

This was the first plague.

PAPYRUS 2:10 The river is blood.

EXODUS 7:20 ... all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

This water was loathsome, and the people could not drink it.

PAPYRUS 2:10 Men shrink from tasting -- human beings, and thirst after water.

EXODUS 7:24 And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.

The fish in the lakes and the river died, and worms, insects, and reptiles bred prolifically.

EXODUS 7:21 ... and the river stank.

PAPYRUS 3:10-13 That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!

The destruction in the fields is related in these words:

EXODUS 9:25 ... and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.

PAPYRUS 4:14 Trees are destroyed.

6:1 No fruit nor herbs are found..

This portent was accompanied by consuming fire. Fire spread all over the land.

EXODUS 9:23-24 ... the fire ran along the ground.... there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous.

PAPYRUS 2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.

The fire which consumed the land was not spread by human hand but fell from the skies.

By this torrent of destruction, according to Exodus,

EXODUS 9:31-32 ... the flax and the barley was smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was boiled. But the wheat and the rye were not smitten: for they were not grown up.

It was after the next plague that the fields became utterly barren. Like the Book of Exodus (9:31-32 and 10:15), the papyrus relates that no duty could be rendered to the crown for wheat and barley; and as in Exodus 7:21 ("And the fish that was in the river died"), there was no fish for the royal storehouse.

PAPYRUS 10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps... The entire palace is without its revenues. To it belong (by right) wheat and barley, geese and fish.

The fields were entirely devastated.

EXODUS 10:15 ... there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the fields, through all the land of Egypt.

PAPYRUS 6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.

5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which yesterday was seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax.

The statement that the crops of the fields were destroyed in a single day ("which yesterday was seen") excludes drought, the usual cause of a bad harvest; only hail, fire, or locusts could have left the fields as though after "the cutting of flax". The plague is described in Psalms 105:34-35 in these words: "... the locusts came, and caterpillars, and that without number. And did eat up all the herbs in their land, and devoured the fruit of their ground."

PAPYRUS 6:1 No fruit nor herbs are found... hunger.

The cattle were in a pitiful condition.

EXODUS 9:3 ... the hand of the Lord is upon the cattle which is in the field... there shall be a very grievous murrain.

PAPYRUS 5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan....

Hail and fire made the frightened cattle flee.

EXODUS 9:19 .. gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field...

21 And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left his servants and his cattle in the field.

PAPYRUS 9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and there is none to gather them together. Each man fetches for himself those that are branded with his name.

The ninth plague, according to the Book of Exodus, covered Egypt with profound darkness.

EXODUS 10:22 ... and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.

PAPYRUS 9:11 The land is not light....

"Not light" is in Egyptian equivalent to "without light" or "dark". But there is some question as to whether the two sentences are entirely parallel. The years of wandering in the desert are described as spent in gloom under a cover of thick clouds....



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Last Night before the Exodus

According to the Book of Exodus, the last night the Israelites were in Egypt was a night in which death struck instantly and took victims from every Egyptian home. The death of so many in a single night, even at the same hour of midnight, cannot be explained by a pestilence, which would last more than a single hour. The story of the last plague does seem like a myth; it is a stranger in the sequence of the other plagues, which can be explained...

...Apparently we have before us the testimony of an Egyptian witness of the plagues.

On careful reading of the papyrus, it appeared that the slaves were still in Egypt when at least one great shock occurred, ruining houses and destroying life and fortune. It precipitated a general flight of the population from the cities, while the other plagues probably drove them from the country into the cities.

The biblical testimony was reread. It became evident that it had not neglected this most conspicuous event: it was the tenth plague.

In the papyrus it is said: "The residence is overturned in a minute." On a previous page it was stressed that only an earthquake could have overturned and ruined the royal residence in a minute. Sudden and simultaneous death could be inflicted on many....

EXODUS 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt: for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

A great part of the people lost their lives in one violent shock. Houses were struck a furious blow.

EXODUS 12:27 [The Angel of the Lord] passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.

The word nogaf for "smote" is used for a violent blow, e.g. for thrusting with his horns by an ox.

The residence of the king and the palaces of the rich were tossed to the ground, and with them the houses of the common people and the dungeons of captives.

EXODUS 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.

PAPYRUS 4:3, and 5:6 Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls.

6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets.

PAPYRUS 6:3 The prison is ruined.

2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.

To it correspond Exodus 12:30:

... there was not a house where there was not one dead.

In Exodus 12:30 it is written:

... there was a great cry in Egypt.

To it corresponds the papyrus 3:14:

It is groaning that is throughout the land, mingled with lamentations.

The statues of the gods fell and broke in pieces: "this night... against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment" (Exodus 12:12).

A book by Artapanus, no longer extant, which quoted some unknown ancient source and which in its turn was quoted by Eusebius, tells of "hail and earthquake by night [of the last plague], so that those who fled from the earthquake were killed by the hail, and those who sought shelter from the hail were destroyed by the earthquake. And at that time all the houses fell in, and most of the temples."

The earth was equally pitiless towards the dead in their graves: the sepulchers opened, and the buried were disentombed.

PAPYRUS 4:4, also 6:14 Forsooth, those who were in the place of embalmment are laid on the high ground.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Revolt and Flight

The description of distrubances in the Papyrus Ipurew, when compared with the scriptural narrative, gives a strong impression that both sources relate the very same events. It is therefore only natural to look for mention of revolt among the population, of a flight of wretched slaves from this country visited by disaster, and of a cataclysm in which the pharaoh perished.

Although in the mutilated papyrus there is no explicit reference to the Israelites or their leaders, three facts are clearly described as consequences of the upheaval: the population revolted; the wretched or the poor men fled; the king perished under unusual circumstances....

PAPYRUS 4:2 Forsooth, great and small say: I wish I might die.

5:14f. Would that there might be an end of men, no conception, no birth! Oh, that the earth would cease from noise, and tumult be no more!

The escaped slaves hurried across the border of the country. By day a column of smoke went before them in the sky; by night it was a pillar of fire.

EXODUS 13:21 ... by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.

PAPYRUS 7:1 Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.

The translator added this remark: "Here the 'fire' is regarded as something disastrous."

After the first manifestations of the protracted cataclysm the Egyptians tried to bring order into the land. They traced the route of the escaped slaves. The wanderers became "entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in" (Exodus 14:3). They turned to the sea, they stood at Pi-ha-Khiroth. "The Egyptians pursued after them. The Egyptians marched after them." A hurricane blew all the night and the sea fled.

In a great avalanche of water "the sea returned to his strength", and "the Egyptians fled against it". The sea engulfed the chariots and the horsemen, the pharoah and all his host.

The Papyrus Ipuwer (7:1-2) records only that the pharaoh was lost under unusual circumstances "that have never happened before". The Egyptian wrote his lamentations, and even in the broken lines they are perceptible:

... weep... the earth is... on every side... weep...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpt from Ages in Chaos, by Immanuel Velikovsky (pages 18-31)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To this day, scholarly explanations for the collapse of the great Egyptian Empire, a civilization that burst on to History's stage... arrayed in wisdom beyond our Centuries... that one day was... and then suddenly was not... most explanations remain woefully inadequate.

taken from: http://www.geocities.com/regkeith/linkipuwer.htm

[kendemyer]

Here is what an additional source states about the Papyrus Ipuwer:




Is the `Papyrus Ipuwer' for real?

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt by Margaret Bunson says this:

"Admonitions of Ipuwer, a text recording the observations and adages of a sage who described conditions in Egypt at the end of the Old or the Middle Kingdom. The Admonitions offer a remarkably pessimistic view of Egyptian society and the state of affairs at the time, something not seen frequently in Egyptian writings. The text was discovered in the Papyrus Leiden 334, having been copied by 19th Dynasty scribes (c.1200 BCE; 6th century BC in revised view). The Admonitions address an unidentified king with vivid images of invading tribesmen from the desert wastes and other problems confronting Egypt at the time."

taken from: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ipuwer.html

[kendemyer]

Here is something very interesting I read about the topic of straw/bricks/Exodus/archaeology:



Another interesting archaeological discovery revolves around the captivity of Israel in the land of Egypt. Chapter five of the book of Exodus relates the story of the Egyptian oppression of the Israelite people. First, the Israelite people made their bricks with mortar and straw. Then they were required to gather their own stubble and, finally, they were forced to make their bricks without any straw at all. When Sir Flinders Petrie located the ancient cities of Pithom and Ramses (Ex. 1:8-11) , he made some startling discoveries. First, he observed that they were built with mortar. No other city from that time period was built with mortar. Secondly, he noticed that the bricks in the lower layers were made with stubble and in the upper layers they were made with no straw at all.

taken from: http://www.calvarychapel.com/fruita/Word%20of%20God.htm




Here is some additional commentary on this matter:



First you must understand that straw was important to make strong bricks, because it acted as a binder to reduce bricks just crumbling away. Also while bricks were more common in Mesopotamia than in Egypt, some cities of Egypt such as Pithom were built with brick. The tomb of an Egyptian noble named Rekhmere / Rek-mi-Re at Thebes in the 15th Century B.C. has a painting of slaves making bricks. A picture of this is in The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.174.

The ruins at Pithom show bricks with straw at the lowest level, bricks with only stubble at the intermediate level, and bricks with no fibrous material at the top level. Bricks varied from 13 by 13 by 3 ½ inches (33 by 33 by 9 cm) to 16 by 8 by 6 inches (41 by 20 by 15 cm).

See also Can Archaeology Prove the Old Testament? p.30, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.274-275, the Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology p.458-459 for more info.

taken from: http://www.biblequery.org/ex.htm





Here is something else I read about the giants mentioned in relation to the Canaan conquest:



Although the Hebrews were successful in their campaign to rid the promised land of all the giants, Joshua writes that some Anakim still survived in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. He apparently meant to say that they occupied a sizable territory around these chief cities of the Philistines. For when Sir Flinders Petrie, a British archaeologist, dug up Beth-Paleth some eighteen miles south of Gaza, he found artifacts indicating that it, too, had been inhabited by giants.28

28 Lee, Giant: The Pictorial History, p. 41.


taken from: http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Mid.East/Giants.Mid.East3.html






Also, here is some commentary I read about the Ipuwer Papyrus:



Let me throw in a couple points that you seem to be ignoring.

- Concerning the Ipuwer Papyrus, I can not come to agree with the possibility of it to be 12th dynasty work, period.

Why? For 3 reasons:

1. The Ipuwer Papyrus specifically states that the river WAS blood! This is an EXACT description of one of the plagues of Egypt.

2. These plagues happened according to scripture during a dynasty that utilized a large armies of chariots, of which the Bible says "600 chosen chariots + ALL the chariots of EGYPT!". We are talking LATE 18th DYNASTY HERE!

3. The fact that the Ipuwer Papyrus was an 19th dynasty composition is MORE COMPELLING PROOF than to merely speculate and say that it was from an earlier time during the First Intermediate Period.

Notice the word you missed:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official name of this document is Leiden Papyrus #344, after the Dutch museum where it currently resides. The style of writing suggests that it was a XIX dynasty composition, but it is probably a copy of one written much earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Did you SEE it Sekhmet?! The word is "Probably", and there is NO PROOF for it whatsoever. It is MERE speculation, and that is why Dr. Moller brought it up, because he believes these scholars are wrong, as well as I. I don't agree with their speculations.

There are just too many similarities between the plagues of Egypt and the descriptions, and critics will continue to do all in their power to accuse us "fringe" historians of being wrong. Admitting that there is a relation here means to subscribe to biblical authenticity, and that is something critics and unbelievers are unwilling to do. Therefore, they will do anything possible to try and descredit the biblical narrative based on unproven speculations that are completely null and void of common sense.


taken from: http://www.kingtutone.com/board/viewtopic.php?start=105&t=289







Re: the "Ramses objection" which alledgedly points a late Exodus and not a Mid 15th century century Exodus.


Ramses II's reign was from 1279 to 1213 B.C. (see: http://www.hantayo.org/BIBLE2.html ).

Pi-Ramses was a capital city built by Ramses II (see: http://www.hantayo.org/BIBLE2.html ).

Thus, late date Exodus supporters try to associate the city of Rameses mentioned in Exodus with Pi-Rameses.

However, here is what one website wrote and I think it makes a lot of sense:



Rameses was a store city in Moses' day, not a capital city.

The Pharaoh of Moses birth built Rameses and Pithom as "store cities" (Ex.1:11)

Ramses II built Pi-Ramses as his CAPITAL city, not a store city.


taken from: http://www.hantayo.org/BIBLE2.html






I thought this website gave a compelling case against the "Ramses objection" to a early date Exodus.



Store Cities of Pithom and Rameses

Exodus 1:11 states, "So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh" (NIV).

Professor Hans Goedicke believes that the Biblical city of Ra'amezez is incorrectly equated with Pi-Ramesses. Hershel Shanks writing about Goedicke's view states, "But the fact is that the store city of Ra'amezez cannot be identified with Pi-Ramesses, the Residence of the Ramessides. This identification is impossible phonetically, as has been demonstrated conclusively more than 15 years ago (D.B.Redford, "Exodus I, II", Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 13, pp. 408-413, 1963). Moreover, the Residence of the Ramessides is never denoted in Egyptian sources by the use of the royal name Ramesses alone. When the Residence of the Ramessides is referred to, the royal name is always connected with the Egyptian word pr, meaning house or residence: the reference is always in the form "Per Ramesses" (BAR, September/October 1981, p. 44).

Long before Per Ramesses, in the same area was Avaris the capital of the Hyksos kings and a border town when written in hieroglyphic transliteration is R3-mtny (Khatana) which is today called Tell ed-Dab'a and is being excavated by Manfred Bietak, Director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo. The hieroglyphic R3-mtny can be projected back into Semitic transcription as Ramesen. Therefore Shanks concludes, "Biblical Ra'amezez can therefore almost certainly be identified with Tell el-Daba (Ibid.).

Pithom is most likely to be identified with Tell el-Rataba according to Goedicke (Ibid.)

taken from: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm







Another websites states the following:



Early date supporters point out that the city Rameses has been located at other places and is by no means certain.9

9 Namely Quantir, Tell-er-Retebah, Tell-el-Masquta, and Pelusium....

taken from: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exodus_date.html#9







Here is what another website says about this issue that I thought was very compelling:




The City of Ramses in Exodus 1:11

In this first section we need to consider further the details of the exodus from Egypt, whether it was early (traditional date) or late (critical date). From there we may continue through LB II period to the settlement in the land.

We have already noted how it is not possible that Ramses II be the pharaoh of the exodus--if the biblical data is taken seriously and not simply dismissed. Since Exodus 1:11 is one of the proof texts for an exodus in a latter date, that is, 1290 B.C. in the time of Ramses II, we need to look at this material. The text says that the Israelites helped build treasure cities to the pharaoh, and one of them was named Ramses. How should this be understood? If that name is taken literally to refer to the reigning pharaoh, then the rest of the details in the chapters have to be taken literally too, and that is where things do not add up. If the city that the Israelites built in Exodus 1:11 was named for Ramses II, then there are real difficulties. First, the building of that city, which would take a good twenty years, comes before the birth of Moses, before the edict to kill the male children. If the exodus took place in 1290 or 1280, when Moses was 80 as the Bible says, then, he was born in 1370-1360 B.C. That would mean that the building of this city took place before 1360, or, as we know from Egyptian chronology, 45 years before the start of the 19th Dynasty and their first Ramesside king! Ramses would not have been around yet.

But if one argued he was the king, then he would be reigning while they built the city (20 years), while Moses grew up (40 years), while Moses was in Midian (40 years), and during the plagues (2 years) and afterward. Ramses did not reign for over a hundred years.

The only two solutions are: the city was built and existed before Ramses II, or the name is a modernization. The point is that those who argue for a late date for the exodus cannot argue against the early date interpretation without destroying their own argument, for they would have to discount the witness of the details in Exodus.

In short, Exodus 1:11 offers little proof for the late date of the exodus. The city was founded and named at least 70 years before the reign of Ramses II--if one assumes the late date. And according to Genesis 47:11 it was located in a region called “the land of Ramses”--a name that was used some 550 years before Ramses II came to the throne!

If it cannot be Ramses II who is the pharaoh of the exodus, we have to look for another candidate, one who came after a king who reigned for about least 40 years (the time Moses fled from him til he heard he was dead).

taken from: http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/bibarch6.htm

[kendemyer]

Here is some archaeological and textual information I read in my Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia:


The plagues of the flies and hail fell on all the land of Egypt but not on Goshen (Ex 8:22; 9:25-26). This suggests that while Goshen was on the edge of the land of Egypt, it was removed to some extent fro the territory where the native Egyptians were residing. This would have been true during the 18th Dynasty whose kings left no traces in the eastern most delta. But during the 19th Dynasty, when the capital was prbably at Quntir (see "The Route"), many of the principle building projects of Ramses II were in the Wadi Tumilat or Goshen region itself."

source: Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, "Exodus, The", page. 574, Moody Bible Press, Chicago



Also, according to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia the following source provides a "penetrating analysis" of some archeological data that supports a early date exodus (I plan on obtaining this work. I believe cited Mr. Wood's work earlier):

Leon Wood, "Date of the Exodus," in J. B. Payne, ed., New Perspectives on
the Old Testament (Waco: Word Books, 1970), pp. 66-87

[BrianJ]

Hi Ken,

I must say that your uncritical acceptance of anything written on a website that you believe supports a 15th century Exodus is highly amusing.

All that these links do is to prove that you are not very familiar with the subject.

Rather than reply to every single blindly accepted claim, I think it would be good to actually find out how much YOU actually know about the subject.

To start with Ken, can you tell me if you have any *DIRECT* evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE?

That is *DIRECT* evidence Ken, I trust that you know what that means.

Cheers.

Brian.

[kendemyer]

TO: Brianj

I will reply to your post in this post or very soon in this thread. Before I do that, however, I wish to share some information to TWEB readers as I had set aside some time to do that and I had not expected your post at this time.


TO: ALL

Below is some information regarding Edom and Moab. After giving this information I will provide some commentary from the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia that I found illuminating which will clarify and refine matters discussed in the website citation below.

Here is my first citation:



The Conquest of Edom and Moab



The Status of Edom and Moab

A second argument given for the late date of the exodus concerns the status of Edom and Moab at the time of the exodus. Numbers 20:17-20 and Numbers 22:1,41 tell us that these two lands were populated during the period shortly after the exodus--that there were cities there.

But according to Nelson Glueck, the area was largely uninhabited between 1800 and 1300 B.C. (see The Other Side of the Jordan, published in 1940, pp. 125-147). But here is where the integrity of the archaeologists can and should be questioned: the archaeological work of Glueck sought to prove that the area was not inhabited until the 13th century in order to support the late date. This was not malicious; it was simply that a conclusion was posited and evidence was sought to support it (see C. Francisco, “The Exodus in its Historical Setting,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, 20 [1977]:12). So it comes as no surprise that Gluck found no evidence for cities and settlements--not from the way that he surveyed the area.

Merrill offers a simple explanation, which exposes the weakness of Glueck's work. The Bible says Moses wanted to pass through their lands on the King's Highway, a narrow mountain pass into and out of the region of the city of Petra. This pass could easily be defended by a few hundred well trained troops--and they need not be a sedentary people. Nomads or semi-nomads could well have occupied the area in such sufficient numbers that they prevented Israel from passing through. And the nature of their existence would clearly explain the lack of remains--they have tent cities. The point is that it is an argument from silence that Glueck offers; and, the “absence of remains of a settled people need not militate against the early date of the exodus if the people simply did not leave remains” (Eugene Merrill, Historical Survey of the Old Testament, p. 108).

Some scholars show an amazing inconsistency in the matter of the “argument from silence.” Kenneth Kitchen accepts Glueck's argument as the first major argument against the early date. But, when archaeological excavations found no material remains for even the 13th century at Dibon, the capital of Moab--which Numbers 21:30, 32:2, 34, 41-46 clearly mentions--he argues that just because nothing was found does not mean it did not exist! His reason? Ramses II has a wall relief depicting his defeat of Dibon in the land of Moab (see Kenneth Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, p. 77). So there is a text mentioning Dibon in Moab, but no archaeological evidence to confirm it, but it must have existed. Why then will they not do this with the Bible, which mentions these places, but has no archaeological evidence (yet!) to confirm it?

But how did Nelson Glueck study this vast territory. Gleason Archer gives the most devastating attack on Glueck's position, noting that Glueck's work was largely of the nature of surface exploration. It was not detailed excavation at all (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 225-226).

What has come to light when more serious excavations have been undertaken is that in Amman numerous artifacts have been found in tombs (including black pricked ware, button-base vases, oil flasks, scarabs, and toggle pins) that date from about 1600 B.C. (see C. Lankester Harding, Antiquities of Jordan [1959]). Harding lists Middle Bronze Pottery found near Mount Nebo, and a 16th century tomb at Pella. There was a Late Bronze temple uncovered under a runway at the Amman airport in 1955 (CT, Dec. 22, 1971, p. 26). And then work at Heshbon has shown that the pottery was very different from that produced in the west bank of the Jordan. Glueck assumed the homogeneity of the pottery, and introduced confusion into the data.

The evidence from Moab and Edom has been trickling in, indicating there were indeed people there. But since they were nomadic, or semi-nomadic, one would not expect to find large settlements. But here is another question: If this region was unoccupied between 1800 and 1300 B.C., where then were the Moabites, Edomites, and Ammonites during that period?

taken from: http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/bibarch6.htm





Here is the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia citation which I believe will elaborate and refine matters in order to provide more clarity:



Nelson Glueck has charged that no Edomite or Moabite kings would have been encountered by Moses in the Negeb or Transjordan before they built their border fortresses in the 13th cen. B.C. (The Other Side of the Jordan, New Haven:ASOR, 1940, pp. 146 f. ; Rivers in the the Desert, New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1959, pp. 106, 109,114 f.). He did not find one site or potshered which could be ascribed to the Middle Bronze II or Late Bronze Ages (1900 -1250 B.C. ). His conclusions must now be modified, however.

A careful geographic study of the terms Edom (q.v.) and Mount Seir in Genesis to Judges reveals that Essau and his descendants lived in the Negeb W of the Arabah until after the time of Moses and Joshua. Not until the biblical records about Saul and David are the Edomites mentioned as residing in Transjordan (I Sam 14:47; II Samuel 8:12-14 , RSV; I Chr 18:11-13). Inscriptions from the reign of Thutmose III tell of his army warring in the Negeb (ANET[Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament], pp. 241, 243). Near ancient copper mines at Timnah (15 miles N of Elath, W side of Arabah) Beno Rothenberg excavated an Egyptian temple, dated by royal cartouches of Seti I (1318 -1304 B.C. ) and Rameses III (1198 -1166 ). Much local pottery at the temple site and nearby smelting camps show that tribes from Midian and the central Nebeb hill country were employed in the Egyptian mining operations (PEQ, C1 [1969], 57 ff. ). The Canaanite king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb and fought against Israel (Num 21:1, RSV evidently lived at Tell Malhata (seven and a half miles SW of Tell Arad) which has a fine well and strong Canaanite fortifications including a solid brick glacis (IEJ, XIV [1964], 145 ff.).

Furthermore, the terms "king" of Edom (Num 20:14) and various "cities" of Edomite kings (Gen 36:32, 35, 39), need not prove that the Edomites were yet a sedentary people dwelling in fortified towns. The five kings of Midian (Num 31:8) of Moses' day and the two kings of Midian in Gideons day (Jud 8: 5:12) were only nomadic chieftains. Kadesh-barnea had no permanent buildings and fortifications during Israel's wanderings, yet it is called "a city in the the uttermost of thy [i.e. Edom's ] border" (Num 20:16). It was only a tent city, like the "camps" (mahanim) of Num 13:19. It was God who forbade Israel to cross the territories of the Edomites and Moabites, not the superior strength of the these peoples who prevented it (Deut 2: 4-9).

Since WWII a number of tombs in the Amman-Mount Nebo region have yielded hundreds of Middle Bronze II amd Late Bronze I (1800 -1400) pottery vessels and scarabs. A Late Bronze Age temple with a large quantity of imported Cypriote and Mycenean pottery was discovered in 1955 at the airport of Amman (PEQ, XC [1958], 10-12; XCVIII [1966], 155-162; BA, XXXII [1969], 104 -116). Beginning excavations at Heshbon in 1968 unearthed some Late Bronze sherds. Thus it seems that there was some sedetary occupation in Transjordan around 1400 B.C.

The late 13th cen. B.C. destruction levels of Beitin (Bethel? ), Lachish, Tell el-Hesi (Eglon?), Tell Beit Mirsim (Debir?), and Hazor are attributed to the Israelite conquest of Josh 10-11 by such writers as G.E. Wright (Biblical Archeology, pp. 81-85). While the poorer style of houses above the levels of burning at these sites may or may not prove it was Joshua's army which destroyed the cities at that time. The tribes continued to subdue their territories long after Joshua's death. He burned only Jericho, Ai, and Hazor (Josh 6:24 ; 8:19, 11:13). Hebron and Debir had to be recaptured (15:13-17), for Joshua did not setttle or leave a garrisons in the cities he took but led his entire army back to Gilgal (10:43). He did not conduct siege warfare but rather a series of lightening-like raids against key Canaanite cities with the purpose of destroying the moreal and fighting ability of the inhabitants.....


source: Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, "Exodus, The", pages 573-574, Moody Bible Press, Chicago


Abbreviations used in the Wycliffe Citation:

PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly

IEJ = Israel Exploration Journal

ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 1969. Princeton: Princeton University Press.




Here is what the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia said about Hazor:



On his northern campaign Joshua killed Jabin king of Hazor and set fire to the city (Josh 11: 10-11). Later, Israelites under Deborah and Barak destroyed another king of Canaan that reigned in Hazor, also named Jabin (Jud 4:2, 23,24). It is logical to associate the latest Caananite level (1a) of the huge lower city with Jabin II. It was destroyed by fire in the second half of the 13th century B.C. and never reoccupied. In Area K of the lower city a gate (provisionally Late Bronze I of level 2) was destroyed in a violent conflagration. If it is correctly dated, this burning from around 1400 B.C. may have resulted from Joshua's action; there is no intervening evidence of destruction before the end of the Canaanite occupation.

source: Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, "Exodus, The", page 576, Moody Bible Press, Chicago





In my first post I recommended reading the The Date of the Conquest by
Bruce K. Waltke in Westminster Theological Journal 52.2 (Fall 1990): 181-200. located here: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_date_waltke.html



Here is what Mr. Waltke said about Hazor in the link directly above:



Regarding Hazor. Yadin associated the complete and final destruction of the Canaanite city, Stratum la (terminated ca. 1230) with the Israelite conquest. The reference in Judg 4:2, however, to Hazor as a Canaanite city in the opposition to Israel in the time of Barak, at least three or four generations after Joshua, precludes the late date and demands that one associate Joshua's conquest with one of the earlier destruction levels of that city. The only way around this argument is to suppose either that the biblical narrative at Judges 4 is flawed or that the archaeological evidence is incomplete.

Can an earlier destruction level be identified with Joshua? This writer attempted to identify it with the end of Stratum 2 by means of a burnt gate in Area K of the Lower City, but Bimson51 showed that his argument was fallacious and that the gate must be dismissed from the discussion. Stratum 2 (= LB I) emerged as one of great prosperity and culture, and according to Yadin52 "this is no doubt the Hazor of the Thutmosis III period." This stratum was completely destroyed before Stratum 1b (= LB II). Stratum 2 could fit Joshua's attack, but the excavators are vague about both the time and the nature of its destruction. Evidently there is no evidence of burning (contra Joshua 11), a lack that argues against the traditional early date but does not decisively refute it.

Stratum la (= LB III), this writer contended, should not be associated with Joshua but with Barak. Kitchen53 noted that Jabin II's main strength is "curiously" not in Hazor but with Sisera in Harosheth. The apparent weakness of Hazor at the time of Barak finds archaeological support in Stratum la for at that time the Lower City ceased to be fortified and its

[p.193]

temples were abandoned and apparently plundered, being rebuilt afterwards in a very poor and temporary form. According to Aharoni the last town was concentrated mainly on the Upper City. Yadin, however, explained that its meager remains may be due to erosion.54

52 Y. Yadin, Hazor: With a Chapter on Israelite Megiddo (London: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1972)

54 Yadin, Hazor, 37.

taken from: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_date_waltke.html#54

[Jason Ng]

Thanks Ken for all the early date Exodus information that you provided.

[kendemyer]

TO: Jason

Your welcome.


TO: ALL

Jericho/Bryant Wood

I gave a citation regard Jericho and the work of Mr. Bryant Wood regarding his work that was published in 1990 in the Biblical Archeological Review. Here are some sites which go into more depth:

Here is some information from Western Evangelical Seminary:

http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/DJaques/Jericho.html

Here are some other articles on this subject:

http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-debate.htm

(the above link also has a great article on archeological dating I would recommend)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp


Although I would highly recommend looking at the 3 above links before reading the below excerpt from the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia said about Sir John Garstang's work in Jericho which was done in the 1930's.

Here is an excerpt from one of the above links showing why I believe reading ALL of the above 3 links will be helpful:



Through a critique of Kenyon’s methodology, Wood strongly asserted that the destruction of City IV was around the year 1400 B.C., once again lining up with the Biblical story found in Joshua chapters 3-6.

The scholarly "battle" over the interpretation of the data surrounding the destruction of City IV centers on four methodological issues.{14} The first area is the constantly evolving timetable of pottery from ancient Palestine. As more and more pottery is excavated, the ability of archaeologists to accurately date pieces found is enhanced. Wood cites from his investigation of Kenyon’s findings that she used the absence of Late Bronze Age Cypriote imported pottery to date the destruction of City IV at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.{15} (Cypriote pottery is exotic imported ware which, when present, demonstrates times of active commerce, and thus, inhabitation of the city.) Wood argues, however, that since the areas excavated were considered poor sections of town, one should not be surprised by the absence of these expensive types of pottery. What one should base one’s interpretations upon are local pottery used in everyday situations, Wood argues, and many examples of Late Bronze Age pottery were in fact discovered by Kenyon, though at the time she did not recognize them as such. Ironically, Wood points out that Garstang found a "considerable quantity of pottery decorated with red and black paint which appears to be imported Cypriot bichome ware, the type of pottery Kenyon was looking for and did not find!"{16} At the time, however, Garstang did not recognize the significance of this discovery, and the information was not singled out as important. In summary, using ceramic data Wood interprets the destruction of City IV as a Late Bronze Age occurrence, not in the Middle Bronze Age.

taken from: http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/DJaques/Jericho.html



Here is what the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia published in 1986 says about the work of Garstang's work which was done in the 1930's:



Significantly, except in connection with the isolated Middle Middle Building and two tombs which he attributes to the time of King Eglon (Jud 3:12-14), he found on the mound of Jericho next to no Mycenaen pottery. That began to enter Palestine c. 1400 B.C. Yet Pritchard at Tell es-Sa 'idiyeh and Franken at Deir Allah 30 miles N in the Jordan Valley each found sizable quantities of such ware (see the penetrating analysis of the Jericho evidence in Wood, "Date of the Exodus, "pp.69-73).

* The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia is referring to: Leon Wood, "Date of the Exodus," in J. B. Payne, ed., New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco: Word Books, 1970), pp. 66-87) which I mentioned earlier.

source: Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, "Exodus, The", page 575-576, Moody Bible Press, Chicago






TO: Brianj

You wrote:

I must say that your uncritical acceptance of anything written on a website that you believe supports a 15th century Exodus is highly amusing.

All that these links do is to prove that you are not very familiar with the subject.

Rather than reply to every single blindly accepted claim, I think it would be good to actually find out how much YOU actually know about the subject.


First of all, I cited both website and written material. If you had actually read what I posted you would have seen that.

Second, you are using illogical argumentation. You are using what logicians call an appeal to ridicule (see: http://www.opifex.cnchost.com/reasoning/fallacies/appealtoridicule.htm ) rather than say anything real substantive.

Next, you wrote:

To start with Ken, can you tell me if you have any *DIRECT* evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE?

Seeing as you may have not read what I posted (see above) I suggest you actually read the material given through the thread if you have not done so already. Perhaps, then you will find some material that you missed before you made your post to the thread. I suggest you do the same regarding the material subsequent to your post.

Also, I would remind you that the topic of this thread is "What are the best sources for a early date Exodus". Thus, the debate parameters require you to show that there are perhaps better early date Exodus sources. Now if you have better sources by all means provide them! I would be most interested!

Lastly, I would remind you of what I wrote in the initial post:



I am not looking for sources or arguments that disagree with the focus of this thread. I am also not looking for comments indicating that I am a narrow or small minded person just because I want to concentrate on this view. I have reasons for believing the Exodus happened as per the Bible. For example, I believe the Dr. Macht study published by John Hopkins provides evidence that the Torah was divinely inspired (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27048 ).





By the way, brianj here is something I wrote regarding the Dr. Macht study:



Let me ask you this: "Do arabs eat camel meat?" Is camel meat kosher or non-kosher? What did Dr. Macht's study say about the toxicity of camel meat? Since you did not read the study camel meat is non kosher and toxic. The Jews and Arabs are both from ANE cultures yet whose dietary habits are validated by a John Hopkins study?

Next, do you think long term that eating more toxic foods or less toxic foods is more healthy? Would the effects be long term or short term likely? Do people keel over immediately from eating a more toxic camel meat or a ham sandwhich? Which is smarter, "Eating certain types of food for the short term or looking more at the long term? How did Moses get all the quadrupeds, fish, birds, etc correct out of the 80 or so tested by Macht but get zero wrong in terms of toxicity/non-toxicity and cleanness or uncleaness. Can you give me a very similar feat in ancient literature especially with something so subtle in its likely long term effects?

Next, can you give me a large body of literature from ancient times that has no harmful dietary, sanitational, or health practices. I would submit that the Egyptians put dung on wounds. I would submit that even the Journal of the American Medical Association likely endorsed medical practices as healthy but were later shown otherwise.

The Chinese are a very old culture. The Chinese will eat almost anything. I would readily admit that perhaps the Chinese had population pressure to eat anything. I am guessing a civilization living in the regions of the Middle East which can be arid might have a strong temptation to eat everything too though. And again, the benefits of eating these food and not eating these food would often seem long term. Plus Macht got a perfect score!


AT ANOTHER BOARD I WROTE THE FOLLOWING:


Let us ask some questions first:

What is it so reasonable about NEVER eating hares to an ancient Israeli?

(I realize that Macht tested rabbit which are somewhat similar to a hare I am guessing. I also realize that the rabbits tested toxic and that they are unclean according the Mosaic code!)

What is so reasonable about NEVER eating a camel to an ancient Israeli? (Macht tested camel )

What is so reasonable about NEVER eating bear meat to an ancient Israeli? (Macht tested bear although not Middle eastern bear)

What is so reasonable about NEVER eating fish (aqua life) that do not only have fins and scales? (Macht tested the fish [aqua life] catagory)

What is so reasonable about eating some bird meat like quail but NEVER eating the birds that were declared unclean some of which Macht tested? (Macht tested clean and unclean bird catagory)

I could go on but I would state that since X did not know these animal catagories were tested he/she cannot make any reasonable comments. I would also say I only gave some of the quadrupeds and birds that Macht tested.

Now I realize that hunting bear can be dangerous! I realize that if you eat a camel you cannot ride a camel! I realize that hares and rabbits are hard to catch! But I would say that X wholly failed to show the reasonableness and given that he/she never read the study I would not find this amazing. In short, X needs to show why it is reasonable to eat or not eat the 88 animals that were tested in the Macht study and also address why there appears to be a 100% corellation between non-toxicity and cleanness and also toxicity and uncleaness for ALL of the animals studied!

So I wish to reiterate that I wish only to have an extended dialogue with those who have read the Macht study.

I also do not think it is unreasonable for someone to look up a study before commenting on it if they wish to make informed and intelligent commentary.

I would also want to reiterate that X needs to read the study before making any significant conclusions regarding the study and any significance it may or may not have. I, however, believe the Macht study was sound and there is significance to the study. I await to hear any reasonable comments regarding the study by those who have read it.

I also have certain time constraints that preclude me from informing all the various board participants in depth about the study without them reading the study first.


I ALSO WROTE THIS AT ANOTHER BOARD

You, xxx , wrote:

"But what's the point? That only God can come up with good suggestions for healthy living?

I really don't see any suggestions/laws here that aren't better explained as the distillation of hard experience, distilled over the generations."

MY REPLY

Nowhere did I see you support your assertion. It seems reasonable that in order to support your assertion you will have to cite a comparable work to the Mosaic Law at that approximate period of time (ancient civilizations) that is filled with as much nutritional information(toxic foods, fat) , sanitary information, agricultural information(e.g. fallow periods in Mosaic code), environmental, and general health information(e.g. taking off a day to replenish human body) that was far ahead of its time. You never did that. You never approached doing this in any way. At the very least (and I do not think this would be sufficient), you could have offered a culture that reflected as much wisdom in the above regards. You never did this either. And I am giving you a lot of lattitude in that you have the entire earth to find such a work (or even ancient culture although I did not think this would be entirely sufficient) during this approximate time period (ancient civilizations). I realize that this will require scholarship and effort and thoughtful commentary. I do think, however, that this is the primary purpose of this board and that nothing less should be offered.

Lastly, I definitely do not want you and anyone else to "cherry pick" various ancient works or civilizations for information that was way ahead of its time. In other words, let us compare apples with apples and not apples with the entire fruit category or multiple fruit catagories.





Lastly, here is something I posted at another board:



Cecil Roth has published some figures showing how the Jews have remained healthier than their neighbours right down to modern times.19 One year when statistics were collected for the death rates among infants less than a year old in Czarist Russia, the rate for Jews was 13.2 per cent and for non-Jews 26.0 per cent. In Vienna it was 8.3 per cent for Jews, 16.1 per cent for non-Jews. In New York in 1915 it was 7.8 per cent for Jews, 10.5 per cent for non-Jews. "Even today [he wrote in 1956] the infant death rate in Israel is the lowest in the world."

19 C. Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation. Horovitz, London, 1956

taken from: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08#19

[BrianJ]

Hi Ken,

Do you have any *DIRECT* evidence that there were Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE?

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I found some additional material regarding the archaelogist Bryant Woods investigations of Jericho.


Here are some resources I recommend:

"THE WALLS OF JERICHO" at: http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-walls_of_jericho.html

"Has the biblical city and story of Jericho been verified?" at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/jericho.html

"Jericho: Introduction to the Site" at: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/kingp/jericho.html

"Is Bryant Wood's chronology of Jericho valid?" at: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php



TO Brianj:

You wrote:


Hi Ken,

Do you have any *DIRECT* evidence that there were Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE?


Brianj, anyone who has read the threads material knows that you did not carefully read the threads material as evidenced by your last posts mistake. And given your last posts illogical and boorish argumentation, I did not expect an abatement to your rude behavior. I would suggest reading the threads contents and that will easily answer your question. It is also my hope that moderator intervention will not be necessary.

Sincerely,

Ken

[technomage]

I am looking for the best sources that support a early date exodus which is the traditional view (a Jewish Exodus of 1446 B.C ). I am also looking for anti-late date Exodus arguments.
Greetings, Kendemyer,

First and foremost, I wish to state that I am not being derisive, rude, or a smart-alec with this response. I am honestly presenting the best information that I have.

Ken, to the best of my knowledge, the majority scholarship view of the Exodus is that it did not occur. At all. No date ... early or late ... is even discussed among archaeologists, and no one current in the archaeological field will attempt to present evidence for a Hebrew Exodus from Egypt in a peer-reviewed journal. Most scholars at this point feel that the Israelites grew as an indigenous Canaanite culture sometime just before 1000 BCE, and gradually (i.e. 150-200 years or so) assimilated the land of Canaan. No Patriarchal Age, no Exodus, no Conquest, no Age of the Judges--indeed, perhaps not even a United Monarchy, though the jury is still out on that.

Now, that being said, there has been a tremendous amount of material written in the past by people of various (and no) credentials in the fields of archaeology. Some of these people have sound, even tremendous, credentials in other fields: Velikovsky, for instance, was a brilliant theoretical psychiatrist, and in some respects was one of the pioneers in diagnosing epilepsy; while many of the authors you cite are reputable Biblical scholars or theologians. But frankly, the archaeology is simply not there.

Many of the finds and articles that you cite are using older sources, some dubiously at that. Some of the articles are ... questionable in the extreme: Velikovsky, for instance, believes that the Exodus Plagues can be accounted for by a collision between Earth and Venus, and we know that this is simply not the case. I can go through a few of the specifics if you wish, by way of example, but these views have been discussed and disregarded by wiser minds than my own.

Kendemyer, I know that this is not what you asked for, and I wish I could provide you with what you seek ... but I have a choice between giving you an honest answer, or a lie. Yes, I could have remained silent, but to some extent this is also a lie, by omission, and it troubled my conscience to do so. Yet I do apologize, again, for answering in a manner that will, I feel, not be satisfying.

Justin

[BrianJ]

Ken, I have read your links, I cannot see any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt 15th c. BCE.

I honestly donot see any direct evidence.

Can you post just one quote?

Cheers.

Brian.

[kendemyer]

TO:ALL

I found a internet copy of Dr. Woods article in Bible and Spade magazine (Dr. Woods research on Jericho was published in Biblical Archeological Review in 1990 as you may recall and Dr. Wood says the Jericho evidence supports the Biblical account and traditional date given for the Exodus).

The article was in the following edition of Bible and Spade magazine: Vol 12, Spring of 1999.

Here is a internet version of that article (the article begins on page 33 and resumes on page 35):

http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/bas12_2.pdf


TO: Justin

You wrote:

Ken, to the best of my knowledge, the majority scholarship view of the Exodus is that it did not occur.

I am guessing neither of us knows the exact percentage of archaeologists, Biblical scholars, etc in terms of the various views concerning the Biblical account of the Hebrew Exodus. I would submit to you that it is the evidence that is the vital matter and not the current fashionableness or unfashionableness of various views that we should concentrate on. Logicians call what you are doing a ad populum and appeal to authority logical fallacies (see: ad populum: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm and appeal to authority: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm ). I did offer you Bible archaeological data that I believe supports the Exodus and conquest and you are free to accept it or reject it.

Secondly, there is a track record of various skeptics of the Bible being shown wrong in regards to historical matters in regards to the Bible. For example, if you look at the forward the a new Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman you will find that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach (see: http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/humanities/religion/obc/bib_schol/ ). Is Barton or Muddiman a Bible inerrantist? No they are not. But I think it is fair to say that they are admitting that the Bible's critics have been proved historically wrong in many cases.


Next, you Justin wrote:

Now, that being said, there has been a tremendous amount of material written in the past by people of various (and no) credentials in the fields of archaeology. Some of these people have sound, even tremendous, credentials in other fields: Velikovsky, for instance, was a brilliant theoretical psychiatrist, and in some respects was one of the pioneers in diagnosing epilepsy; while many of the authors you cite are reputable Biblical scholars or theologians. But frankly, the archaeology is simply not there.

I have cited a number of sources regarding the archeological evidence that discusses the work of various archeologist from various viewpoints. I will let readers of course make their own determinations regarding the evidence as I do not wish to turn this into a monster post. I would say that you saying, "But frankly the archaeology is not there" is an example of you making an unsupported assertion and going off topic to boot.



Next, you, Justin wrote:

Many of the finds and articles that you cite are using older sources, some dubiously at that. Some of the articles are ... questionable in the extreme: Velikovsky, for instance, believes that the Exodus Plagues can be accounted for by a collision between Earth and Venus, and we know that this is simply not the case.

Here you are using two logical fallacies. First, you are using the "Appeal to novelty" logical fallacy. It is not the age of material that is most important but the validity. Whether informatiion is alledgedly "timeless truth that is alledgedly tested and true" or information "that shows the latest research" is not the important thing. It is ultimately the validity of information that matters. I could give a journal article that was published yesterday but that does not make it truer. Also, using your logic we should discount a article published yesterday ten years from now because it is now old.

Next, you are using the genetic logical fallacy (see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html ). Just because Velikovsky (whose works I have not evaluated yet) uses the Papyrus Ipuwer' to defend some of his premises does not discount the work of the egyptologists who have examined the work and made some determinations that I believe are very favorable to the Bible (the Papyrus Ipuwer is discussed earlier in the thread).

Next, you wrote:

Yes, I could have remained silent, but to some extent this is also a lie, by omission, and it troubled my conscience to do so. Yet I do apologize, again, for answering in a manner that will, I feel, not be satisfying.

I have found your illogical argumentation that is off topic very unsatisfying. It will not trouble my conscience to ask a moderator to intervene should you continue. Again, the topic of the thread is: "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?" Now if you want to offer better sources for a early date exodus and argue that your sources are better than do so. You are off topic now. Please stay on topic.


TO: brianj

If you do not want to examine my threads contents I have no problem with that. I believe I amply demonstated that you have not read the thread's contents. I have no desire to have a discussion with a rude person, however.

[technomage]

As you will, then. May it be well with you.

Justin

[ChrisChillin]

Hey Ken

Sorry about the late arrival in this thread, despite your PM, I have been quite busy lately and have not visited TWeb in the past couple of weeks.

Since your thread is about the best sources for an early date for the Exodus, I am afraid there is not much I can offer as I lean toward a late date for such an event. I would offer some reasons why, but I do not wish to cause the thread to stray from your stated objective. As you search for sources that support an early date, your best material is going to come from John Bimson and Bryant Wood, who are the only scholars I know who have stumped for it recently in relevant journals and magazines such as Biblical Archaeology Review. Both Alan Millard and K.A. Kitchen of Liverpool University support a late date, while James Hoffmeier of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School seems to waffle on the matter and I have never seen him argue for one date or another. Those are the most respected names you can turn to for help. Irrespective of his indecision on the date issue, Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt is probably the best and most comprehensive treatment of the subject from a maximalist perspective in recent years, and you can learn a lot from it on other matters concerning the Exodus. As for Velikovsky, it is my suggestion that you take anything he says with a pound of salt. The same goes for Rohl and others who wish to shift the chronology. Chsalvia did a good job of dispelling Rohl in his Tennis Court discussion with Jezz.

Other than that, I know that the article on the date of the Exodus in the [i]International Standard Bible Encyclopedia{/i] defends an early date. Also, the less you depend on web sites for your argument the better. As a final word, good luck in your reading! May it go well with you.

[kendemyer]

TO: Chris

Thanks for the Hoffmeir recommendation in terms of a specific book and I am currently inverstigating Dr. Bryant Wood's work at the present moment.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Jason Ng]

"The Chinese are a very old culture. The Chinese will eat almost anything. I would readily admit that perhaps the Chinese had population pressure to eat anything."

I would comment but then again I've tried a lot of exotic foods before. :lol:
So today a lot of people in archaeology think that the Israelites were just Canaanites? The Bible has verified a lot of things including the existance of the Hittites, but I suppose it would be extremely difficult to find archaelogical evidence of a nomadic people who wandered around a desert after being enslaved, so it makes sense that evidence is more difficult to find about the Exodus.

[BrianJ]

Hi Ken,

DO you have any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt 15th c. BCE?

Yes or no?

Brian.

[ChrisChillin]

Do you have a reason for badgering Ken?

[BrianJ]

Do you have a reason for badgering Ken?

I am asking a simple question, to which there is a very simple answer for any one that knows the subject.

Ken's inability to answer the question speaks volumes to me.

Cheers.

Brian.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I wish to return to the thread after I examine the recommendations of chrischillen in post #20.

Also, I regret posting quote #2 in my second post to the thread. I did address the quote later though in terms of its most serious charge being spurious (Ramses charge).

In the meantime, I wish to offer some material that I have not fact checked in full and I think that "fact #1" of the "Top ten" "facts" may be in error somewhat as I recall only the cities of Jericho, Hazor, and AI were said to be burned if memory serves (I offer it in full as I just noticed the copyright notice says that is what is required. Also, the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia offers more on the Asher issue discussed in "fact #10" in terms of various scholars opinions etc, if memory serves. I have serious doubts about "fact #4" below as I recall reading material which may indicate that it is not very good evidence):

Here is the material:



Q: In Ex 1:8-10, briefly, is it true that there is no archaeological evidence to support the Israelites having been in Egypt, as an atheist (Capella) asserted"?

A: No, there is ample evidence. Not only are there references to "Habiru", but the Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 shows many examples of Asiatics given Egyptian names. Some of the asiastics are from the tribes of Issachar and Asher. See also the next question and for a more extensive answer and the discussion on Exodus 11:5-12:30 for more info.


Q: In Ex 1:8-10, apart from the Bible, is there any evidence of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt or coming out of Egypt?

A: Some critical "scholars" still believe the outdated theory that there was no evidence of the Israelites either being in or coming out of Egypt. Perhaps they should read "the writing on the wall". A painting on the wall of the tomb of Khnumhotep (1892 B.C.) at Beni Hasan in Egypt shows 37 "Asiatics", or non-Egyptian people from the Mideast. They had black hair, pointed beards, long many-colored cloaks, bows, and throw sticks.

Christian scholars writing in the Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, and other books have gathered a great deal of evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt. Not only do Christian scholars teach that the Israelites were in Egypt from about 1875-1445 B.C., but a secular archaeologist, David M. Rohl in his book Pharaohs and Kings : A Biblical Quest (Crown Publishers 1995) also documents evidence that is consistent with the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Here is a "Top Ten" list of facts that support the Israelites coming out of Egypt.

10. Skeletons of long-haired Asiatic sheep showed they first appeared in the Delta region of Egypt around the time of Joseph. (1900-1800 B.C..) Joseph’s Egyptian name "Zaphenath-Paneah" was probably "Zat-en-aph" (he who is called) and "Ipiankhu" (Ipu is alive). The name Ipiankhu and variations were common in the time of Joseph but not very common earlier or later. Many other Hebrew names are found in an Egyptian papyrus in the Brooklyn Museum (35.1446). Under Sobekhotep III (approximately 1540 B.C.), a large number of slaves were transferred to the area of Thebes. Of the 95 names, over 50% of the names were Asiatics, and their Egyptian names were given next to them. Many of the Egyptian names have "he/she who is called" as the first part of the name. Some of these people were recorded as being specifically from the tribes of Issachar and Asher.

In addition, some Hebrew names are Menahem and Shiphrah. (This was 100 years before the Shiphrah in Exodus 1 though.) Walt Kaiser in A History of Israel p.84 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 2 p.307 mentions that for two Semitic names, Shiphrah probably comes from Sp-ra (fair one), and the name Puah is probably is derived from the Ugaritic word "Pgt" meaning "girl" or "splendid one".

Also, the Leiden Papyrus 348 gives order to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the ‘Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rames[s]es." See Christianity Today 9/7/1998 p.48 for more info on this.

9. A non-Egyptian second-in-command made good sense. If Joseph had tried to rebel, Egyptians would not follow him. It is recorded that Canaanites, such as Meri-Ra and Ben-Mat-Ana had high positions in the Egyptian Court. A Semite named Yanhamu was a deputy of Amenhotep III based at Gaza.

8. Bricks were used to build some Egyptian cities such as Pithom. At Pithom, bricks were found made with straw at the lowest level. At the intermediate level the bricks had only stubble. At the top level, archaeologists found that the bricks were made with no binding at all. The tomb of an Egyptian noble named Rekhmere / Rek-mi-Re at Thebes in the 15th century B.C. has a painting of slaves making bricks.

7. There was evidence of a great disaster with a great number of hurriedly buried bodies. However, the large numbers of deaths does not prove or disprove that this was due to a sudden event overnight.
Also, Tacitus in Histories Book 5 lists differing speculations on the Jews being from Crete, or Egypt, or Ethiopia, or Assyrians, and then relates an interesting story. "Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out in Egypt, that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of the present misery…. Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by other men. … They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis." (quoted from The Annals and The Histories by P. Cornelius Tacitus, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 1952.)

6. An Egyptian text dated around 1350 B.C. described a strange earlier event: "The sun is covered and does not shine to the sight of men. Life is no longer possible when the sun is concealed behind the clouds. Ra [the god] has turned his face from mankind. If only it would shine even for one hour! No one knows when it is midday. One’s shadow is not discernible. The sun in the heavens resembles the moon…." This could refer to the darkness over the land, or it could refer to the eruption of the volcano on the Island of Thera.
5. Pharaoh Thutmose IV apparently was not the first-born son. In the Dream Stela of Thutmose IV (1421-1410 B.C.) found between the forepaws of the Sphinx of Giza, the god Harmakhis promised Thutmose special help to become the next Pharaoh in return for removing the sand that had built up against the Sphinx. He likely would not have needed special help if he were the first in the succession of his father Amenhotep II (1450/1447-1401/1385). Walt Kaiser in A History of Israel p.90 says that the eldest brother of Thutmose IV was named Webensenu. Webensu was given a burial in the royal tomb, and he probably was the one who died during the tenth plague. The second son of Amenhotep II was Khaemwaset, who married before he died. As Kaiser says, "Thus, while the Sphinx Stele cannot be taken as direct proof of the death of the firstborn, enough evidence has been brought to light by Egyptologists to support the early date of the Exodus and the fact that indeed Thutmose IV did not expect to succeed his father to the throne."

4. Mixed Egyptian/Hebrew writing in caves near Mt. Sinai describes the parting of the sea, Moses, and catching the quail. The most interesting thing is the language: it was a mixture of Egyptian and Hebrew. The historian Diodorus Siculus (10 B.C.) also knew of this too. Also, at the entrance to the copper mines in Sinai are hundreds of inscriptions. Most of them are in hieroglyphic Egyptian characters, but about 40 inscriptions are in sort of proto-Sinaitic alphabetic script from the 15th century B.C. Admittedly however, this evidence is "disputable", because there is no way to date when these writings were made.

3. The Egyptian military, which prior to this time had controlled Canaan, was strangely absent. We do not hear much of the Egyptian military again until the time of Pharaoh Seti I, who destroyed Hazor in 1300 B.C.

2. In Jericho, Bryant G. Wood found strong walls, large quantities of grain (meaning a short siege), and no plundering (since the grain was still there). John Garstang was the one who first found abundant carbonized grain. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.182-183 mentions some evidence for an earthquake of magnitude 8 on the Richter scale, which could have left cracks in the walls. The inner mud-brick walls collapsed over the outer stone wall, forming a convenient ramp. When did this capture take place? Ceramic pottery from Cyprus indicates a date between 1450 to 1400 B.C. Egyptian amulets, are inscribed with the name of the current Pharaoh, up to Joshua’s time. Earlier in this century John Garstang had misdated the walls of Jericho in Joshua’s time, but Kathleen Kenyon has proved Garstang wrong according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.575. Carbon-14 dating sets the destruction at 1410 B.C. +/- 40 years.

1. As to the destruction of cities in Canaan, Joshua only says the following cities were destroyed: Debir, Eglon, Hazor, Hebron, Jericho, Lachish, Libnah, Makkadeh, and Ai. Archaeologists have found at that time the following cities were destroyed: Arad, Debir, Hazor, the site at el-Khalil (Hebron?), Jericho, Lachish. The site at Beitin (Bethel?), the city of Gibeon and the site at Khirbet Nisya were abandoned. Perhaps the small town of Ai was destroyed so completely that the site will never be found. Who destroyed these cities? The Amarna tablets tell us clearly. They were letters written from Canaan to the Egyptian Pharaoh around 1500-1400 B.C. The mention the feared "Habiru running amok". Interestingly, they also mention a king Lab’ayu of Shechem, who was a traitor because he was in confederation with the Habiru invaders. Later, the Stela of Pharaoh Merenpta (1225 B.C.) also mentions a people called Israel in northern Canaan.

This is not the first time critical "scholars" were unaware of the archaeology. For example, archaeologists found out about the Hittites in 1892. However, some scholars still doubted their existence ten years later (1902, E.A.W. Budge.) (See Evidence That Demands a Verdict volume 2 p.339-341 for more information on this.)

Conclusion: It is hard to swim against the tide, when this skeptical theory drowns in a sea of facts. Thus archaeology today indicates that the Biblical record shows the trustworthiness of the Bible. Since the Bible is accurate on representing so many little details, maybe we should consider it accurate on what it represents itself to be: God’s communication to us.
Other sources of interesting archaeological information on the Israelites in Egypt are: The Encyclopedia Britannica, Can Archaeology Prove the Old Testament? by Ralph O. Muncaster, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer (Zondervan), Evidence for Faith by John Warwick Montgomery, The New International Dictionary of the Bible by Douglas, J.D. and Merrill C. Tenney, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and The Biblical Archaeology Review.

taken from: http://www.biblequery.org





TO: brianj

Brianj, you clearly demonstrated that you did not carefully read the material I posted in this thread before commenting on it (in your very first post no less!). I believe we have abundant direct evidence of your rudeness and your unwillingness to read the threads material given your easily refuted first post to this thread (see post #10 and #11 in this thread).

With that being said, Dr. Macht and I have provided ample evidence the testimony of Moses regarding the Jews in Egypt and their divine deliverance was a divinely inspired in the Torah account (see post #13 regarding Dr. Macht's study published by John Hopkins).


I leave you with the words of Dr. Macht and Jesus:



"Every word of the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge and deep signficance."

- Dr. Macht (see post #13 for the cited material )





Here are the words of Jesus:

19 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25* But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

- Luke 16:19-31:

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I wanted to append my last post to give the information from the International Bible Encyclopedia which defends a early date Exodus which chris chillen mentioned (I was aware of the International Bible Encyclopedia before chris chillen mentioned it and I was going to cite material from its revised version which was done in 1986 because I am going to buy a copy of it soon. I offer the older versions information at this time though. I believe it will help illuminate the "Bocchoris issue" mentioned earlier in my previous post so I cite it now rather than upon my return [God willing, of course]).


I cite the following from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:



II. The Date.

1. Old Testament Chronology:

The actual statements of the Books of Kings, giving parallel reigns from the time of Solomon's death down to the fixed date of the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, place the foundation of the Temple within a few years of 1000 BC. It is true that this interval is reduced, by about 30 years, by scholars who accept the very doubtful identification of Ahabu of Sir-lai with Ahab of Israel; but this theory conflicts with the fact that Jehu was contemporary with Shalmaneser II of Assyria; and, since we have no historical account of the chronology of Hebrew kings other than that of the Old Testament, for this period, and no monumental notice of Israel in Egypt, or of the Exodus, we must either adopt Old Testament chronology or regard the dates in question as being unknown.

2. Date of Conquest of Palestine:

We have several statements which show that the Hebrew writers believed the conquest of Palestine by Joshua to have occurred early in the 15th century BC, and this date fully agrees with the most recent results of monumental study of the history of the XVIIIth (or Theban) Dynasty in Egypt, as about to be shown, and with the fact that Israel is noticed as being already in Palestine in the 5th year of Minepthah, the successor of Rameses II. In 1 Kings 6:1 we read that the Temple was founded "in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt," this referring to the Conquest and not to the Exodus, as appears from other notices. The Septuagint reads "440 years," but the details show that the Hebrew text is preferable. In Judges 11:26 the first victory of Jephthah is said to have occurred 300 years after Joshua's conquest. The details given for this interval, in other passages of the same book, amount to 326 years; but the periods of "rest" may be given in round numbers, and thus account for this minor discrepancy. Samuel ruled apparently for 20 years (1 Samuel 7:2), and Saul (the length of whose reign is not stated in our present text of this same book) very probably ruled for 20 years also, as Josephus (Ant., VI, xiv, 9) states. Thus 175 years elapsed between Jephthah's victory and the foundation of the Temple--a total of 475 years, or rather more, from Joshua's conquest.

3. Date of Exodus:

The popular belief that many of the judges were contemporary does not agree with these facts, and is indeed in conflict with ten definite statements in Jgs. In Acts 13:19-20 we read that after the Conquest there were judges about the space of 450 years, and this rough estimate (including the rule of Samuel) agrees pretty nearly with the 415, or 420, years of the various passages in the Old Testament. According to the Pentateuch and later accounts (Amos 5:25; Acts 7:30), Israel abode in the desert 40 years. We therefore find that Joshua's conquest is placed about 1480 BC, and the Exodus about 1520 BC. According to the revised chronology of the XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt (see HITTITES), which rests on the notices of contemporary Kassite kings in Babylon, it thus appears that the Pharaoh of the oppression was Thothmes III--a great enemy of the Asiatics--and the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be Amenophis II or Thothmes IV. If Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus, he must have been born when Thothmes III was an infant, and when his famous sister Hatasu (according to the more probable rendering of her name by French scholars) was regent, and bore the title Ma-ka-Ra. She therefore might be the "daughter of Pharaoh" (Exodus 2:5) who adopted Moses--no king being mentioned in this passage, but appearing (Exodus 2:15) only when Moses was "grown"; for her regency lasted more than 20 years, till Thothmes III came of age.

4. Other Views:

As regards this date, it should be remarked that theory of Lepsius, which has been adopted by Brugsch and by many writers who accept his authority, is not accepted by every scholar. E. de Bunsen supposed that the Exodus occurred early in the times of the XVIIIth Dynasty; Sir Peter le Page Renouf said that "no materials have yet been discovered for fixing historical dates in periods of Egyptian history as far back as the Hebrew Exodus"--which was true when he wrote. Professor J. Lieblein supposes the Exodus to have occurred late in the time of Amenophis III--also of the XVIIIth Dynasty (see Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., 1890, 157-60; 1892, 60-62; 1898, 277; 1899, 53; 1907, 214). Dr. Hommel has also recently declared in favor of the view that the Exodus took place under the XVIIIth Dynasty (Expository Times, February, 1899). Lepsius asserted that the Exodus occurred in 1314 BC, being the 15th year of Minepthah; but this is generally regarded as at least half a century too early for the year in question, and Israel was not in Egypt even ten years earlier in his reign.

5. Astronomical Calculations:

The approximate dates given by Brugsch for the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties are very close to those which can be deduced from notices of contemporary kings of Babylon (History of Egypt, II, 314). The later dates which Mahler based on certain astronomical calculations of the French astronomer Blot (Academie des inscriptions, March 30, 1831, 597, 602-4) are not accepted by other Egyptologists. Brugsch says that on this question, "scientific criticism has not yet spoken its last word" (Hist Egypt, I, 36). Renouf (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., December, 1892, 62) more definitely states that "unfortunately there is nothing on Egyptian documents which have as yet come down to us which can, by astronomical calculations, be made to result in a date." This judgment appears to be justified by recent discoveries, since Mahler's dates are about a century too late, as shown by the known history of the Kassites of Babylon. Biot's calculations were based on recorded observations of the rising of Sirius just before the sun, in certain years of certain Egyptian kings. But Sirius is not in the plane of the earth's orbit, and its rising is not constant in retardation. The "heliacal" rising is now about 2 1/2 min. later each year, but about the date in question the retardation was about 12 min., so that a cycle of 1,461 years cannot be used by simple addition. Blot also assumed that the Egyptian observations were as accurate as those made by a modern astronomer with a telescope, whereas, when using the naked eye, the Egyptian observer may well have been a day wrong, which would make a difference of 120 years in the date, or even more. The Babylonian chronology thus gives a far safer basis than do these doubtful observations. On the basis of Biot's calculations the Exodus has been placed in 1214 BC, or even (by Dr. Flinders Petrie) in 1192 BC (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., December, 1896, 248). He thus cuts off more than three centuries in the period of the Judges, many of whom he regards as contemporary. Lepsius in like manner, in order to establish his date, accepted the chronology of the Talmud, which is notoriously 166 years too late for the known date of the fall of Samaria, and he endeavored (while rejecting the Old Testament statement as to the 480 years) to base himself on the number of generations before the Exodus, whereas it is well known that the Hebrew genealogies often give only the better-known names and skip several links.

6. Relation between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs:

As regards the relation between the earlier date for the Exodus (about 1520 BC) and the chronology of the Hebrew patriarchs, the Hebrew text gives an interval of 645 years, and the Greek text of 430 years between the Exodus and the call of Abraham; and the call would thus be dated about 2165 BC or 1950 BC. Abraham is very generally held to have been contemporary with Hammurabi of Babylon (Amraphel), whose accession dates (according to Dr. F. Peiser) in 2139 BC. Dr. Hommel and Mr. King prefer a later date, about 1950 BC, though Nabunahid (the last king of Babylon) places Hammurabi about 2140 BC. The longer reckoning is reconcilable with the Hebrew text, and the shorter with the Greek text, of Gen, without disturbing the approximate date for the Exodus which has been advocated above.

7. Agreement between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology:

There is in fact no discrepancy between the actual results of monumental study and the chronology of the Old Testament. If the Exodus occurred under Thothmes IV, it would have been useless for Israel to attempt the entrance into Palestine by the "way of the land of the Philistines," because at Gaza, Ashkelon and in other cities, the road was still held by forces of Egyptian chariots, which had been established by Thothmes III. But about 40 years later the rebellion of the Amorites against Egypt began, in the time of the Egyptian general Yankhamu, and general chaos resulted in Southern Palestine The Egyptian garrison at Jerusalem (Amarna Tablets, Berlin, No. 102) was withdrawn in his time--about 1480 BC--and it is then (numbers 102-3-4-6, 199) that a fierce people coming from Seir, and called the 'Abiri or Chabiri, are noticed by the Amorite king of Jerusalem as "destroying all the rulers" of the country. They are not named in any of the other Amarna letters (the term gum-gaz, or "man of war," though once applying probably to them, being used of other warriors as well); and the name is geographical for they are called (no. 199) "people of the land of the 'Abiri." The first sign has the guttural sounds 'A and Chronicles, and has not the sound K, which has been wrongly attributed to it, making the word to mean Kabiri, "or great ones." Nor can it be rendered "allies," for it is the name of a people, and quite another word is used for "allies" in this correspondence. The date agrees with that mentioned in the Old Testament for the Hebrew conquest of Palestine,and the only objection to the identification of the 'Abiri (who attacked Ajalon, Lachish, Ashkelon and other cities) with the Hebrews is, that it upsets theory of Lepsius and the popular views as to the date of the Exodus which he maintained.

8. A Text of Minepthah:

Nor is this the only evidence which destroys his theory; for Dr. Flinders Petrie (Contemporary Review, May, 1896) has published an equally important text of the 5th year of Minepthah, from Thebes. A slab of black syenite, bearing this text, was reused from a temple of Amenophis III. In it Minepthah boasts of his conquest of the invaders who--as elsewhere stated--attacked the Delta, and penetrated to Belbeis and Heliopolis. He says that "Sutekh (the Hittite god) has turned his back on their chief"; "the Hittites are quieted, Pa-Kan'ana is ravaged with all violence"--this town being otherwise known to have been near Tyre--"the people of Israel is spoiled, it has no seed"; "Ruten has become as the widows of the land of Egypt." Thus, so far from the Exodus having occurred in the 15th year of Minepthah, Israel is noticed 10 years earlier in connection with a place near Tyre with Hittites yet farther North. Even if the Hebrews had only just arrived, they must have left Egypt 40 years before--in the reign of Rameses II--if we attach any value to Old Testament statements; and all the dates variously given by followers of Lepsius are quite upset; whereas the notice of the 'Abiri, two centuries before Minepthah's accession, is quite in accord with this allusion to Israel, as well as with Old Testament chronology.

III. The Theory of Lepsius.

The reasons which influenced Lepsius require, however, to be stated, and the objections to a date for the Hebrew Conquest about 1480 BC (or a little later) to be considered, since theory that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and Minepthah the Pharaoh of the Exodus is often said to be a secure result of monumental studies, whereas it is really not so, because the only monumental allusions to Israel and the Hebrews are those just mentioned.

1. 1st Argument: City Rameses:

The arguments adduced in favor of the later date are as follows: In the first place, Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, 1842-44) held that no city called Rameses could have been so named, or built by the Hebrews, before the reign of Rameses II, and he placed the site at Heroopolis. This was a very doubtful assumption (see RAAMSES), and his identification of the city is now abandoned. The theory always was vitiated by an objection which he seems to have overlooked: for the "land of Rameses" is noticed in the time of Jacob (Genesis 47:11), and since it is impossible to suppose that Jacob lived in the time of Rameses II, the followers of Lepsius are obliged to regard this notice as an anachronism, which destroys their case, as it might equally be an anachronism in the account of the Exodus, though it is probably correct.

2. 2nd Argument: Manetho's Statements:

The second argument is based on the account by Manetho of the expulsion of leprous and unclean tribes from Egypt. Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote about 268 BC, and who evidently hated the Jews. His account only reaches us secondhand through Josephus (Apion, I, 14, 15, 26-31), this Hebrew author rejecting it as fabulous. Manetho apparently said that, after the Hyksos kings had ruled for 511 years, and had fortified Avaris (see ZOAN), they agreed with King Thummosis to leave Egypt, and went through the desert to Jerusalem, being afraid of the Assyrians (who had no power in Palestine at this time). He continued to relate that, after Armesses Miamon (Rameses II) had ruled 66 years, he was succeeded by an Amenophis whom Josephus calls a "fictitious king"--and rightly so since the name does not occur in the XIXth Dynasty. Apparently Minepthah was meant--though perhaps confused with Amenophis II--and he is said by Manetho to have sent the leprous people to quarries East of the Nile, but to have allowed them later to live in Avaris where the shepherds had been. They were induced by Osarsiph, a priest of Heliopolls, to renounce the Egyptian gods, and this Osarsiph Manetho identified with Moses. They then induced the shepherds who had been expelled by Thummosis to return from Jerusalem to Avaris, and Amenophis fled to Memphis and Ethiopia. His son Rhampses (apparently Rameses III is meant) was sent later to expel the shepherd and polluted people, whom he met at Pelusium and pursued into Syria. This story Josephus discredits, remarking: "I think therefore that I have made it sufficiently evident that Manetho, while he followed his ancient records, did not much mistake the truth of the history, but that, when he had recourse to fabulous stories without any certain author, he either forged them himself without any probability, or else gave credit to some men who spoke so out of their ill will to us"--a criticism sounder than that of Lepsius, who prefers the libelous account of a prejudiced Egyptian priest of the 3rd century BC, identifying Moses with a renegade priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph, to the ancient Hebrew records in the Bible.

3. Relation of Manetho's Stories to the Exodus:

A thread of truth underlay Manetho's stories, but it has nothing to do with the Exodus, and the details to be found on Egyptian monuments do not agree with Manetho's tale. The Hyksos rulers were not expelled by any Thothmes, but by Aahmes who took Avaris about 1700 BC, and who reopened the quarries of the Arabian chain. Minepthah, about 1265 BC, was attacked in Egypt by Aryan tribes from the North, who had nothing to do with Hyksos chiefs, being Lycians, Sardians and Cilicians. He repelled them, but they again attacked Rameses III (about 1200 BC), and were again driven to the North. No mention of Israel occurs in connection with any of these events.

4. Greek and Latin Writers:

The story of the leprous Jews was, however, repeated by other Greek writers. Cheremon (see Josephus, Apion I, 32) says that Rameses, the son of Amenophis, defeated and expelled a diseased people led against him, at Pelusium, by Tisithen and Petesiph, whom he identified with Moses and Joseph. Lysimachus said that a scabby people were led by Moses through the desert by Judea and Jerusalem in the time of Bocchoris (735 BC). Diodorus Siculus (Fr. of Bk, 34) repeats the tale, about 8 BC, saying that lepers were driven out of Egypt, and were led by Moses who founded Jerusalem, and "established by law all their wicked customs and practices," and again (Fr. of Bk, 40) that strangers in Egypt caused a plague by their impurity, and being driven out were led by Moses. Tacitus, about 100 AD (Hist, v.ii), believed the Jews to have fled from Crete to Libya and, being expelled from Egypt, to have been led by their "Captains Jerusalem and Judah." Again he says (v. iii) that under Bocchoris (735 BC) there was sickness in Egypt, and that the infected being driven out were led by Moses, and reached the site of their temple on the 7th day.

5. Condition of Egypt under Minepthah:

No true critic of the present time is likely to prefer these distorted accounts of the Exodus, or any of the Greek and Roman calumnies leveled against the hated Jews, to the simple narration of the Exodus in the Bible. The historic conditions in the 5th year of Minepthah were very different from those at the time of Moses. The invaders of Egypt reached Belbeis and Heliopolis (see Brugsch, History of Egypt, II, 117), and Minepthah states, in his text on the wall of the temple of Amon at Thebes, that he had to defend Hellopolls and Memphis against his foes from the East. The region was then "not cultivated but was left as pasture for cattle, on account of the foreigners. It lay waste from the time of our forefathers." The kings of upper Egypt remained in their entrenchments, and the kings of lower Egypt were besieged in their cities by warriors, and had no mercenaries to oppose them. But Israel, as Minepthah himself has told us now, was in Palestine, not in Egypt, in this year of his reign; and, far from desiring to expel Asiatic pastoral peoples, the same Pharaoh encouraged their immigration into the region of Goshen (see PITHOM) laid waste by the Aryan raid.

6. Explanations of Minepthah's Statements:

Objections to the view that the Exodus occurred two centuries and a half before the reign of Minepthah began, and attempts to explain away the statements on his monuments require some notice.

(1) Pithom was Heroopolis.

The first of these objections is due to the belief that Pithom was Heroopolis, and was a city founded by Rameses II; but this (see PITHOM) is too hazardous a conclusion to suffice for the entire neglect of Old Testament chronology which it involves, since the site of this city is still very doubtful.

(2) Rameses II Not Named in Judges.

A second objection is made, that the Old Testament shows complete ignorance of Egyptian history if it makes Rameses II contemporary with Jdg. because he is not named in that book. But Old Testament references to foreign history are always very slight, while on the other hand it is quite probable that there are allusions, in this book, to the events which took place in the reigns of Rameses II, and of Minepthah. The Hebrews were then confined to the mountains (Judges 1:19) and the Egyptians to the plains. No Pharaoh is mentioned by name in the Old Testament till the time of Rehoboam. In his 8th year Rameses II took various towns in Galilee including Salem (North of Taanach), Merom, Beth-Anath, Anem and Dapur (Daberath at the foot of Tabor). The revolt of Barak probably occurred about the 25th year of Rameses II, and began at Tabor. In the Son. of Deborah (Judges 5:2), the first words (bi-pheroa' pera'oth), rendered by the Septuagint (Alex MS) "when the rulers ruled," may be more definitely translated "when the Pharaohs were powerful," especially as Sisera--who commanded the Canaanite forces--bears a name probably Egyptian (ses-Ra, or "servant of Ra"), and may have been an Egyptian resident at the court of Jabin. So again when, about 1265 BC, Minepthah says that "Israel is ruined, it has no seed," the date suggests the time of Gideon when wild tribes swarmed over the plains, "and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel" (Judges 6:4). The Midianites and Amalekites may have then joined the tribes from Asia Minor who, in the 5th year of Minepthah, ruined the Hittites and invaded the Delta.

(3) Some Hebrews Were Never in Egypt.

But another explanation of the presence of Israel in this year on the line of Minepthah's pursuit of these tribes after their defeat has been suggested, namely, that some of the Hebrews never went to Egypt at all. This of course contradicts the account in the Pentateuch (Exodus 1:1-5; Exodus 12:41) where we read that all Jacob's family (70 men) went down to Goshen, and that "all the hosts of the Lord" left Egypt at the Exodus; but it is supposed to be supported by a passage (1 Chronicles 7:21) where we read of one of the sons of Ephraim "whom the men of Gath born in the land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle." Ephraim however was born in Egypt (Genesis 41:52), and his sons and "children of the third generation" (Genesis 50:23) remained there. The meaning no doubt is that men of Gath raided Goshen; and there were probably many such raids by the inhabitants of Philistia during the times of the Hyksos kings, similar to those which occurred in the time of Minepthah and of Rameses III. The objections made to the Old Testament date for the Exodus early in the reign of Amenophis III, or in that of his predecessor Thothmes IV, thus appear to have little force; and the condition of Egypt before the 5th year of Minepthah was unlike that which would have existed at the time of the Exodus. The theory of Lepsius was a purely literary conjecture, and not based on any monumental records. It has been falsified by the evidence of monuments found during the last 20 years, and these are fully in accord with the history and chronology of the Old Testament.

taken from: http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/ID/3293

[BrianJ]

Hi Ken,

Since you have difficulty in understanding my request, here it is again.

I do not see any information in your links that present direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt.

Do you have any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt around 15th century BCE?

Yes or NO?

Cheers.

Brian.

[ChrisChillin]

And Ken's answer would mean what, exactly?

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL and ChrisChillin

I unexpectedly found some time to enter some more information regarding the Exodus and lo and behold I found a review of James Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt by someone named "chillin". I suspect that this is you Mr. Chillin!

Here is an excerpt of what you wrote:



James Hoffmeier has an impressive background and he is strongly familiar with both Egyptology and Biblical studies, giving him a unique perspective. Having a broad knowledge of the material available and the research that has been done, he poses this fundamental question: Is the narrative from Joseph to Moses, comprising Genesis 39 through Exodus 15, plausible and compatible with what we know about Egyptian history? As a part of this, other questions naturally arise: Could a Semite foreigner like Joseph arise to a position of prominence? Did the Egyptians employ foreigners in hard labor projects? Do the place-names and features mentioned in the Pentateuch match Egyptian geography? Hoffmeier sets out to answer such questions as these.

The book begins with a scan over past study into the early history of Israel, detailing how positive assessments of historicity, such as the Albright-Wright Synthesis on the Conquest, have collapsed in favor of a dominant skepticism. The Documentary Hypothesis is briefly mentioned, as well as the challenges that have led to its decline. Hoffmeier then wraps up this section by commenting on the limits of skepticism......

The attention then turns to Egypt as the data is examined for evidence of Semitic migration into the country and for the plausibility of the Joseph narrative. Hoffmeier uses textual evidence to confirm that foreigners would travel to Egypt during times of famine and that a significant Semitic population settled in the Nile Delta. He also finds support among Egyptian texts to show that Semites were appointed to positions of high office, as well as to show the use of foreign slave labor in building projects.

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/books/hoffisegrvw.html



Chris, it will be interesting to read what textual evidence that Hoffmeier uses to support the bolded above statements you apparently wrote. I look forward to reading Mr. Hoffmeier's book.


TO: Brianj

You apparently believe that people who rudely and illogically comment on other peoples posts before reading them deserve responses to their questions and demand respect and attention. You find me largely ignoring you somewhat intolerable. Oh well! LOL

[BrianJ]

HI Ken,

DO you have any direct evidence or not?

Your ignoring the question does not bother me at all, it should bother you though as it looks as if you have no idea what the answer is.

So, when you are ready, do you have any direct evidence.?

Cheers.

Brian.

[BrianJ]

And Ken's answer would mean what, exactly?

It would mean a few things.

First, it would demonstrate whether Ken has done his homework or not.

Second, it would demonstrate how honest Ken is.

Third, it would mean that I could ask him another question.

Brian.

[AntonS]

I am looking for the best sources that support a early date exodus which is the traditional view (a Jewish Exodus of 1446 B.C ). I am also looking for anti-late date Exodus arguments. The date of exodus is 112000 years ago, i think. Egyptians droved after Israelites using self-propelled vehicles i. e. cars. The car was with the compression ignition engine (so-called diesel). The car was made not from rubbish and moved not noisy.The car was with electric headlights. See my reply to the thread "someone ANSWER please!!!".

[kendemyer]

TO:ALL

I am guessing that Dr. Wood who's Biblical archeological interpretations of Jericho that were fairly recently published and agree with a early date Exodus may have more to say on this issue (see: Bryant G. Wood, Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?, Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2):44–58, March–April 1990). With that in mind, I did want to leave readers a likely source for Dr. Woods future data and his interpretations of that data. I would recommend this source in order to hear about future developments concerning Dr. Wood's work: http://christiananswers.net/abr/bible-and-spade.html (Associates for Biblical Research's Bible and Spade Magazine).

TO: Brianj

I have noticed that when you publically debate you use logical fallacies and that you are quite rude (this thread is not exception see: post #10 AND #11). For example, in a debate you recently called Dr. Wood whose work was published by Biblical Archaeological Review a "numbnut" and I am hoping you would not deny this matter. I have little desire to wrangle with people who are rude and act illogically. You can rant and rave and make all the allegations you want but this of course will not erase post #10 and post #11 to this thread. I have no reason to believe you have carefully read this threads material (and you have provided previous evidence that you did not) and I will continue to largely ignore you at this point in time.

I will also remind you to stay on topic lest you be tempted to cause this threads focus to deviate.

[BrianJ]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for confirming that you have no direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE.

Well at least the readers will know exactly how little you actually know about the subject.

Cheers Ken, I knew you wouldnt let me down.

Brian.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL


re: direct evidence for the supernatural deliverence of the Israelites by Yahweh with the supernaturally caused plagues and supernatural parting of the Red Sea occuring

I unexpectedly had some extra time today so I thought I would cover something.

Although I do not want to entangle myself with a debate with brianj, a rude poster who in my experience uses logical fallacies and insist that people pay attention to his post while he does not read the post of others (see posts #10 and #11), I did wish to comment about the the textual portion of the debate in relation to the Exodus question in relation to the Torah (By the way, I have little hope that Brianj will ever really read evidence I offered in my previous posts).

With that in mind, "Can the Torah/Bible be used as direct evidence that the Exodus occured in regards to what it purports?"

Here is what a law site says concerning direct evidence:


DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

taken from: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm




Now there is some information regarding Simon Greeenleaf:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html




Here is some additional information regarding Dr. Greenleaf:

Greenleaf produced a work entitled" A Treatise On the Law of Evidence, still considered to be the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure. Chief Justice Fuller of the United States Supreme Court described Greenleaf by saying, "He is the highest authority in our courts." - Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible: A Defense of the Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 36. Willard Cantelon, New Money or None? (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1979), p. 244.

taken from: http://michaelnewdow.com/SimonGreenleaf.htm





Now here is a portion of what Dr. Greenleaf said about ancient documents being used as evidence in relation to the Gospel accounts:



In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.....

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. the burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for. they come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statues of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith. There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public at the time they were written; and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no pretense that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an interest; and it is a rule of law, that,--

In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, moreover, who multiplied these copies may be regarded, in some manner, as agents of Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit due to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves, the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence, and, as in the case of official registers and other public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document concerning our public rights were lost copies which had been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the slightest hesitation. the entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school, to watch over and preserve it from alteration.

These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim to a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or character were produced in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to presume its venture to deny either its admissibility in evidence, or the satisfactory character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of Lords, precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purporting to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House, which were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of the Peers, was held admissible in a claim of peerage.

Supposing, therefore, that it is not irrational, nor inconsistent with sound philosophy, to believe that God has made a special and express revelation of his character and will to man, and that the sacred books of our religion are genuine, as we now have them; we proceed to examine and compare the testimony of the Four Evangelists, as witnesses to the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ; in order to determine the degree of credit, to which, by the rules of evidence plied in human tribunals, they are justly entitled. Our attention will naturally be first directed to the witnesses themselves, to see who and what manner of men they were; and we shall take them in the order of their writings; stating the prominent traits only in their lives and characters, as they are handed down to us by credible historians.

taken from: http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm





Here is a complete transcript of Dr. Greenleaf's famous essay called: "Testimony of the Evangelists" in order to hear the complete argument for the validity of the Gospels using legal principles:

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm


Now given what Greenleaf said about the New Testament I think it could be argued that the Jews would be the proper repository for the Torah and that they have faithfully transmitted it given the scrupulous copying of the Old Testament (Dead Sea scrolls etc).

I gave corroborating archeological and textual evidence for the Torah/Exodus/Joshua conquest/Bible via this thread.

I think it could be easily argued that Moses was a prophet: http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/moses.htm

Also, I believe the Dr. Macht study published John Hopkins shows the divine inspiration of the Torah (see post #13 of this thread).

Thus, I believe the Torah is direct and powerful evidence of the Exodus and its supernaturally caused plagues and deliverance occuring. I also believe the Bible can be used as direct evidence and give us clues on when the Exodus approximately occured although it certainly does not tell us when on the Christian calendar date it occured in terms of specific B.C. date.

[Jason Ng]

It would mean a few things.

First, it would demonstrate whether Ken has done his homework or not.

Second, it would demonstrate how honest Ken is.

Third, it would mean that I could ask him another question.

Brian.
The first two points have been repeatedly answered in this very thread. The third point is simply revealing the fact that no matter how much Ken knows and how much he answers you, you won't believe in an early date for the Exodus until we invent time machines and you go there yourself.

[BrianJ]

The first two points have been repeatedly answered in this very thread. The third point is simply revealing the fact that no matter how much Ken knows and how much he answers you, you won't believe in an early date for the Exodus until we invent time machines and you go there yourself.

Ken hasn't answered the question anywhere at all in the thread.

All Ken is capable of is linking to websites, he doesn teven have a basic grasp of the subject.

My question requires a yes or no answer. Ken is obviously so uncertain that he is afraid to jump one way or another.

Brian.

[kendemyer]

TO: Jason NG and All

There is ample direct evidence that God delivered the Jews and that Moses parted the sea via divine help. God's inspired word, the Bible, gives us clear markers in relation to other events when this event occured (for example, 1 Kings 6:1 which is just one verse but please see my other posts in this thread).

There is plenty of direct evidence that the Bible is God's inspired word (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=199 ) apart from Dr. Macht's study published by John Hopkins (see post #13) which also clearly shows this matter.



Here is a quote which cites Biblical Archeological Review that further points to when the Exodus occured.



Archaeologist Bryant Wood sums up the discoveries: "Probably the most famous of the architectural finds related to the kingdom period are the early tenth-century 'Solomonic gates' at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer, built by David's son Solomon . . ." ("Scholars Speak Out," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1995, p. 34). So the biblical account accords nicely with the archaeological evidence.

taken from: http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn015/archaeol.html





Here is another citation that cites a Biblical Archaelogy Review article regarding this matter:



In spite of the account of David's life and exploits recorded in the Bible, some critics doubt that King David actually existed. As one of them candidly admits, "I am not the only scholar who suspects that the figure of King David is about as historical as King Arthur" (Philip R. Davies, Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August, 1994, p. 55). Recently, however, archaeological discoveries have verified that David, king of Israel, was indeed a real historical figure.

In 1993 a fragment of a monument was found at the site of the ancient Israelite city of Dan that mentioned David and his dynasty dating to about 100 years after David's death. As Biblical Archaeology Review reports: "Avraham Biran and his team of archaeologists found a remarkable inscription from the 9th century (B.C.) that refers both to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel.' This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible. That the inscription refers not simply to a 'David' but to the House of David, the dynasty of the great Israelite king, is even more remarkable" (March-April, 1994, p. 26).

Then another mention of King David was found in a monument of about the same time. It is called the Moabite Stone or the Mesha Stela. Discovered in 1868, unfortunately it was broken into pieces and it has taken much time and effort to piece together the original words. In 1995 scholar Andre Lemaire finally put it all together and discovered the words "House of David." In line 31 of the Moabite Stone are the words "... the sheep of the land. And the house (of Da)vid dwelt in Horonen" (Biblical Archaeology Review, May-June, 1994, p. 33).

taken from: http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn005/gn005f02.htm




Here is the 1 Kings 6: 1 verse cited above:


1Ki 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which [is] the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.



After all is said and done this thread provides direct evidence that the Exodus happened as per the Biblical account and there is textual and archaelogical evidence that points to the Exodus occuring in the 15th century B.C.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I think at least for the short term I am finished researching the Exodus and the question of when it occured. I gathered enough evidence to satify my curiousity at least for the short term. When I have time at a much later date I can, God willing, return to this issue.

Here are my conclusions:

1. There is direct evidence that the Exodus occurred and that Moses lead the Jews via God's sovereign power (parting of the sea and the supernatully caused plagues, etc).

2. Despite the uncertainties and problems of archeological dating and Egyptian chronology, I favor the view that the Exodus occured in the 15th century.

[BrianJ]

Any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century Ken?

Yes or No?

How embarrassed do you have to get before you answer a straightforward question?

Brian.

[Jason Ng]

Any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century Ken?

Yes or No?

How embarrassed do you have to get before you answer a straightforward question?

Brian.
You obviously fail to realize that he has repeatedly answered this question to everyone based on his view of the Exodus. Please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

[Jason Ng]

Here's another site about a stone slab that talks about an Egyptian king and how it relates to the Exodus.

http://www.ancientdays.net/pawsofsphinx.htm

[BrianJ]

You obviously fail to realize that he has repeatedly answered this question to everyone based on his view of the Exodus. Please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

If I have failed to realise that he has answered the question then surely it is common courtesy to explain to me where the question is answered.

I do not see an answer to the question.

The question would only take 10 seconds to answer.

Do you have any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE?

It is a yes or no answer at this moment in time.

I will even widen the date if that is a problem.

Do you have any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt at any time during the second millenium BCE?

Cheers.

Brian.

[AntonS]

Here are my conclusions: 1. There is direct evidence that the Exodus occurred and that Moses lead the Jews via God's sovereign power (parting of the sea and the supernatully caused plagues, etc). 2. Despite the uncertainties and problems of archeological dating and Egyptian chronology, I favor the view that the Exodus occured in the 15th century.I also believe that the Exodus occurred and that Moses lead the Jews via God's sovereign power as described in the Bible. But it is not evident today. I think it will be evident in the future. It is impossible to prove anything. I'm sure i have 5 finger on the hand but i cannot prove it: try to prove, for example, that you do not have a mental disorder. We live in 3-dimensional manifold. Does anybody know how many fingers the man has on the hand in 4-dimensional manifold, unless it does exist? I even think it is acceptable to talk about 10-dimensional space. I think so.

[Pantheist_Oracl]

I am asking a simple question, to which there is a very simple answer for any one that knows the subject.

Ken's inability to answer the question speaks volumes to me.

Cheers.

Brian.
Be as that may...

Probably the best direct archaeological evidence for some kind of early "exodus" would be that of the Hyksos, who ruled northern Egypt from Avaris in the eastern delta before their defeat and expulsion mid-sixteenth century BCE.
I'm wondering, Ken, how does the several-centuries Egyptian suzerainty of Canaan fit into your early Exodus model? Not trying to be redundant if you've already said it, but I'd appreciate knowing. Archaeology and many ancient documents have established Egyptian suzerainty from mid-sixteenth century to mid-twelfth century BCE. Best evidence (that I'm aware of), is that the Egyptians began to lose ground in Palestine itself about thirteenth century BCE.

[DanN1]

I believe that the Bible supports a date of 1491 BC for the Exodus rather than one of 1446.

I have 4 arguments.

For the first two arguments, I must first establish a dating system backward from the conquest of Judah:
588 + 11 years for Zedekiah's reign = 599 BC
599 + 3 months for Jehoiachin's reign = 599 BC
599 + 11 years for Jehoiakim / Eliakim's reign = 610 BC
610 + 3 months for Jehoahaz's reign = 610 BC
610 + 31 years for Josiah's reign = 641 BC
641 + 2 years for Amon's reign = 643 BC
643 + 55 years for Manasseh's reign = 698 BC
698 + 30 years for Hezekiah's reign = 728 BC
728 + 14 years for Ahaz's reign = 742 BC
742 + 16 years for Jotham's reign = 758 BC
758 + 52 years for Uzziah's reign = 810 BC
810 + 28 years for Amaziah's reign = 838 BC
838 + 40 years for Joash = 878 BC
878 + 5 years for Athaliah's usurpation of the throne = 883 BC
883 + 1 year for Ahaziah's reign = 884 BC
Jehoram co-reigned with his father Jehoshaphat, but their combined reigns are exactly 30 years because Joram of Israel ascended in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram died in the 12th year of Joram.
884 + 30 years for Jehoshaphat and Jehoram's reigns = 914 BC
914 + 41 years for Asa's reign = 955 BC
955 + 3 years for Abijah's reign = 958 BC
958 + 17 years for Rehoboam's reign = 975 BC
975 + 40 years for Solomon's reign = 1015 BC

Argument #1 for the 1491 date:
The foundations of the temple, laid in Solomon's fourth year (1011 BC) were set down 480 years after the Exodus (I Kings 6:1). 1011 + 480 = 1491 BC

Argument #2 for the 1491 date:
If Solomon began his reign in 1015 BC, then David died in 1015 BC
If David died in 1015 BC, and he was king of all Israel for 40 years, then he united Israel in 1055 BC
Ish-bosheth son of Saul ruled most of the tribes for 2 years after Saul's death before his defeat at the hands of David, so Saul died in 1057 BC.
Saul reigned 40 years (Acts 7) so Saul was annointed king in 1097 BC.
The Ark had been at Kirjath-jearim for 20 years when Israel was given a king; the ark reached Kirjath-jearim in (1097 + 20) = 1117 BC
The Philistines were defeated after the ark reached Kirjath-jearim (I Samuel 7); they had been oppressing Israel 40 years (Judges 13:1) so they invaded in 1157 BC
The Philistines invaded as a punishment for Israel's sins; Judges 8:33 says that Israel didn't fall to sin until after Gideon had died; therefore the Philistines invaded sometime after this, at the earliest possible they invaded the year Gideon died, so the latest possible date for Gideon's death is 1157 BC
Gideon judged 40 years (after the Mideonites were defeated) so the Mideonites were defeated in 1197 BC or earlier (remember 1157 isn't a definite date for the death of Gideon, it's just a lower bound)
The next few dates are similarly the most recent possible for their events:
1197 + 7 years of Mideonite oppression = 1204 BC is the latest date possible for Mideonite invasion
1204 + 40 years' rest (Judges 5:31) = 1244 BC is the latest date possible for Deborah and Barak's defeat of the Canaanites
1244 + 20 years of Canaanite oppression = 1264 BC is the latest date possible for Canaanite invasion
1264 + 80 years' rest after Ehud defeats Moab = 1344 BC is the latest date possible for the defeat of Moab
1344 + 18 years of Moabite oppression = 1362 BC is the latest date possible for Moabite invasion
1362 + 40 years' rest after Othniel defeats Mesopotamia = 1402 is the latest date possible for the defeat of Mesopotamia
1402 + 8 years of Mesopotamian oppression = 1410 is the latest date possible for Mesopotamian oppression
The first oppression of Israel (by Mesopotamia) definitely occurred sometime after Joshua died. Joshua's time as leader is only given in the Book of Jasher, at 26 years. However, it also states that the Elders ruled Israel between Joshua and period of the Judges, for 17 years: 1410 + 17 + 26 = Joshua began to rule (at the latest) in 1453 BC. The veracity of the book may be questioned, but in any case this implies that Moses died around 1453 BC at the latest, and therefore began to lead Israel in about 1493 BC at the latest, which makes sense to be slightly before 1491 because it wasn't immediate that the Pharaoh actually let Israel go. In any case, a 1446 Exodus is clearly impossible, because even if the rulings of Joshua and the Elders are completely cut out, 1410 + 40 years' wanderings already makes 1450 BC.

Argument #3, working forward from a 4004 Creation:
Adding birthdates from 4004, we get the Flood at 2348 BC, etc, etc, and eventually Abram's birth in 1996 BC and Isaac's birth at 1896 BC when Abram was 100
According to Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6, Abraham's seed will be in a land other than their own for 400 years.
Abraham's seed starts with Isaac (Genesis 21:12), and Abraham was living among Canaanites right from Isaac's birth, so 1896 - 400 = 1496 BC. This could mean that the Exodus events started in 1496 BC, for example God promised Moses that he would lead Israel to the Promised Land via the burning bush in 1496 BC, or the 400 could be an approximation; either way it closely matches the 1491 date.

Argument #4, working forward from a 4004 Creation:
Exodus 12:40 says that at the Exodus, the Israelites had been sojourning 430 years, that is, they left their homeland 430 years ago. Abraham was born in 1996 BC based on the 4004 Creation going by birthdates, and he left his homeland when he was 75. 1996 - 75 = 1921. This started his sojourning; 1921 - 430 = 1491.

[ChrisChillin]

Best evidence (that I'm aware of), is that the Egyptians began to lose ground in Palestine itself about thirteenth century BCE.

Indeed, the continuing Egyptian dominance of Canaan until the end of the Bronze Age appears to be the best argument against an early Exodus date.

[ArchaicGuy]

An excellent book about the Israelite Exodus from Egypt is 'The Riddle of the Exodus' by Jim Long. Mr. Long's research places the Exodus at the end of Egypt's Old Kingdom period. He helped excavate what is highly likely the site of Gilgal in 1994. Pottery from the early-middle bronze age was discovered at the site.

[AntonS]

588 + 11 years for Zedekiah's reign = 599 BC
599 + 3 months for Jehoiachin's reign = 599 BC
599 + 11 years for Jehoiakim / Eliakim's reign = 610 BC (...)It is not true. To live N years is not to be born N years ago. God manages time as someone manages the hair. He can take someone in His hand and put him in another point of time. For example, David lived around 100 years and died around 2,000 years since he was born.

[bandecoot]

Indeed, the continuing Egyptian dominance of Canaan until the end of the Bronze Age appears to be the best argument against an early Exodus date.

Redford makes a pretty good case for there never having been a sojourn or exodus. Simply the Hyksos moving north after 1550 and settling amongst the existing tribes of the Levant.

In Egypt, Caanan and Israel in Ancient Times, chapter 10 to be precise. He detail the errors in the OT as compared with modern evidence.

Whilst It may be easy to cut and paste whatever material seems to suit ones veiw, it is less than sensible to expect a critical Reader to simply accept that a browser serves as a substitude for a library with Full doumentation of Archaeological Digs, including copies of site notes and both Site and continuing Stratigraphic maps.

The OP was asked repeatedly for any direct evidence for the Sojourn or exodus or any time between. Much Apologetics for the reams of Indirect or frankly Fraudulent material was presented, but sadly NO DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR A CULTURE SUPPOSEDLY LIVING ALONGSIDE ANOTHER. None at all.

For those that are genuinely interested in actual history, I suggest the above book and The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw editor.

[Failsafe]

Has there been any responses written recently to the findings of Israel Finkelstein in that 'Bible Unearthed' booke he wrote. I haven't had a chance to read it.

I have only some older books available at home, from around the 1970's. I can't remember the names off hand. I am mostly interested in NT studies.

[ChrisChillin]

but sadly NO DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR A CULTURE SUPPOSEDLY LIVING ALONGSIDE ANOTHER. None at all.

I have asked this question several times on TWeb and have yet to receive any answer: What leads any of us to expect that we must have said "direct" evidence at this time to consider the feasiblity of an Exodus? Real limitations - such as the Egyptian characteristic of not recording defeats, and our lack of any Philistine documents at all - cannot be discounted in our analysis. Redford is a valid scholar, but not the be all end all of this.

Has there been any responses written recently to the findings of Israel Finkelstein in that 'Bible Unearthed' booke he wrote.

Quite a number. The central thesis of the book is that the Israelites came from indigenous nomads in Palestine who settled down into agrarian communities and later coalesced into a single ethnic and national identity. Finkelstein had presented the case for "nomad resedentarization" as early as 1988, well before TBU came out, and there have been a number of responses and critiques of it. Harvard's Lawrence Stager and U. of Liverpool's Kenneth Kitchen both doubt that there would have been a large enough nomad population to explain the settlement explosion at the beginning of Iron Age I. Kitchen offers a critique of this and other aspects of TBU in On the Reliability of the Old Testament. James Hoffmeier also critiques the nomad resedentarization theory in the early part of Israel in Egypt. You may also find a critical review of TBU with the online edition of Denver Seminary's Denver Journal.

If your books are from the 1970s, then they are woefully out of date given how much has happened in biblical archaeology in the past few decades.

[bandecoot]

I have asked this question several times on TWeb and have yet to receive any answer: What leads any of us to expect that we must have said "direct" evidence at this time to consider the feasiblity of an Exodus? Real limitations - such as the Egyptian characteristic of not recording defeats, and our lack of any Philistine documents at all - cannot be discounted in our analysis. Redford is a valid scholar, but not the be all end all of this.

I agree, he is not the be all and end all. Which is why I also suggested Shaw, just as a basic primer on Egypt.

The Hyksos were a separate culture living alongside the Egyptians, yet they can be easily identified by a specific set of types of art, material culture and names. Where is that for the Jews? There is a set of artefacts that can be identified as Caanaite which seriates into what later becomes Judaic forms and fabrics. But in what is now Palestine and Israel. Not in Egypt.

Where are the Hebrew cemetaries? If as is suggested in Exodus they were a culture apart, there would be a separate burial tradition in place. There are none. There is such for the Hyksos, the art is quite different as are the Grave goods.


The problem that I see with Egypt and the Hebrews is that too much has been invested in that story.

But I will follow this up on Chris's other thread.

Andrew

[kendemyer]

I have three things to write in this post.

1. I found another good source for the traditional date of the Exodus.

Here it is:

Who Was The Pharaoh Of The Exodus?
http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html

2. I agree with David Hackett Fischer's principles for historiography and that historical determinations are probabilistic and that certain principles should be used (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=36762 ). Therefore, I do not see the need for direct evidence and that great/good/best evidence should be used. In short, I agree with Chris Chillin. The main reason I avoided prolonged discourse with Brian is because prior debates with Brian were less than satisfactory in terms of his tactics which is something I don't see necessary to go into at this time.

3. I do believe there is direct evidence that the Exodus happened in 1446 B.C. That direct evidence is the Bible (for the date according to the Bible see: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=41 ).


Why should the Bible be considered direct evidence?

Here is why:

1. It has many amazing and detailed prophecies which has come true

Peter Stoner's, Science Speaks, Prophetic Accuracy
http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c8

Bible prophecy - Nothing compares
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184

2. It contains much Bible scientific foreknowledge much of it contained in the first five books of the Bible.

Bible scientific foreknowledge
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_foreknowledge

3. Excellent arguments having been put forth by eminent legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery and others claiming that Western legal standards argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. (see: http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm and http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm and http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html ).

In addition, the former Chief Justices of England Lord Darling and Lord Caldecote stated there was overwhelming amount of evidence for the resurrection of Christ (See: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm ).

Also, historians such as Thomas Arnold (see: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html ), A. N. Sherwin-White (see: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html and http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html ), and Michael Grant (see: http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/resurrec.htm and http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/ and http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/origins.html ) have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection.

There is also excellent evidence for the historicity of the New Testament as a whole.

Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Dr. Gary Habermas
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html



4. There is excellent archaeological evidence for the Bible

Bible archaeology
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185

[Jayhawker Soule]

4. There is excellent archaeological evidence for the Bible There is no scientific evidence for a Biblical Exodus.
There is significant evidence suggesting cultural and political continuity when and where the Bible speaks of catastrophe and conquest.
There is equally impressive evidence suggesting the gradual ethnogenesis of Israelite culture.

[kendemyer]

Here is something I will share that I thought was helpful:

"What about all the bodies of the people who died during the Exodus?" What about them? The Scythians only buried their most important people (quite obviously, in huge mounds) and there must have been tons of them who weren't buried over the course of thousands of years, yet does anyone complain that we don't find their bodies today? It is interesting to note Tippett's comment that if it were not for these royal graves and the writings of Herodotus, the existence of the Scythians at their earliest stage "might never have been known at all." What then of the mere 40-year trail of the Exodus?

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/af/exoduslogistics.html





Addendum

Bandecoot writes:

There is a set of artefacts that can be identified as Caanaite which seriates into what later becomes Judaic forms and fabrics. But in what is now Palestine and Israel. Not in Egypt.

I hope this is not an argument from silence. Here is what the historian David Beckett Fischer states:

Highlight of Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) "Evidence must always be affirmative." Negative evidence is no evidence at all.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

(see: Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)



Now there is direct evidence that the Jews were in Egypt (see my previous post regarding the Bible being used as direct evidence).

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now there is direct evidence that the Jews were in Egypt (see my previous post regarding the Bible being used as direct evidence).Once again: There is no scientific evidence for a Biblical Exodus.
There is significant evidence suggesting cultural and political continuity when and where the Bible speaks of catastrophe and conquest.
There is equally impressive evidence suggesting the gradual ethnogenesis of Israelite culture.Believe what you wish ...

[shunyadragon]

Once again:

There is no scientific evidence for a Biblical Exodus.
There is significant evidence suggesting cultural and political continuity when and where the Bible speaks of catastrophe and conquest.
There is equally impressive evidence suggesting the gradual ethnogenesis of Israelite culture.
Believe what you wish ...

I agree with this, but I believe that Exodus was set in the catastrophic end of the Old Egyptian Period. This coincides with the time of a natural catastrophic drought, and recent archeologic evidence indicates that the death toll was catastrophic. A recent BBC movie gives a good description for lay people and refers to some of the archeologic evidence for this and relates to one of the catastrophic cyclic droughts where rainfall is virtually zero for seven to twelve years.

[bandecoot]

I agree with this, but I believe that Exodus was set in the catastrophic end of the Old Egyptian Period. This coincides with the time of a natural catastrophic drought, and recent archeologic evidence indicates that the death toll was catastrophic. A recent BBC movie gives a good description for lay people and refers to some of the archeologic evidence for this and relates to one of the catastrophic cyclic droughts where rainfall is virtually zero for seven to twelve years.

The problem for you here is that rain did not fall in Egypt much at all. Thus the need for an irrigation system. However a study on Varves in Lake Victoria might prove fruitful. I have no Idea if anyone has done such a study But a motivated researcher like yourself would be able to find it should it exist. Again Palynology might also be of interest in the area.

[bandecoot]

Here is something I will share that I thought was helpful:





Addendum

Bandecoot writes:



I hope this is not an argument from silence. Here is what the historian David Beckett Fischer states:

Highlight of Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

I agree, You are the one making the assertion. Thus you must back it up with evidence. Like remains of a material culture distinct from the Egyptian one.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

You asked which question? You made an assertion about an Israelite presence in Egypt. Thus you have the burden of proof. If there is no evidence for a culture being there what then would be the conclusion. For example if there is no material evidence for European contact with the americas before say 800ad what would your concllusion be?


(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

Contemporary evidence for a nascent Judaic culture does exist. It is fairly well attested to. It just happens to be in the Levant and not Egypt. Just as there is evidence for the Hyksos ruling Egypt for 100 years and being forced out By the reemergent New Kingdom Pharaohs

(4) "Evidence must always be affirmative." Negative evidence is no evidence at all.

I have made it clear that there was a Judaic culture. Thats affirmative, it is affirmative that it was in the Levant not egypt.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

The context in this case is that the evidence was found in the Levant not Egypt

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

Double talk, but I will answer it. The statement, "there is evidence for a nascent, static Judaic culture in the Levant" is only as precise as the fact of the evidence being found in the levant no more no less.

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

(see: Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)



The probability of there being a nascent Judaic culture in the Levant is 1 as one has been found that inhabited the area and changed and split away from the Canaanite culture of the Coast.

The probabilty of there having been a Judaic culture in Egypt is low as there is no evidence for one having lived there.

Now there is direct evidence that the Jews were in Egypt (see my previous post regarding the Bible being used as direct evidence).

As I have stated in another post on a related matter until you bring yourself up to speed on Current mainstream Scholarship in this area this discussion is suspended.

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no scientific evidence for a Biblical Exodus.
There is significant evidence suggesting cultural and political continuity when and where the Bible speaks of catastrophe and conquest.I agree with this, but I believe that Exodus was set in the catastrophic end of the Old Egyptian Period.
There is equally impressive evidence suggesting the gradual ethnogenesis of Israelite culture.Are you saying that you sustain a belief in the Exodus/Conquest (a) in the absence of scientific evidence and (b) in the face of impressive evidence to the contrary? Why?

[kendemyer]

TO: Jayhawker Soule

I am familar with how the social science of history works. It relies on direct and indirect evidence and I have supplied both regarding the traditional date for the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.

Lastly, I am not impressed with arguments from silence as I previously stated.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am familar with how the social science of history works. It relies on direct and indirect evidence and I have supplied both regarding the traditional date for the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. Forgive me kendemyer, but I see neither. And trust me, kendemyer, this inability to discern such evidence is widespread. For example, I was in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem as late as last July and there was absolutely nothing to be found on the Exodus Conquest.

Lastly, I am not impressed with arguments from silence as I previously stated.You seem to be impressed with very little, including very little in the way of evidence, but what impresses you is entirely your concern. If you have items of evidence that you believe to be probative, I will gladly discuss them one by one. If you wish not to do so, I will completely understand.

[kendemyer]

TO: Jaywalker Soule

You wrote:

... I was in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem as late as last July and there was absolutely nothing to be found on the Exodus Conquest.

Truth is not a popularity contest. What is true is not always popular and what is popular is not always true. Ever hear of alchemy? Some of the brightest minds in Europe believed in alchemy.

I recommend reading these articles if you have not read them yet:

Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2) (March/April 1990): 44-58.

Bryant G. Wood, "Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts, Biblical Archaeology Review 16:05, Sep/Oct 1990

[Jayhawker Soule]

Truth is not a popularity contest. What is true is not always popular and what is popular is not always true. I will let you determine truth (since you will anyway). I am concerned with scientific evidence, and scientific enquiry is not cherry-picking creationist apologist who support your presuppositions. It is about intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

I recommend reading these articles if you have not read them yet:

Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2) (March/April 1990): 44-58.

Bryant G. Wood, "Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts, Biblical Archaeology Review 16:05, Sep/Oct 1990Oy vey!

I am a subscriber to BAR.

Bryant G. Wood has been discredited. For example ...Wood says: "One Carbon-14 sample was taken from a piece of charcoal found in the destruction debris of the final Bronze Age city. It was dated to 1410 B.C.E. plus or minus 40 years." (Wood, p. 53)

Problems: The British Museum later re-dated this sample to about 1550 BC. In 1995, when methods of radiocarbon dating had become more efficient, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht conducted C-14 tests on eighteen samples from this same destruction layer at Jericho. They did this not in order to refute Wood, but "as a contribution toward the establishment of an independent radiocarbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology." (Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.) They included six samples consisting of charred cereal grains (more reliable for dating than wood, which might have been used over a long period). The samples, it turned out, had lived and died in the 16th century BC. This confirmed Kenyon's dating.

Since the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere varies at different times, raw C-14 dates are calibrated to actual dates by checking the C-14 in trees when their rings can serve as an independent indicator. Wood cites studies showing regional differences among trees with respect to the quantity of C-14 at given times. Since there is not enough data from local trees to calibrate raw C-14 dates, Wood refuses to accept the above findings for Jericho.

- see The Archaeological Debate Over Jericho (http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-debate.htm)
Again, if you have items of evidence that you believe to be probative, I will gladly discuss them one by one. If you wish not to do so, I will completely understand.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

Here is an article about Dr. Wood and Jericho that I recommend:

The Old Testament and the Ancient Near East Jericho by Don Jaques
http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/seminary/courses/bst550/reports/DJaques/Jericho.html

TO: Jayhawker Soule

I don't think a Jerusalem Museum having or not having an exhibit is cause for alarm for the traditional position. Having a exhibit or not having an exbit is not exactly a historiography method in historical investigations. There may or may not have been a Hittite display at the Jerusalem Museum at one time, but we both know that it turned out the Hittites existed as per the Bible. Here is a nice display at the Jerusalem Museum you might want to look at speaking of the Hittites: http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm

Second, I think you cherry picked the link you gave in your prior post speaking of cherry picking. I know because I read that link before.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think a Jerusalem Museum having or not having an exhibit is cause for alarm for the traditional position.Let me try this yet again: if you have items of evidence that you believe to be probative, I will gladly discuss them one by one; if you wish not to do so, I will completely understand.

[kendemyer]

TO: Jaywalker Soule

I gave my evidence for the traditional position and some against the non-traditional position as well. You have chosen to reject the traditional position and given your posts to this thread I can live with this. I see no reason to try to make seeds sprout on cement. In short, the seeds are fine it is the soil that is rocky at this time.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I gave my evidence for the traditional position and some against the non-traditional position as well. I'll take that as a "no" ... :sigh:

[shunyadragon]

The problem for you here is that rain did not fall in Egypt much at all. Thus the need for an irrigation system. However a study on Varves in Lake Victoria might prove fruitful. I have no Idea if anyone has done such a study But a motivated researcher like yourself would be able to find it should it exist. Again Palynology might also be of interest in the area.

The drought effected the Middle East, Nile River watershed and not just Egypt. Actually these cyclic droughts have a world wide impact along the arid belt in the Northern hemisphere. There is evidence for this happening, and it happened again toward the end of the ninteenth century when Napoleon invaded Egypt cripled by a similar drought.

See this thread 'Something happened ~4,200 years ago' here

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59126

. . . for more evidence of this catastrophic drought.

[kendemyer]

Re: previous posts

Here is something from the BBC:

Studies in 'ice cores' found in Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania - the mountain which supplies the Nile with its water - have revealed that a drought did take place around 3600 years ago - around the time the Bible sets Joseph's story.

taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/features/biblemysteries/joseph.shtml

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here is something from the BBC:
Studies in 'ice cores' found in Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania - the mountain which supplies the Nile with its water - have revealed that a drought did take place around 3600 years ago - around the time the Bible sets Joseph's story.And here is something from memory:According to my best guess, tornadoes were common in Kansas around the time that Baum and Langley sets the Wizard of Oz.kedemyer, to argue the historicity of the Bible by finding historical correlations is, in my opinion, silly at best. All legend and folklore is rooted in the real world. A drought in Egypt no more confirms the Bible than does a tornado in Kansas confirm the Munchkins.

[kendemyer]

TO: jaywalker soule

Often archaeology and science does not prove the Bible but merely corroborates it.

I also recall reading about this matter in a book but I never fact checked it at the time:

There is “The Tradition of Seven Lean Years in Egypt” written during the Ptolemaic period about the reign of Djoser that states: “To let thee know. I was in distress on the Great Throne, and those who are in the palace were in heart’s affliction from a very great evil, since the Nile had not come in my time for a space of seven years. Grain was scant, fruits were dried up, and everything which they eat was short. Every man robbed his companion”.
ANET (1969) 31

This is notable in several important respects. The first is that the tradition written about Djoser was a tradition 2500 years old when it was being written in Ptolemaic times! If it was based on some original record then the “seven lean years” happened a thousand years before even this biblical guru thinks Moses lived.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Often archaeology and science does not prove the Bible but merely corroborates it.How nice. In the case of the Exodus/Conquest, however, it does neither. The scientistic consensus is that which we find reflected in the museums of Israel.

By the way, it's instructive that you speak of "archaeology and science". Have you ever read a serious text on archaeology?

[kendemyer]

I revised my last post.

[shunyadragon]

And here is something from memory:According to my best guess, tornadoes were common in Kansas around the time that Baum and Langley sets the Wizard of Oz.kedemyer, to argue the historicity of the Bible by finding historical correlations is, in my opinion, silly at best. All legend and folklore is rooted in the real world. A drought in Egypt no more confirms the Bible than does a tornado in Kansas confirm the Munchkins.I do not always agree with kendemeyer, infact most of the time I disagree, but your post is not responding intelligently to the issues. Yes, the historicity of some events of the Bible correlate well to the recent scientific and climatic data. Tornadoes in Kansas are poor comparison to well documented severe cyclic droughts that correlate well to Biblical records.



One the other side of the coin some important Biblical stories do not fit the archeological and scientific data we have available, such as the massive size and chronology of the Exodus from Egypt.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not always agree with kendemeyer, infact most of the time I disagree, but your post is not responding intelligently to the issues. Yes, the historicity of some events of the Bible correlate well to the recent scientific and climatic data.Tornadoes in Kansas are poor comparison to well documented severe cyclic droughts that correlate well to Biblical records.One would think that a person quick to judge my comments as unintelligent would offer more than an opinion.

Be that as it may, I apologize for not being more clear. I'm willing to try again, but you must do your part. To begin with, recognize that the thread deals with the historicity of the Exodus/Conquest and the Biblically derived date for that putative process. This was and is the context for my comments.

I never said, nor do I believe, that the Bible is devoid of historically accurate references. I contend that the Tanakh is many things, including folk history, civil code, bombastic propaganda, poetry, and myth, all of which would have links to the real world.

None of this, however, legitimatizes the ignorant and disingenuous game played by many. Of course the Exodus happened. After all, did not the Bible speak of the Hittites? They proved to be real. Of course the Exodus happened. After all, did not the Bible speak of a drought in Egypt. It proved to be real. ...... etc.

It is a worthless argument that doesn't even rise to the level of non sequitur.

For those aware of the polemics within the ranks of archaeology, those who view the Bible as being devoid of historical value are termed "minimalists", while those who reject this dismissive attitude are termed "maximalists". Again, those aware of the field will immediately recognize William Dever as a leading maximalist with well established scientific credentials. Let's let Dever speak ...
Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.

- What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It? (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O248SZGA9s&isbn=080282126X&itm=3) (pg. 97)

After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.

- ibid (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O248SZGA9s&isbn=080282126X&itm=3) (pg. 99)

Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...

- ibid (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O248SZGA9s&isbn=080282126X&itm=3) (pg. 121)So, on the one hand we have Dever insisting "The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps 'historical fiction' ...", while on the other you share that "...the historicity of some events of the Bible correlate well to the recent scientific and climatic data". Forgive me if I find your input underwhelming.

[bandecoot]

How nice. In the case of the Exodus/Conquest, however, it does neither. The scientistic consensus is that which we find reflected in the museums of Israel.

By the way, it's instructive that you speak of "archaeology and science". Have you ever read a serious text on archaeology?


Jayhawker Nice to have a fellow on this board. I am wondering if you have a copy of "The Bible in the British Museum" Especially in regard to ANE 130738 "the Statue of Idri Mi" If you have access to this work or to the BM collection on line I would like your input on it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Nice to have a fellow on this board.Thank you. A fellow what?

I am wondering if you have a copy of "The Bible in the British Museum" Especially in regard to ANE 130738 "the Statue of Idri Mi" If you have access to this work or to the BM collection on line I would like your input on it.No, sorry. Should I consider purchasing the book?

[shunyadragon]

One would think that a person quick to judge my comments as unintelligent would offer more than an opinion.

Be that as it may, I apologize for not being more clear. I'm willing to try again, but you must do your part. To begin with, recognize that the thread deals with the historicity of the Exodus/Conquest and the Biblically derived date for that putative process. This was and is the context for my comments.

This post clears things up some, but your previous post was as clear as mud and offered nothing of substance. In resonse to that you could hardly expect much more than an opinion.

I never said, nor do I believe, that the Bible is devoid of historically accurate references. I contend that the Tanakh is many things, including folk history, civil code, bombastic propaganda, poetry, and myth, all of which would have links to the real world.

Your last post did not indicate this. We are probably more in agreement than you think, maybe.

None of this, however, legitimatizes the ignorant and disingenuous game played by many. Of course the Exodus happened. After all, did not the Bible speak of the Hittites? They proved to be real. Of course the Exodus happened. After all, did not the Bible speak of a drought in Egypt. It proved to be real. ...... etc.

I tentatively agree, but your view needs to be clearer than the previous post.

For those aware of the polemics within the ranks of archaeology, those who view the Bible as being devoid of historical value are termed "minimalists", while those who reject this dismissive attitude are termed "maximalists". Again, those aware of the field will immediately recognize William Dever as a leading maximalist with well established scientific credentials. Let's let Dever speak ...
So, on the one hand we have Dever insisting "The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps 'historical fiction' ...", while on the other you share that "...the historicity of some events of the Bible correlate well to the recent scientific and climatic data". Forgive me if I find your input underwhelming.

My input was in response to a muddy post. This post is more clear, though I disagree with your definitions of minimalist and maximalist. They very more on degree of the historocity of the Bible and not in the absolute terms which you present.

It is more than a little extreme to say that minimalist are those 'who view the Bible as being devoid of historical value.' I do not feel this represents Davies (the current minimalist spokesperson in vogue) view of the Bible. The minimalist tends to the Bible as a genre of mythical literature set in history with some events and accounts having an historical basis, and consider the accounts writen later than the events themselves. The maximalist tends to view the bible as more of an historical account and push the authorship closer to the events, sometimes. But as you noted some also consider parts of the Bible not all that historical, 'The whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must be set aside as largely mythical, but. . . (Sounds sort of minimalist to me). I consider the some to be important, because there is a considerable range in the maximalist spectrum, with some shifting slooowly toward the minimalist camp, if there is indeed such a definable sharp line between the two sides. It appears more like a range of beliefs like a spectrum with gaps blown away by cannon fire.

The Davies-Dever Exchange is educational, maybe, but often puctuated by heavy static that must be edited out to make sense of what is being said. Snip, snip, snip . . . In amongst the noise you will occassionally hear - 'As for . . . I happen to agree with Davies critique; and if he . . . zzzzzzt, pfffft, bzzzzzzzzzz, Arf! Arf! . . .'

Thank for the clarification. You sound better without the static.

[bandecoot]

Thank you. A fellow what?

A fellow historian/Archaeology buff.

No, sorry. Should I consider purchasing the book?


It's an interesting reference book, lots of timelines and references to various things in the British Museum. As you seem to be interested in ANE Arch (as evidenced by the fact you subscribe to BAR) I thought you might have it on the shelf. Its written by TC Mitchell who was the Curator of the ANE collection at the BM. I bought my copy at the BM bookshop for 13 GBP, but it is available by mailorder or online order.

[kendemyer]

TO: All

This is thread's title, "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?"

I ask that the thread be kept on topic as there are posts which are definitely off topic.

[bandecoot]

TO: All

This is thread's title, "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?"

I ask that the thread be kept on topic as there are posts which are definitely off topic.


None because the exodus as portrayed in the bible never happened. There, your question is now answered.

If you wish to redirect and ask for sources that explain Judaic culture in real terms I can accommodate you.

[kendemyer]

TO: Bandecoot

I believe I supplied direct evidence that the Exodus occured. Now if you disagree that the Exodus occured that is your choice. But please show some courtesy and do not be a "bully boy" that gets threads off topic. In short, please try be more courteous.

[bandecoot]

TO: Bandecoot

I believe I supplied direct evidence that the Exodus occured. Now if you disagree that the Exodus occured that is your choice. But please show some courtesy and do not be a "bully boy" that gets threads off topic. In short, please try be more courteous.


Why? you have been snail boy and pulled your head in. How can I discuss things with someone with no idea of what I am talking about?


All I have ever asked is that you do a bit of reading. We are discussing the exodus. All I am asking is that you read a contra position.

[kendemyer]

TO: Bandecoot

You wrote:

Why? you have been snail boy and pulled your head in. How can I discuss things with someone with no idea of what I am talking about?


All I have ever asked is that you do a bit of reading. We are discussing the exodus. All I am asking is that you read a contra position.

A few comments:

Why? Because this is the threads topic: "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?" You are off topic. Now if you want to share some of the best sources for a early date Exodus then do so instead of being a rude poster.

Secondly, I have read skeptical material in regards to the Bible before and I believe it was unconvincing. I don't want to read any books you might suggest as I believe they would be spurious.

Third, I believe I supplied direct evidence that the early date for the Exodus is warranted (see my earlier post in this thread).

[bandecoot]

TO: Bandecoot

You wrote:



A few comments:

Why? Because this is the threads topic: "What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?" You are off topic. Now if you want to share some of the best sources for a early date Exodus then do so instead of being a rude poster.

Secondly, I have read skeptical material in regards to the Bible before and I believe it was unconvincing. I don't want to read any books you might suggest as I believe they would be spurious.

Third, I believe I supplied direct evidence that the early date for the Exodus is warranted (see my earlier post in this thread).


You find the material to be spurious? Then why have you used a quote from one of them?

[kendemyer]

TO: Bandecoot

Please refrain from boorish off topic post.

Thank you,

kendemyer

[bandecoot]

TO: Bandecoot

Please refrain from boorish off topic post.

Thank you,

kendemyer


No.

Bandecoot.


In other news, why did you use a text that you claim is spurious to prove a point? Is your claim then regarding Herodotus spurious? Mind you Herodotus is not the only source of information. Nor is Manetho.

There quite a few Stelae from other contries that mention trade agreements with an economically strong Egypt for example.

The pottery seriation charts for Egypt have no embarrsaing gaps in them. There are no depictions of mass burials in any tomb so far found.


In short There is no possible way Egypt could have lost half its population in a day and no record of it be made anywhere.

There was no 40 year desolation, following Nebbuchadnezzars supposed invasion. The pottery that was getting broken and discarded was being used by someone. However Cambyses very real invasion did leave traces in the AR.

Its just a shame that you have so much emotional investment in a hypothesis that goes nowhere and is shown to be incorrect by multiple lines of independant evidence from both archaeological and literary sources as well as out of country inscriptions regarding Egypt.

[Bubbahotep]

Here's another site about a stone slab that talks about an Egyptian king and how it relates to the Exodus.

http://www.ancientdays.net/pawsofsphinx.htm

Your website makes a number of claims that are simply false. One is "One problem is that Amenhotep II's mortuary temple has never been discovered" This is simply untrue. The mortuary temple was destroyed (torn down by later pharaohs to build their own mortuary temples out of its material) but its foundation was found. This link will take you to a page on this subject:

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/thebes/amenhotepii/index.html

Your source also says: "Then, suddenly in Amenhotep's 9th year and continuing almost to the end of his reign, there is nearly a complete historical blank." This is also untrue. While there is little evidence of campaigning against foreign lands, there is plenty of evidence for Amenhotep II commissioning many buildings in Egypt:

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/amenhotep_2_1.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty18b.html

The source also says "Raphael Giveon says of this period, "The interval of seventeen years between the last Asiatic campaign of Amenhotep II (year 9) and his death (year 26) was certainly a period of deterioration of Egyptian power in Asia." (Giveon 1968: 54.)" Note that the quote only says that Egyptian power in Asia deteriorated. This in no way implies that Egypt was suffering troubles at home.

The source also claims that Amenhotep II fled to Nubia for 13 years by quoting Manetho. Funny, Christian fundamentalists like to quote Manetho as authoritative when it suits them but trash him whenever his information contradicts their Bible. In any event, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that Amenhotep II fled to Nubia for 13 years and the evidence points to his reign being relatively prosperous, as was most of the New Kingdom.

Seriously, guys, stop accepting everything you read from Christian sources. They are obviously biased. Look at the actual evidence for yourself.

[Bubbahotep]

Ken a few pages back posted the following from a Dr. Greenleaf:

In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.....

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. the burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for. they come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statues of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith. There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public at the time they were written; and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no pretense that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an interest; and it is a rule of law, that,--

In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, moreover, who multiplied these copies may be regarded, in some manner, as agents of Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit due to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves, the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence, and, as in the case of official registers and other public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document concerning our public rights were lost copies which had been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the slightest hesitation. the entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school, to watch over and preserve it from alteration.

These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim to a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or character were produced in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to presume its venture to deny either its admissibility in evidence, or the satisfactory character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of Lords, precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purporting to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House, which were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of the Peers, was held admissible in a claim of peerage.

Supposing, therefore, that it is not irrational, nor inconsistent with sound philosophy, to believe that God has made a special and express revelation of his character and will to man, and that the sacred books of our religion are genuine, as we now have them; we proceed to examine and compare the testimony of the Four Evangelists, as witnesses to the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ; in order to determine the degree of credit, to which, by the rules of evidence plied in human tribunals, they are justly entitled. Our attention will naturally be first directed to the witnesses themselves, to see who and what manner of men they were; and we shall take them in the order of their writings; stating the prominent traits only in their lives and characters, as they are handed down to us by credible historians.
---------------------------------------------------------

Now, the fact is that while lawyers may presume innocence it clearly doesn't work that way with scientists and proper history follows scientific methodology. This is simply due to the fact that we know that people often write down things that are not 100% true, whether through confusion, delusion or artifice. Christians want us to accept all of the miraculous events of the Bible. Yet are they willing to admit as equally believable all of the other fantastic and miraculous stories presented in ancient writings? Many of them, if accepted, would serve to support the claims of non-Christian religions. Are the Christians willing to allow that? Well, it doesn't even matter because there is a very good reason why historians don't accept everything as fact that is written in a genuine ancient manuscript. This is because often we have multiple ancient accounts talking about the same event, or time period, and they conflict. Clearly not all of the accounts can be true and so necessarily some of them at least must be reporting things that are simply untrue. This is actually the case with the Exodus(, which is why this post is actually on topic Ken).

You see, the Bible purports to describe a period of ancient Egyptian history. Well, we have a lot of historical records of ancient Egypt, not to mention archaeology. Now, the Bible describes the Exodus as having occurred at a certain period of time. This is under debate, but really only by those who accept the ancient Egyptian records and archaeology but do not want to contradict the Bible. I actually agree with Ken that the Bible supports an early Exodus in the 15th century. So, what do the Egyptian historical records tell us of this period of time? They provide no evidence for the Biblical story of the Exodus. So which records are the ones telling the truth?

Well, Ken also provided us with a list of criteria for evaluating historical evidence:

"Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) "Evidence must always be affirmative." Negative evidence is no evidence at all.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic." "
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Note the highlighted part. The best evidence is that most immediate to the event itself. Well, the earliest evidence we have for the Bible's account of the Exodus story is the mid-to-late first millenium B.C., many, many centuries after the date of the Exodus. We have hundreds of contemporary Egyptian records so they easily win out on that account.

Now, there are other ways of evaluating ancient texts but I hope you have grasped my point. The Egyptian records must be accepted as more authoritative than the Biblical book of Exodus. Since there is no solid evidence for the book of Exodus until a millenium after the event it is entirely possible that the ancient Jewish writers were recording a very old story that had become seriously garbled in the oral transmission of the tale. This is, in fact, not unusual. In fact, it is the norm and there are countless examples of historical records being distorted and becoming legends. King Arthur's tales are an excellent case in point, as is the Nibelungenlied of Germany, the Mahavamsa of Sri Lanka ...

Is there any reason to believe that the Bible couldn't include unreliable stories? Well, contrary to what Ken thinks, no, there is no reason to believe that the ancient Jewish authors were any less human than other ancient writers. Ken's Macht study has been soundly trounced on many different websites. No Biblical miracle has ever been proven and the many anachronisms and contradictions in the Bible are exactly what we would expect from an uninspired, human writing.

[serapha]

Is there any reason to believe that the Bible couldn't include unreliable stories? Well, contrary to what Ken thinks, no, there is no reason to believe that the ancient Jewish authors were any less human than other ancient writers. Ken's Macht study has been soundly trounced on many different websites. No Biblical miracle has ever been proven and the many anachronisms and contradictions in the Bible are exactly what we would expect from an uninspired, human writing.



Hi there!

:hi:

It would probably be to your benefit to post your concerns on the inerrancy of the Bible on a forum for that purpose. This forum is not a forum for the discussion of the inerrancy of the Bible and your opinion of "an uninspired, human writing".

~serapha~

[bandecoot]

Hi there!

:hi:

It would probably be to your benefit to post your concerns on the inerrancy of the Bible on a forum for that purpose. This forum is not a forum for the discussion of the inerrancy of the Bible and your opinion of "an uninspired, human writing".

~serapha~


In this instance it is. the OP (long since vanished, thank the cat) asked for evidence for an event that has NO evidence for it ever having happened.

Arguments from him later on innerancy allows for refutations of just that.

As you are a fellow archaeologist I allow some lattitude in your requests. But In this instance the OP made stupid comments based on spurious hypothesis. He gets no mercy at all.

Yours truly

Bandecoot (Tweb barracks lawyer)

[Bubbahotep]

Serapha,

bandecoot has already made the point and I will only reiterate. I was responding directly to what Ken DeMyer, the author of the OP of this thread, wrote. Therefore, if you really feel like being the policeman for this thread and keeping out any discussion of inerrancy you need to tell that to Ken. If he posts about that in this forum then I consider it to be fair game.

[ArchaicGuy]

Hi there!

:hi:

It would probably be to your benefit to post your concerns on the inerrancy of the Bible on a forum for that purpose. This forum is not a forum for the discussion of the inerrancy of the Bible and your opinion of "an uninspired, human writing".

~serapha~ Serapha you might like to check out this website: www.kivits.com/Jashar1 (http://www.kivits.com/Jashar1) This is an english translation of the Book of Jashar. It mentions the Egyptian Pharaoh that enslaved the Hebrews Melul reigned for 94 years. That ruler has been identified as Pepi 2. It also mentions that when Pepi 2 was eight years old an african pygmy was presented to his court. The account of the Pygmy is mentioned in the funeral text in the Tomb of Harkhuf governor of Aswan.

[serapha]

Serapha you might like to check out this website: www.kivits.com/Jashar1 (http://www.kivits.com/Jashar1) This is an english translation of the Book of Jashar. It mentions the Egyptian Pharaoh that enslaved the Hebrews Melul reigned for 94 years. That ruler has been identified as Pepi 2. It also mentions that when Pepi 2 was eight years old an african pygmy was presented to his court. The account of the Pygmy is mentioned in the funeral text in the Tomb of Harkhuf governor of Aswan.


Hi there!

:hi:

Well, I guess I'm impressed. But, exactly ....what is the evidence that what is posted at that site is the book of Jasher from the biblical reference? Mercy, I thought the book of Jasher was "lost"... and there it is ...


The proof must be in the record books somewhere, so... source please.


~thanks~

[bandecoot]

Hi there!

:hi:

Well, I guess I'm impressed. But, exactly ....what is the evidence that what is posted at that site is the book of Jasher from the biblical reference? Mercy, I thought the book of Jasher was "lost"... and there it is ...


The proof must be in the record books somewhere, so... source please.


~thanks~


When I click on that link I get "404 not found" did you even click the link?

[shunyadragon]

Hi there!

:hi:

Well, I guess I'm impressed. But, exactly ....what is the evidence that what is posted at that site is the book of Jasher from the biblical reference? Mercy, I thought the book of Jasher was "lost"... and there it is ...


The proof must be in the record books somewhere, so... source please.


~thanks~

It is true that the 'Book of Jasher' is considered a lost book of the Bible, which is quoted in the Bible. Unfortunately the copy promoted by the Rosicrucians is not likely the original book.

[serapha]

When I click on that link I get "404 not found" did you even click the link?


:idea:


http://www.kivits.com/Jashar1.htm


~serapha~

[bandecoot]

:idea:


http://www.kivits.com/Jashar1.htm


~serapha~


Thankee serapha. Interesting text. I am inclined to accept it as an older version of genesis. For one reason alone it fills in may of the bits in the version we have about Nimrod ...that sort of thing.

The septaguint say "and nimrod was a mighty hunter....." then it goes on to something else. The reader is left wondering why the author even bothered to include that bit. Nimrod was a mighty hunter....and? .... whats the rest of the story?

Abram left the fertile cresent? Why? Now we see as an exiled king with his court and entourage.

Plus it gives specific names to Egyptian kings. something we can confirm, deny or More importantly to discover.

Ooh a reason why Lot was living in Sodom in the first place, I always wondered about that.

The reason The men of sodom were punished? Thats unusual, not for buggery, but for a lack of hospitality and outright cruelty to the poor. Now That ties into to other aspects of the Torah we have now.


I'm at chapter 33 and I have found a number of coffin nails for Nicean inerrancy.


Are you sure you want this out there and in the hands of an atheist? I have to say its a much more compelling read than what we have now. I dont believe a word of it, but I can see it being recited around fires and in palaces.

Much like the fragment recently found that adds humour to the Ilias ....it seems the fleet got lost and laid siege to the wrong city.

This text has as much validity historically as Torah ... but its a much better read. I hope its authentic. It will turn apologetics upside down and inside out if it is.


The Christian Church could use a shake up. :)

[FreezBee]

The Christian Church could use a shake up. :)

I thought so myself many years ago, but I'm much less sure today - do we really want to know what'll ceawl out if we gave the chruch a few shake ups?

Anyway, what's the story about this text. Going to the front page of the site, we find that Jos Kivits is a well-qualified painter of the best Dutch traditions. That's all very fine, if you are interested in that (and you should be!), but why has the Book of Jashar ended up at his site?


- FreezBee

[ArchaicGuy]

It is true that the 'Book of Jasher' is considered a lost book of the Bible, which is quoted in the Bible. Unfortunately the copy promoted by the Rosicrucians is not likely the original book. The Book of Jasher promoted by the Rosicrucians is a forgery. They say that Jasher was a man. The one I posted is the Book of Yashar (Scroll of the Upright) from the Midrash. Is this the Book of Yashar mentioned in the Tanach? Maybe? www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org) has a version of the Book of Yashar as well as the writings of Josephus. The Book of Yashar mentions that Joseph was 110 years old when he died. Jospehus in his Antiquities of the Jews Book 2, I think, also mentions Joseph was 110 years old when he died. Josephus must of had The Book of Yashar for reference material for his Antiquites of the Jews?

[bandecoot]

I thought so myself many years ago, but I'm much less sure today - do we really want to know what'll ceawl out if we gave the chruch a few shake ups?

Anyway, what's the story about this text. Going to the front page of the site, we find that Jos Kivits is a well-qualified painter of the best Dutch traditions. That's all very fine, if you are interested in that (and you should be!), but why has the Book of Jashar ended up at his site?


- FreezBee


I have no idea what the story is about this text. it just reads a lot better than the ones we have. as I say i dont believe it but it does fill many gaps in the OT.

Why not add it to make the fiction complete?

[kendemyer]

Bubbahotep,

You wrote:

Now, the fact is that while lawyers may presume innocence it clearly doesn't work that way with scientists and proper history follows scientific methodology. This is simply due to the fact that we know that people often write down things that are not 100% true, whether through confusion, delusion or artifice.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



This comment makes me laugh. You mean to say that lying is not a problem according to the courts?

-----------

You also wrote:

Christians want us to accept all of the miraculous events of the Bible. Yet are they willing to admit as equally believable all of the other fantastic and miraculous stories presented in ancient writings? Many of them, if accepted, would serve to support the claims of non-Christian religions. Are the Christians willing to allow that?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



Did you show the miraculous accounts are comparable from a legal or historical viewpoint (historical immediacy, archaeological corroboration, manuscript evidence, eyewitnesses, etc.? Do those books have multiple cases of fulfilled prophecy like the Bible (see earlier Professor Stoner resource)?

----------

You also wrote:

Well, it doesn't even matter because there is a very good reason why historians don't accept everything as fact that is written in a genuine ancient manuscript. This is because often we have multiple ancient accounts talking about the same event, or time period, and they conflict.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



You mean in a court of law there are not slightly differing or differing testimonies?

You also wrote:

So, what do the Egyptian historical records tell us of this period of time? They provide no evidence for the Biblical story of the Exodus.

Historically do the Egyptians record there defeats or are they silent?

Here is what Glenn Miller wrote:



"Ruling elites also seem to have an 'arrogance' problem. They are known to "edit down" accounts of their rival predecessors (e.g., they 'scratch out' their accomplishments on memorials), 'edit up' accounts of their genetic predecessors (e.g., make their ancestors into deities), and omit material that is not flattering to them (e.g., boast about winning a battle when they had lost the war).

For example, Ramases II (likely pharaoh of the Exodus) was one of the kings who vigorously pursued this [OT:PTLTR:224]:

"Negatively, the Ramesside kings were content simply to destroy the names and memory of the Aten kings wherever possible (restoring the names of Amun and the gods)..."

quoted from: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html





I would also point you to the historian David Hackett Fischer's rule concerning arguments from silence:

"Evidence must always be affirmative." Negative evidence is no evidence at all.

--------------


You also wrote:

Well, the earliest evidence we have for the Bible's account of the Exodus story is the mid-to-late first millenium B.C., many, many centuries after the date of the Exodus.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



You never demonstrated this contention.

---------------


You also wrote:

Well, contrary to what Ken thinks, no, there is no reason to believe that the ancient Jewish authors were any less human than other ancient writers.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



You are setting up a strawman here. The question is not whether the authors were human but whether they were divinely inspired.

-----------


You also wrote:


Ken's Macht study has been soundly trounced on many different websites.

First of all it is Dr. Macht. Please have the decency to give a Johns Hopkins researcher with many accomplishments the title he deserves. Dr. Macht earned it. Here is a listing of Dr. Machts accomplishments and they are many: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Macht

Secondly, you never demonstrated that the Dr. Macht study which stated that unclean animals were more toxic than clean animals (for details on the study see: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_foreknowledge ) cited in a Johns Hopkins publication has been soundly trounced. Dr. Macht's toxicology method he used in his study was cited in the journal Science and he said it was particularly good for detecting zoological toxins.

--------------

You also wrote:

.....many anachronisms and contradictions in the Bible are exactly what we would expect from an uninspired, human writing.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



You never showed this to be true but merely stated it. Where is you Bible exegesis? I failed to see any Bible contradictions in which you did analysis using the factors such as Hebrew/Greek translations, historical/cultural context, limits of the passage, contextual considerations, etc.

[kendemyer]

Bubbahotep (addendum),

You wrote:

Now, the fact is that while lawyers may presume innocence it clearly doesn't work that way with scientists and proper history follows scientific methodology. This is simply due to the fact that we know that people often write down things that are not 100% true, whether through confusion, delusion or artifice.

Do you have any historians saying that historians presume everything to be a lie in written records until proven innocent?

[shunyadragon]

Did you show the miraculous accounts are comparable from a legal or historical viewpoint (historical immediacy, archaeological corroboration, manuscript evidence, eyewitnesses, etc.? Do those books have multiple cases of fulfilled prophecy like the Bible (see earlier Professor Stoner resource)?

This is basically false today in our legal system, and the Dover case is a good example. Miraculous accounts are not considered comparable from a legal or historical view point.

Can you cite any legal case in the US courts in recent history where miraculous accounts were accepted as adaquate testimony?

Can you cite any archeological corroboration that support a miraculous event in the past?


These two question are sufficient for now for you to answer to support your assertions.

First of all it is Dr. Macht. Please have the decency to give a Johns Hopkins researcher with many accomplishments the title he deserves. Dr. Macht earned it. Here is a listing of Dr. Machts accomplishments and they are many: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Macht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Macht[/quote)
Secondly, you never demonstrated that the Dr. Macht study which stated that unclean animals were more toxic than clean animals (for details on the study see: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_foreknowledge ) cited in a Johns Hopkins publication has been soundly trounced. Dr. Macht's toxicology method he used in his study was cited in the journal Science and he said it was particularly good for detecting zoological toxins.

Dr. Macht's work does not meet contemporary standards of scientific research on toxicology. I will gladly address this issue in another thread if you would like. I have a copy of the article describing his work on file. His methods are no longer considered adaquate, because they failed to identify and test for the toxins involved and his tests did not involve animals. His work would not be conclusive, because there are animals such as deep sea fish like Tuna that are historically known to accumulate mercury and are toxic and considered clean by the Torah. Your sources are a little old. Could you cite more recent research that has replicated Macht's work using more modern methods of toxocology?

[kendemyer]

Bandecoot,


You wrote:

There quite a few Stelae from other contries that mention trade agreements with an economically strong Egypt for example.

The pottery seriation charts for Egypt have no embarrsaing gaps in them. There are no depictions of mass burials in any tomb so far found.


In short There is no possible way Egypt could have lost half its population in a day and no record of it be made anywhere.

There was no 40 year desolation, following Nebbuchadnezzars supposed invasion. The pottery that was getting broken and discarded was being used by someone. However Cambyses very real invasion did leave traces in the AR.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=42693&page=6&pp=16



Thank you for your ill supported assertions.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shunyadragon,

A few comments:

1. I stand by my previous comments about Dr. Macht's study. Dr. Macht wrote in the prestigious journal Science that the toxicology method used was particularly good for testing zoological/animal toxins.

2. I found your comments about miracles weak. Get back to me when you explain where the universe came from.

I would also state that the current materialist explanation for the origin of the species is in shambles.


I cite:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Sam Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an 'RNA world' into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem." - Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81.


"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine), "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138.


"Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through." - Phillip E. Johnson, Essay: "Evolution And Christian Faith"


"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14).


"There are a number of problems with hypothetical schemes capable of producing rapid, large, coherent changes in phenotypes. Equally large immediate changes in the genotype might be needed, and any large change in genotype or phenotype must surely be sufficiently disruptive to be lethal. And where would a large change in a phenotype or genotype come from? Moreover, suppose an oddity were to be produced, how would a population be established and maintained?" (K.S. Thomson, "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, September-October 1982, pp.529-531, p.530)


"All scholarly subjects seem to go through cycles, from periods when most of the answers seem to be known to periods when no one is sure that even the questions are right. Such is the case for evolutionary biology. Twenty years ago Mayr, in his Animal Species and Evolution, seemed to have shown that if evolution is a jigsaw puzzle, then at least all the edge pieces were in place. But today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is both troubled from without by the nagging insistencies of antiscientists and nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery-speciation itself. In looking over recent literature in and around the field of evolutionary theory, I am struck by the necessity to reexamine the simpler foundations of the subject, to distinguish carefully between what we know and what we merely think we know. The first and strongest of our critics to be answered should be ourselves." - K.S. Thomson, "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, September-October 1982, p. 529.

3. Archaeology greatly corroborates the Bible and serves as a refutation against skeptical speculation.

I cite:

"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized."

- Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University


"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge...

It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge."

- Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum


"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."

- Sir William Ramsey, eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study


Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

- Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist

[bandecoot]

Bandecoot,


You wrote:



Thank you for your ill supported assertions.


Oh do forgive me great scholar, I simply assumed you would be familiar with

The temptation seal (British Museum cat ANE89326)
Tthe Atrahasis Epic
The Statue of Idri Mi
The Yapahu letter
the ramessid statuarury
merneptah stele
Kurkh stele
The black Obelisk

Or the other 52 Items listed in the British Museum as being related to the Bible directly.

Or indeed that you might have read the rest of this thread where I list many things that dispute the OT from both the historical and Archaeological records.

You dolt! I list my sources and even give ISBN for them, it is hardly my fault if you cant read.

[kendemyer]

Bandecoot,

I hope you were not trying to overturn Biblical Christianity and start the world's first atheist revival with your list in your last post. If so, I think you will be disappointed.

In short, I still find your assertions uncompelling.

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon,

A few comments:

1. I stand by my previous comments about Dr. Macht's study. Dr. Macht wrote in the prestigious journal Science that the toxicology method used was particularly good for testing zoological/animal toxins.

Old references

I asked can you cite any more recent research than Macht?

The answer is apparently no.

2. I found your comments about miracles weak. Get back to me when you explain where the universe came from.

3. Archaeology greatly corroborates the Bible and serves as a refutation against skeptical speculation.

I cite:

"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized."

- Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University


"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge...

It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge."

- Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum


"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."

- Sir William Ramsey, eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study


Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

- Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist

Apparently the best you can do is slective quote mining from old sources and you are unable to address these two questions.

Can you cite any legal case in the US courts in recent history where miraculous accounts were accepted as adaquate testimony?


Can you cite any archeological corroboration that support a miraculous event in the past?

[kendemyer]

shunyadragon,

Archaeology is continueing to corroborate the Bible.

I cite:

Edom Was There
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=53758


If you have any further doubts about the Bible in regards to archaeology I suggest reading Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

Here is a review of Kitchen's book:

Review: On the Reliability of the Old Testament
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=20788

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon,

Archaeology is continueing to corroborate the Bible.

I cite:

Edom Was There
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=53758


If you have any further doubts about the Bible in regards to archaeology I suggest reading Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

Here is a review of Kitchen's book:

Review: On the Reliability of the Old Testament
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=20788

I have read those and they do not answer the specific questions I gave you which reflected claims you made in previous posts. Argument by web link is not acceptable in Tweb. The following questions remai unanswered.

Can you cite any legal case in the US courts in recent history where miraculous accounts were accepted as adaquate testimony?


Can you cite any archeological corroboration that support a miraculous event in the past?

[serapha]

Can you cite any archeological corroboration that support a miraculous event in the past?[/i][/b]



Tabgha in Israel, the mosaic of the fish and loaves.



~serapha~

[bandecoot]

Tabgha in Israel, the mosaic of the fish and loaves.



~serapha~


Oh I see, a depiction of 2 common foods is proof of a miracle? What it is proof of is that someone had enough money to have a mosiac floor laid.

What is the dating for the floor? Is that known? What items found in context show this date?

In any case I see your crude loaves and fishes and raise you scraps left over from a meal, which curiously your pic does not show. Thus not actually showing the real miracle which is that there was more scraps left over than there was food initially

This one is from a triclinium in Pompeii.

[shunyadragon]

Tabgha in Israel, the mosaic of the fish and loaves.



~serapha~

Yes, I know of it and I have been there and took the same picture. I have forgotten the date of the construction, but it is fairly late in church history, and yes it is a depiction of the the Biblical miracle story, but no it is not evidence. It is late enough in church history that it would no more be evidence than if someone made the same mosiac today. In fact this was done in my parents home town church.

[bandecoot]

Yes, I know of it and I have been there and took the same picture. I have forgotten the date of the construction, but it is fairly late in church history, and yes it is a depiction of the the Biblical miracle story, but no it is not evidence. It is late enough in church history that it would no more be evidence than if someone made the same mosiac today. In fact this was done in my parents home town church.


Its a Byzantine church floor mosaic.

This Byzantine mosaic is preserved under a modern church today, but it was once part of a church which commemorated Jesus' feeding of the 5000.

The Byzantine pilgrims were mistaken in locating this miracle here because Scripture says that it took place in a remote place by Bethsaida. The artist was apparently unacquainted with the fish in the lake as none have two dorsal fins.

From this website. http://www.bibleplaces.com/tabgha.htm

Yep thats some mighty good proof of a miracle. A mosaic that by definition had to have been laid a good 400 years AFTER the supposed miracle and in the wrong place.

End of answer to shunyadragon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum to Serapha.

The word, my dear serepha, Byzantine refers to the post partition Eastern Roman Empire. That event is usually associated with AD395. I certainly hope you were not simply expecting us to think that that mosaic was contemporary with the events? That would be .....deceptive, is that the word im looking for?

No I am sure that you expected us to do our own independant searches and determine that the mosaic was laid by people who believed that the event happened. Because as an answer to the question it was a pretty sloppy answer.

[serapha]

Its a Byzantine church floor mosaic.

This Byzantine mosaic is preserved under a modern church today, but it was once part of a church which commemorated Jesus' feeding of the 5000.

The Byzantine pilgrims were mistaken in locating this miracle here because Scripture says that it took place in a remote place by Bethsaida. The artist was apparently unacquainted with the fish in the lake as none have two dorsal fins.

From this website. http://www.bibleplaces.com/tabgha.htm

Yep thats some mighty good proof of a miracle. A mosaic that by definition had to have been laid a good 400 years AFTER the supposed miracle and in the wrong place.

End of answer to shunyadragon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum to Serapha.

The word, my dear serepha, Byzantine refers to the post partition Eastern Roman Empire. That event is usually associated with AD395. I certainly hope you were not simply expecting us to think that that mosaic was contemporary with the events? That would be .....deceptive, is that the word im looking for?

No I am sure that you expected us to do our own independant searches and determine that the mosaic was laid by people who believed that the event happened. Because as an answer to the question it was a pretty sloppy answer.

Well,


You did pick use a good source. Todd Bolen has great photographs and he writes well... Of course, if you had asked nicely, I would have added information... and I wouldn't have needed to quote from a site to provide the information.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of each person and every word that passes on this forum.

Have a good day! God loves you and so do I.

:teeth:


~serapha~


oops! forgot to add... again, my friend, I'm not going to meet your low standards... get out of the gutter if you want future replies...


I truly believe that people who have received an adequate education don't have to resort to the tactics I see here. You do agree, don't you? That educated people do learn to be effective communicators without such tactics?

[bandecoot]

Well,


You did pick use a good source. Todd Bolen has great photographs and he writes well... Of course, if you had asked nicely, I would have added information... and I wouldn't have needed to quote from a site to provide the information.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of each person and every word that passes on this forum.

Have a good day! God loves you and so do I.

:teeth: ~serapha~


You were asked a specific question, you answered it with a questionable artefact. You provided no information whatsoever. Apart from a name.


The fact that you have been bene Y'israel is moot. So have I. I quoted from a site because that is pretty much required here. This Is an Adversarial board. Prove your point, back it up or lose your argument. Much like you have done here.




oops! forgot to add... again, my friend, I'm not going to meet your low standards... get out of the gutter if you want future replies...


I truly believe that people who have received an adequate education don't have to resort to the tactics I see here. You do agree, don't you? That educated people do learn to be effective communicators without such tactics?


You are not my friend. I dont know you, don't really want to and after this probably will never have any contact with you. Thank the IPU.

Your silly attempt to cast aspersions at my education has already failed, the people that count know me. They are my employers.

When you actually communicate accurate information. I might just take you seriously. So far you have said nothing. In fact you have attempted to decieve people.

The passive/aggressive thing does not work on me, it just annoys me and I go for the throat.

Please feel free to hit the report button. Bliss ninny.

[Ryokan]

You were asked a specific question, you answered it with a questionable artefact. You provided no information whatsoever. Apart from a name.


The fact that you have been bene Y'israel is moot. So have I. I quoted from a site because that is pretty much required here. This Is an Adversarial board. Prove your point, back it up or lose your argument. Much like you have done here.







You are not my friend. I dont know you, don't really want to and after this probably will never have any contact with you. Thank the IPU.

Your silly attempt to cast aspersions at my education has already failed, the people that count know me. They are my employers.

When you actually communicate accurate information. I might just take you seriously. So far you have said nothing. In fact you have attempted to decieve people.

The passive/aggressive thing does not work on me, it just annoys me and I go for the throat.

Please feel free to hit the report button. Bliss ninny.
You got the exactly right sort of venom. :wink:

[Red Wine]

Hi Ken,

I must say that your uncritical acceptance of anything written on a website that you believe supports a 15th century Exodus is highly amusing.

All that these links do is to prove that you are not very familiar with the subject.

Rather than reply to every single blindly accepted claim, I think it would be good to actually find out how much YOU actually know about the subject.

To start with Ken, can you tell me if you have any *DIRECT* evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE?

That is *DIRECT* evidence Ken, I trust that you know what that means.

Cheers.

Brian.
Hi

I'm New here.

Can BrianJ please give any 'direct' evidence that there were no Israelites in Egypt at that time mentioned? Thanks.

[Red Wine]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for confirming that you have no direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE.

Well at least the readers will know exactly how little you actually know about the subject.

Cheers Ken, I knew you wouldnt let me down.

Brian.
As a casual observer it seems Brian's laconicity and inability to accept any onus of proof means playing Devil's Advocate has got to be the easiest job since Jim Mouse President of the Mice&Cheese Industry announced cutbacks to Cheese Supervisors on the grounds that the company middle management was getting 'top-heavy'.

But then again what do I know??

[Red Wine]

Here is something I will share that I thought was helpful:





Addendum

Bandecoot writes:



I hope this is not an argument from silence. Here is what the historian David Beckett Fischer states:

Highlight of Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) "Evidence must always be affirmative." Negative evidence is no evidence at all.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

(see: Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)



Now there is direct evidence that the Jews were in Egypt (see my previous post regarding the Bible being used as direct evidence).
good reply Ken.

[Red Wine]

And here is something from memory:According to my best guess, tornadoes were common in Kansas around the time that Baum and Langley sets the Wizard of Oz.kedemyer, to argue the historicity of the Bible by finding historical correlations is, in my opinion, silly at best. All legend and folklore is rooted in the real world. A drought in Egypt no more confirms the Bible than does a tornado in Kansas confirm the Munchkins.
perhaps 4,000 years from now they may believe you are a poet and that Baum and Langley who I've never erd of are figments of your own imagination...what with you living so close to the literature and all, but with 6000ADers knowing 'oh so much better'.

[squall]

The first pages were very interesting and I personnaly thank Kedemyer for all the links. My 2 cents : http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp (excellent work of Jacobovici).

I suggest we avoid the useless posts of the last pages of this thread. All we can do is corroborate the bible when we talk about the lives of small semite tribe 3500y ago.

[YeshuaMarine]

Great evidence (I am fully supportive). However, I'm interested in addressing one of my former professor's propositions:

"There is ample evidence that the Old Testament was compiled well after the Babylonian exile, probably at the behest of a king (Ahaz [Ahab]or his son Hezekiah.) There's some good material about how much of the early books, up through the Book of Daniel, are actually versions of older Canaanite stories, some of which were found on clay tablets about forty, fifty years ago. You might want to find an article from Harper's Magzine called "False Testament." It's about three or four years old, but it might be on line. It's about the debate on Biblical archaeology and focus on Israel Finklestein, who is the leader figure in contending that the vast majority of the Old Testament is legend, myth & fiction. Similarly, check on Bart Erdman, the scholar who wrote "Misquoting Jesus" which raises the point that Jesus is also a legend or a myth. Lots of interesting turmoil there."

Sorry to shift the subject a bit, but this is interrelated.

[squall]

Great evidence (I am fully supportive). However, I'm interested in addressing one of my former professor's propositions:

"There is ample evidence that the Old Testament was compiled well after the Babylonian exile, probably at the behest of a king (Ahaz [Ahab]or his son Hezekiah.) There's some good material about how much of the early books, up through the Book of Daniel, are actually versions of older Canaanite stories, some of which were found on clay tablets about forty, fifty years ago. You might want to find an article from Harper's Magzine called "False Testament." It's about three or four years old, but it might be on line. It's about the debate on Biblical archaeology and focus on Israel Finklestein, who is the leader figure in contending that the vast majority of the Old Testament is legend, myth & fiction. Similarly, check on Bart Erdman, the scholar who wrote "Misquoting Jesus" which raises the point that Jesus is also a legend or a myth. Lots of interesting turmoil there."

Sorry to shift the subject a bit, but this is interrelated.
I think this has always been said earlier in the thread. And the topic is not the historicity of the hebrew bible but the available sources/evidences for a 15th century exodus. I tend to like Finkelstein because he's pushing the Iron Age I and goes into the direction of the revisionits of the egyptian chronology. By making the United Monarchy to disappear, he (without wanting it) make the convetinal chronology look dubious.

As for the date of the compilation of the OT, there is also ample evidences that it was composed and canonised in three steps :
- when the israelites enter Canaan (without needing to talk about a mosaic exodus)
- during Solomon
- and finally after the exile
Its very close to the jewish traditions (Moses + Joshua + Prophets).

[ForHimAlone]

OK..at the risk of sounding like a nut I will go out on a limb and answer this post question by saying that I believe one of the most compelling arguments for an early Exodus dating lies in mathematics...found in the Great Pyramid of Giza.

To fully grasp the force of this arguement one would need to read E. Raymond Capt's Great Pyramid Decoded and carefully examine the means to obtain the "datum line" from the "scored lines" found on the ceiling of the first descending passageway where it meets the first ascending passageway, which happened to have been blocked by three, great red granite "plugs."

You'd also have to know that the designers of the Great Pyramid aligned the 50 story monument to true north and that the first descending passage was aligned to the then North Star, Alcyone, in the constellation of Draconis.

The Great Pyramid gives us a date of 1450 B.C. for the Exodus, a date closely approximated by others, who have given dates +/- this date only by a few years.

Whoever built the Great Pyramid knew more about astronomy, mathematics, geography, physics, geometry and engineering than any one until modern history. The pyramid inch is the basis of the English and Brittish inch and is based on a pole-to-pole measurement of the earth.

I have heard, although I have yet to confirm it, that archaeology says the Pharoah (Ramses) who followed Moses to the Red Sea perished and that his dynasty was not continued thereafter but I can't at the moment acquire a source for this claim.

I am, however, quite impressed with Capt's mathematic observations on the Pyramid, which he did independently, and also in comparison with the work previously done by Davidson and Rutherford.

See Isaiah 19.19 This gives the coordinates of where the Pyramid stands; its gematria in Hebrew also equals the Pyramid's height!

[Jayhawker Soule]

From William Dever's What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0802847943&itm=2):Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.

- (pg. 97)

After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.

- (pg. 99)

Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...

- (pg. 121)

[squall]

The New Chronology achieves two things:

It removes roughly 300 years from a late and poorly-documented period of Egyptian history, thereby removing Ramses II from the 13th Century BC to the 10th, and breaking the synchronism between his successor Merneptah and the Exodus;
It returns the length of the interval from the Exodus to the time of Solomon to almost 500 years by restoring the 200 years dropped from the period of the Judges.
As a result of the first change, the start of the Iron Age shifts down in time towards us. The glories of the reign of Solomon, nowhere discoverable in the Iron Age, are manifest from the Late Bronze Age, but are attributed to the Canaanites; the impoverished state attributed to his reign is really that of the period of exile in Babylon.

And as a result of the second change, the Exodus and Conquest are shifted from the start of the Iron Age, back to the transition from the Middle Bronze Age.to the Late Bronze Age, around 1450 BC. This transition struck a sort of punctuation mark into Canaanite history, with a wave of unexplained destruction sweeping through city after city, apparently some centuries before the time of Joshua.

In 1978, John Bimson (a colleague of David Rohl) published Redating the Exodus and Conquest. Bimson showed that the wave of destruction that overtook the pre-Israelite cities of Canaan at that time matched closely in detail with the destructions described in the book of Joshua.

"On the one hand," (he wrote) "we have a collection of traditions concerning the Israelite destruction of several cities, but in many instances [archaeologists can find] no cities for the Israelites to destroy". On the other hand we have clear archaeological evidence for the fall of almost all the cities involved in these traditions at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, but no attackers to whom we can logically attribute their destruction.

"I have tried to show that the Conquest and the end of the Middles Bronze Age cities [are] the same event. Their identity has not been recognised because, through a series of unfortunate scholarly 'accidents', the Exodus has been dated too late and the end of the Middle Bronze Age has been dated too early."

The New Chronology, though not without its problems, mostly puts all this to right, however.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The New Chronology, though not without its problems, mostly puts all this to right, however.Nonsense. What we see here is little more than pathetic manipulation in a failed effort to prop up literalism.

Go to the wonderful museum in Jerusalem. You will find a wealth of material about the Levant, but you will search in vain for your Exodus.

[squall]

Pathetic manipulation. :baby:

Please talk about the facts instead of your old anti-religious rethoric. David Rohl, famous NC defender and egyptologist, is agnostic by the way.

[Bubbahotep]

Pathetic manipulation. :baby:

Please talk about the facts instead of your old anti-religious rethoric. David Rohl, famous NC defender and egyptologist, is agnostic by the way.

He's a charlatan and a pseudo-scientist, ignoring the mountain of evidence against his own theories. Check out the reasons to toss out his "New Chronology" here:
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html

Rohl is rejected by the Egyptological community and only survives due to the financial considerations of Christians and Jews like yourself. You guys, with precious little understanding of archaeology or Egyptology, buy his books and watch his films and keep him going, because you guys are desperate for any "evidence" that supports your Bible, even if it is completely fallacious and invented.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please talk about the facts instead of your old anti-religious rethoric. You are ignorant of the facts and simply cherry-pick your "theories" to support your naive suppositions. If and when you wish to "talk about facts", you might consider first acquiring some. May I suggest ...Exploring Exodus (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0805210636&itm=1)by Nahum M. Sarna
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0192804588&TXT=Y&itm=1)by Ian Shaw (editor)
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0691000867&TXT=Y&itm=4)by Donald B. Redford
Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0664223133&itm=1)by George E. Mendenhall
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0385425902&itm=8)by Amihai Mazar
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0684869136&itm=1)by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It? (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=080282126X&itm=3), and
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come from? (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0802809758&itm=5)by William G. Dever
The Israelites (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0800634268&itm=1)by B.S.J. Isserlin
Archaeology and the Bible (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0415159946&itm=3)by John C. Laughlin
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0674091760&itm=3), and
From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0801865336&itm=6)by Frank Moore Cross
Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0195167686&itm=4), and
Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=080283972X&itm=5)by Mark S. Smith
Babylonians (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0520202228&TXT=Y&itm=1)by H.W.F. Saggs
Canaanites (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=080613108X&itm=3)by Jonathan N. Tub
The Pentateuch (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0385497881&itm=1)by Joseph Blenkinsopp
How the Bible Became a Book: Textualization in Ancient Israel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0385497881&itm=1)by William M. SchniedewindAs for childish ad hominems about my "old anti-religious rethoric", if the only way you can support your religion is by wallowng in silly fringe science, the problem is yours not mine.

[NJon]

This is fairly recent:

http://theexodusdecoded.com/vm.jsp

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is fairly recent:

http://theexodusdecoded.com/vm.jspFrom The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1150885905100):
Documentary sets new date for Exodus
Jul. 3, 2006 0:15 | Updated Jul. 3, 2006 4:57 by ETGAR LEFKOVITS

The Exodus Decoded, a two-hour documentary by award-winning Israeli-born filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, suggests that the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt as recounted in the Bible occurred around 1500 BCE, about 230 years before the date most commonly accepted by contemporary historians.

The 10 plagues that smote the Egyptians, according to the Bible, are explained in the documentary to be the result of a volcanic eruption on a Greek island that occurred 3,500 years ago.

< -- snip -- >

None of the relics - or arguments - cited in the made-for-TV, state-of-the-art film, which is the result of six years of research, has been accepted by archeologists or any prominent archeological institution as proof for Jacobovici's theory.

And Jacobovici, who has produced an array of documentaries over the last two decades on subjects ranging from suicide bombing in Israel to the ebola virus to the global sex trade, readily agrees that he is no archeologist. But he asserts that this makes him no less qualified to investigate historical facts.

"I bring with me the same skills you bring to any investigation, whether it is sex traffic, politics, terror or the Biblical archeological story," said the two-time Emmy award-winner, denouncing "minimalists" who say that the Exodus - and the Bible - is a fantastic fairy tale.Similarly, he brings with him the same skills and capacity for unbridled speculation that served to create such flights of fancy as the Da Vinci Code.

As for his petulant opposition to the so-called "minimalists", Mr. Jacobovici possesses neither the credentials nor the credibility one should require of someone judging archaeological positions.

[NJon]

From The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1150885905100):
Documentary sets new date for Exodus
Jul. 3, 2006 0:15 | Updated Jul. 3, 2006 4:57 by ETGAR LEFKOVITS

The Exodus Decoded, a two-hour documentary by award-winning Israeli-born filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, suggests that the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt as recounted in the Bible occurred around 1500 BCE, about 230 years before the date most commonly accepted by contemporary historians.

The 10 plagues that smote the Egyptians, according to the Bible, are explained in the documentary to be the result of a volcanic eruption on a Greek island that occurred 3,500 years ago.

< -- snip -- >

None of the relics - or arguments - cited in the made-for-TV, state-of-the-art film, which is the result of six years of research, has been accepted by archeologists or any prominent archeological institution as proof for Jacobovici's theory.

And Jacobovici, who has produced an array of documentaries over the last two decades on subjects ranging from suicide bombing in Israel to the ebola virus to the global sex trade, readily agrees that he is no archeologist. But he asserts that this makes him no less qualified to investigate historical facts.

"I bring with me the same skills you bring to any investigation, whether it is sex traffic, politics, terror or the Biblical archeological story," said the two-time Emmy award-winner, denouncing "minimalists" who say that the Exodus - and the Bible - is a fantastic fairy tale.Similarly, he brings with him the same skills and capacity for unbridled speculation that served to create such flights of fancy as the Da Vinci Code.

As for his petulant opposition to the so-called "minimalists", Mr. Jacobovici possesses neither the credentials nor the credibility one should require of someone judging archaeological positions.

I never said that I necessarily agreed with his theory, either, though I think it very well could be valid. Brilliant discoveries aren't made only by professional scholars, after all.

I did, however, find it to be quite intriguing.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I never said that I necessarily agreed with his theory, either, though I think it very well could be valid. So what? Surely, given that you are so willing to dismiss widespread scientific concensus, it is all the more legitimate to dismiss your uneducated speculation.

[NJon]

So what? Surely, given that you are so willing to dismiss widespread scientific concensus, it is all the more legitimate to dismiss your uneducated speculation.

I didn't dismiss anything; I merely posted something interesting and relevant in a nonabrasive manner, and you proceed to attack with a term like "uneducated?" Can you not discuss something civilly, without a personal attack? For being born in 1945, you display a degree of maturity that is surpassed by most middle school children.
And if I, in my "uneducated speculation" may venture an induction, it seems that the principle reason that you refuse to even consider the concept of an Exodus having occurred (which is closed-minded and limits knowledge in and of itself, making you a hypocrite by default) likely is the offspring of the fact that you justify your lifestyle per your belief that God does not exist.

The "widespread scientific consensus" was once that the Earth was flat and sat on the back of a turtle. Do you still hold true to that theory, because it was once accepted by almost all of the "scientific" community?

Surely, your vitriol does not defend your case, not does your posting of skewed sources. By all means, personally attack me more so that I can laugh it off.

"So what?" Spoken like a true scholar.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't dismiss anything; I merely posted something interesting and relevant in a nonabrasive manner, and you proceed to attack with a term like "uneducated?" Perhaps: let's see ...

What is implied by saying "I think it very well could be valid" when the "it" under discussion is dismissed by science? Why could they be valid? Why does not scientific consensus agree with you?

Why is it that "None of the relics - or arguments - cited ... has been accepted by archeologists or any prominent archeological institution as proof for Jacobovici's theory"? Do you know why? If so, how could you accept them and still maintain your stance? Conversely, if you do not accept them, what are your reasons for dismissing them. Finally, if you do not know the reasons underpinning current scientific consensus, on what grounds do you reject the characterization of uneducated?

[NJon]

Perhaps: let's see ...

What is implied by saying "I think it very well could be valid" when the "it" under discussion is dismissed by science? Why could they be valid? Why does not scientific consensus agree with you?

Why is it that "None of the relics - or arguments - cited ... has been accepted by archeologists or any prominent archeological institution as proof for Jacobovici's theory"? Do you know why? If so, how could you accept them and still maintain your stance? Conversely, if you do not accept them, what are your reasons for dismissing them. Finally, if you do not know the reasons underpinning current scientific consensus, on what grounds do you reject the characterization of uneducated?

The it under question is a proposal, based on a hypothesis. All scientific proposals have critics to some degree.

Again, I must point out that the scientific community was convinced that the Earth was flat and sat atop a gigantic turtle at one point. It also used to be the scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth, and if someone disagreed, that person was either incarcerated or executed. The general scientific consensus is not necessarily fact. Not to mention, Mr. Jacobovici even admitted that that his theory could have mistakes (I say this because the project is actually composed of several "sub-theories")

I'd also point out that many of the artifacts which Mr. Jacobovici used were/are in the possession of internationally-famed museums and societies, not things that he happened to bring out of nowhere. The parts that he did find were located on-site with official Egyptian dig teams. Thus, how can it be said that they are not valid, when the archaeological community has already approved of them before Mr. Jacobovici even began this project? I recommend that you actually view the documentary and you can see the video footage of these artifacts under lock-and-key by international museums, including one which houses the mummies of ancient Pharaohs. So I don't know where you got that above article from that said otherwise, but a lot of those artifacts were accepted as such before Jacobovici even came onto the scene.

Your characterization of "uneducated" was made simply because you disagree with my point. I'm in the Honors College at my university, among the top of my class, am to be inducted in the national historical honor society early next calender year, and have a pile of academic awards. But I don't go bragging about that sort of thing because it's irrelevant; I am only listing it off now to show that your characterization was unfounded.

I study history, not archeology, but the two are closely related, and I know why such finds are rejected or not rejected. Yet, rejection does not necessarily mean false (see thee above examples about the scientific "consensus"). For that matter, a lack of physical evidence does not mean that something never happened.
Hypothetical: Let's say a global nuclear war breaks out next week, and all evidence that the United States of America ever existed is wiped out. Fast forward about 4,000 years. Some people have suggested that a nation called the United States of America once existed as the world's largest superpower. The general scientific community rejects it, and says that anyone who thinks such a nation did exist is a fool who simply has no understanding of the evidence. Does that mean that the U.S.A. was never here, because people don't believe it was? Of course not. Belief doesn't change reality, nor does a lack of evidence now mean that such evidence never existed.

[NJon]

So I don't know where you got that above article from that said otherwise, but a lot of those artifacts were accepted as such before Jacobovici even came onto the scene.

Pardon me, I seemed to have missed that the first time around: The Jerusalem Post. Interesting that you used a Jewish source for this. In any case, my earlier contention remains as-is.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet, rejection does not necessarily mean false (see thee above examples about the scientific "consensus"). For that matter, a lack of physical evidence does not mean that something never happened.<yawn> This is the same drivel used to prop up every pseudo-scientific claim. Very well - I concede: the Jacobovici hypothesis "very well could be valid" in much the same way as the Davinci Code could "very well could be valid". </yawn>

Pardon me, I seemed to have missed that the first time around: The Jerusalem Post. Interesting that you used a Jewish source for this.Is this antisemitism raising it's ugly head or are you just babbling?

[NJon]

<yawn> This is the same drivel used to prop up every pseudo-scientific claim. Very well - I concede: the Jacobovici hypothesis "very well could be valid" in much the same way as the Davinci Code could "very well could be valid". </yawn>

It's only "pseudo-scientific" because it opposes your view. Since you assume that the Bible cannot possibly be true as your starting point, you seek out anything you can find to desperately try and show otherwise, and make half-hearted attempts to shoot down anything that lends aid to prove your case wrong. That's not very academically-honest or open-minded.


Is this antisemitism raising it's ugly head or are you just babbling?

I'm certainly not an anti-Semite (that was a cheap shot, by the way --- yet again). I just found it odd that after attacking Judaism, you posted a Jewish source. By the way, here is another article on the documentary from The Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885976924&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

As for The DaVinci Code, that's another topic for another thread.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm certainly not an anti-Semite I am pleased to hear that.

I just found it odd that after attacking Judaism, you posted a Jewish source.First, the Jerusalem Post is an Israeli rather than a Judaic newspaper.

Second, the assertion that I have been "attacking Judaism" is contemptible nonsense.

Third, what you find odd and what you find valid says far more about you that about the relevant facts.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Cornell University News Service (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1996/A/199600038.html) - 1996

Cornell Researchers Precisely Date Wood From Ancient Tomb In Turkey

<-- snip -->

Previous research has shown that the major second millenium B.C. eruption of Thera, a volcanic island in the Aegean Sea, had global effects that likely influenced climate patterns as far away as the western United States. Volcanic ash from Thera blocked the sun and caused cooler, wetter weather conditions worldwide. Rings from American bristlecone pine trees revealed extensive frost damage attributable to the eruption.

But in the desert conditions of the Near East, Thera had the opposite effect: it spurred massive growth. Reduced exposure to sunlight and increased soil moisture led to tree rings in juniper, cedar and pine samples from Porsuk, a site in central Turkey, that were three to eight times wider than normal. Porsuk is about 840 kilometers downwind of Thera.

Archaelogists had long believed the Thera eruption had occurred around 1500 B.C., but more recent studies have strongly suggested the eruption occurred earlier, in 1628 B.C.

The "Porsuk event," as Newton calls the growth spurt in the Porsuk trees, was dated to 1628 B.C. -- lending further evidence that this was the year of the Thera eruption.Science 28 April 2006: (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;312/5773/565) Vol. 312. no. 5773, pp. 565 - 569 DOI: 10.1126/science.1125682

Reports

Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700-1400 B.C.

Sturt W. Manning [1,2], Christopher Bronk Ramsey [3], Walter Kutschera [4],
Thomas Higham [3], Bernd Kromer [5], Peter Steier [4], Eva M. Wild [4]

Radiocarbon (carbon-14) data from the Aegean Bronze Age 1700–1400 B.C. show that the Santorini (Thera) eruption must have occurred in the late 17th century B.C. By using carbon-14 dates from the surrounding region, cultural phases, and Bayesian statistical analysis, we established a chronology for the initial Aegean Late Bronze Age cultural phases (Late Minoan IA, IB, and II). This chronology contrasts with conventional archaeological dates and cultural synthesis: stretching out the Late Minoan IA, IB, and II phases by ~100 years and requiring reassessment of standard interpretations of associations between the Egyptian and Near Eastern historical dates and phases and those in the Aegean and Cyprus in the mid–second millennium B.C.

1 Department of Classics, Cornell University, 120 Goldwin Smith Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853–3201, USA.
2 Department of Archaeology, School of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AB, UK.
3 Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK.
4 Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (VERA) Laboratory, Institut für Isotopenforschung und Kernphysik, Universität Wien, Währinger Straße 17, A-1090 Wien, Austria.
5 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik der Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.Science 28 April 2006: (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;312/5773/548) Vol. 312. no. 5773, p. 548 DOI: 10.1126/science.1125087

Brevia

Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627-1600 B.C.

Walter L. Friedrich [1], Bernd Kromer [2], Michael Friedrich [2,3],
Jan Heinemeier [4], Tom Pfeiffer [1], Sahra Talamo [2]

Precise and direct dating of the Minoan eruption of Santorini (Thera) in Greece, a global Bronze Age time marker, has been made possible by the unique find of an olive tree, buried alive in life position by the tephra (pumice and ashes) on Santorini. We applied so-called radiocarbon wiggle-matching to a carbon-14 sequence of tree-ring segments to constrain the eruption date to the range 1627-1600 B.C. with 95.4% probability. Our result is in the range of previous, less precise, and less direct results of several scientific dating methods, but it is a century earlier than the date derived from traditional Egyptian chronologies.

1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus, C.F. Moellers Allé 1120, Denmark.
2 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut fur Umweltphysik, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
3 Institute of Botany, Hohenheim University, D-70593 Stuttgart, Germany.
4 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C Dating Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.

(continued)

[Jayhawker Soule]

From the There Foundation (http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/chronololy/theeruptionoftheradateandimplications)

The Eruption of Thera: Date and Implications

A number of recent archaeological and scientific papers have proposed a 'high', 17th century BC date for the eruption of Thera, and hence for the beginning of the Aegean Late Bronze Age.

At the same time, however, several leading archaeologists have published critical responses to all such proposals, and defended the conventional chronology, which dated the eruption c. 1500 BC. The most generous of the responses, by Cadogan, is prepared to countenance a slightly earlier calendar date for the eruption, but merely by placing the geological event a little earlier in the LM IA ceramic period. In all cases the conventional interpretation of the absolute ceramic chronology, derived from the usual interpretation of correlations with Egypt, is accorded overriding precedence. The radiocarbon evidence is dismissed as yielding too large a date range to be of use, or regarded as compatible with either a high or a low chronology; while various climatic data are rejected as not necessarily associated with the eruption of Thera.

As such a controversy implies, many of the essential issues are not clear-cut. This paper attempts to stand back and assess the relevance, quality and precision of the various classes of data pertaining to the absolute date of the eruption, so as to reach the best solution on the existing evidence. This process of putting the house in order seems an important requirement before consideration is given to the new evidence to be presented at this conference - such as the Oxford AMS dates - in order that the significance of these new data does not merely become lost in the present quagmire.

From a survey of the data by class of evidence, it is concluded that:
The conventional interpretation of the ceramic correlation data is debatable, and a higher interpretation is both possible and plausible; however, overall, the archaeological correlations are not precise and cannot necessitate the conventional chronology.
Despite some technical problems, the statistical analysis of the large set of radiocarbon dates on short-lived samples from Akrotiri shows that they provide the best, most precise evidence currently available, and strongly support a later 17th century BC (and not 16th century BC) date for the later LM IA period.
A range of data reveals a northern-hemisphere-wide climatic event at a similar, later 17th century BC date; but whilst this is suggestive, there is as yet no direct evidence to link it with the eruption of Thera.The existing balance of probabilities must be held to support a later 17th century BC date for the later LM IA eruption of Thera. In turn, the LM IA period must be placed in the 17th century BC. This conclusion has major implications for Cypriot, and hence Near Eastern chronology. Aegean contacts with Europe are also affected. A minor chronological revolution may be at hand. The confirmation of this view, or the spread of only further controversy, may well depend on the series of AMS dates from Oxford and elsewhere. From past radiocarbon dates, and the shape of the calibration curve between c. 1625 - 1525 BC, there appear two possible results: an ambiguous result compatible with both a high and a low chronology, or a result compatible with the 17th century BC radiocarbon analysis presented in this paper. We shall have to wait and see!

INTRODUCTION

For a variety of reasons, direct and indirect, a number of scientific and archaeological papers published in 1987 and 1988 proposed a 'high' 17th century BC date for the Bronze Age eruption of the Thera volcano, and hence for the beginning of the Aegean Late Bronze Age (Betancourt 1987; Hammer et al. 1987; Baillie and Munro 1988; Aitken 1988; Michael and Betancourt 1988a; Manning 1988). Several of these papers took their lead from the earlier arguments of Michael (1976), Kemp and Merrillees (1980) and La Marche and Hirschboeck (1984). At the same time, however, the literature saw several of the leading scholars in the field publish critical responses to all such propositions, and defences of the conventional chronology which dated the eruption at c. 1500 BC (e.g. Betancourt and Weinstein 1976; Warren 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988; Cadogan 1978, 1987; Hankey 1987). In these critiques, both Warren and Cadogan question the necessary relevance of the climatic data, Hankey questions the accuracy of the carbon-14 evidence, and Warren would dismiss the carbon-14 evidence as yielding too large a date range to be of use. In each case the conventional interpretation of the archaeological evidence has been given overriding precedence. Most recently, a scientist, Pyle, has highlighted the view that there is no necessary causal link between the evidence from ice cores and tree rings for a climatic event in the 17th century BC and the eruption of Thera (1989).

No one denies the importance of the Thera date to Aegean archaeology. However, as the existence of such an ongoing controversy implies, many of the essential issues are not clear cut, and are open to a variety of interpretations. Therefore, what appears of greatest utility now is not another partisan argument, nor a detailed recapitulation of all the data so that the point is lost in detail, but rather an attempt to stand back and briefly assess in a non-partisan fashion the relevance, importance, and then implications of the existing body of data for the absolute (calendar) date of the eruption of Thera. Moreover, of relevance in the present context, such a process of putting the house in order is an important requirement before consideration is given to the new evidence to be presented at this conference - such as the Oxford, Simon Fraser, Zürich, Copenhagen and Heidelberg radiocarbon dates - in order that the significance of these data do not merely become lost in the present quagmire.

<-- snip -->

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

From the above discussion three conclusions may be drawn as regards the date of the late LM IA period and the eruption of Thera:
The conventional interpretation of the archaeological evidence is debatable (above; Kemp and Merrillees 1980 versus Warren 1985, etc.), and a higher interpretation is possible (Betancourt 1987; Manning 1988); however, overall, the archaeological correlations are not precise (as often thought), and cannot necessitate the conventional (lower) chronology.
Despite some problems, the radiocarbon data are the best, most precise, evidence currently available, and strongly support a later 17th century BC date for the late LM IA period.
A range of indirect evidence appears suggestive of a similar, later 17th century BC date. The existing balance of probabilities must be held to support a later 17th century BC date for the eruption of Thera. In turn, the LM IA period must be placed in the 17th century BC (as Betancourt 1987; Manning 1988), and a new 'high' Aegean Late Bronze Age chronology is both necessary, and plausible. The question is not fully resolved, but what is clear is that the presumption of a 1500 BCE date is grossly dishonest and characterizes the whole silly business. It's just one more Ron Wyatt in the making.

[NJon]

First, the Jerusalem Post is an Israeli rather than a Judaic newspaper.

How many non-Jews do you know who live in Israel? Israel is the national ethnic home of the Jews. If someone lives in Israel, they're most likely a Jew. I wasn't extrapolating to any unusual bounds.


Second, the assertion that I have been "attacking Judaism" is contemptible nonsense.

You were attacking Judaism. You may define the term "attacking" differently than I, but that makes little difference long-term.


Third, what you find odd and what you find valid says far more about you that about the relevant facts.

Since when can something not be both odd and valid? I'm glad that you're an expert in all fields, including psychological characterization.

[Jayhawker Soule]

You were attacking Judaism.Then you should have no difficulty supplying references substantiating your comment.

In the meantime, do you have any comments regarding the discussion of Thera?

[NJon]

Then you should have no difficulty supplying references substantiating your comment.

My references are your posts on page 9. Take posts 131 and 134, for example.


In the meantime, do you have any comments regarding the discussion of Thera?

Do you expect me to suddenly become a new age chronology apologist? Sorry, friend --- that won't happen. I'm not an archaeologist, as I said. This whole thing began with me simply posting a relevant link of interest, and like flies to honey, the belligerence just came flying at me because the link I posted suggests that the Exodus did in fact happen. And you can't have that, can you?

I even said that I didn't necessarily agree with the theory proposed. You couldn't even accept that (my view). It was relevant to the thread; that's it.

[bandecoot]

My references are your posts on page 9. Take posts 131 and 134, for example.

A compliment about Jerusalems museum (which is very nice BTW) and a list of books constitutes an attack on the Hebrew faith? I am not seeing it.

What is so sancrosact about the Hebrew faith anyway. Jayhawker and I are equal opportunity Ignorers of any God concept, being atheists and all.

Do you expect me to suddenly become a new age chronology apologist? Sorry, friend --- that won't happen. I'm not an archaeologist, as I said. This whole thing began with me simply posting a relevant link of interest, and like flies to honey, the belligerence just came flying at me because the link I posted suggests that the Exodus did in fact happen. And you can't have that, can you?

I even said that I didn't necessarily agree with the theory proposed. You couldn't even accept that (my view). It was relevant to the thread; that's it.


The facts (the stones and bones and shards) are firming up for an alternative to the traditional exodus story.

The sheer Lavatorial logistical argument, proposed by my good self would show that the story as written cannot possibly be true. That was simply a mental exercise.

What Archaeologists and Egyptologists are doing is looking for evidence that Proves the story to be true, they are just not finding it. You may have to adjust your perceptions a bit but it will not totally destroy your faith.

[NJon]

The sheer Lavatorial logistical argument, proposed by my good self would show that the story as written cannot possibly be true. That was simply a mental exercise.

What Archaeologists and Egyptologists are doing is looking for evidence that Proves the story to be true, they are just not finding it. You may have to adjust your perceptions a bit but it will not totally destroy your faith.

I don't see my faith as being in danger, anyway. I hold that the Bible stands axiomatic.

Here's where I'm coming from: there are lots of things in the Bible that are not scientifically or historically confirmed. Alas, it's amazing that we have any. The point is, there is no hard evidence that proves anything in the Bible false. So, though evidence isn't necessarily found in affirmation, that doesn't mean that it isn't there or was once there.

I questioned and attacked the Bible for far too many years of my life. When I truly converted, the Scripture came alive for me. I don't need to panic and pull the apologetics card on every verse of the Bible in order to trust it.

[bandecoot]

I don't see my faith as being in danger, anyway. I hold that the Bible stands axiomatic.

Here's where I'm coming from: there are lots of things in the Bible that are not scientifically or historically confirmed. Alas, it's amazing that we have any. The point is, there is no hard evidence that proves anything in the Bible false. So, though evidence isn't necessarily found in affirmation, that doesn't mean that it isn't there or was once there.

I questioned and attacked the Bible for far too many years of my life. When I truly converted, the Scripture came alive for me. I don't need to panic and pull the apologetics card on every verse of the Bible in order to trust it.


Ok lets take my mental exercise for another spin shall we?

lets look at the the fertiliser componant. You have 6 million people wandering about in a desert.

IIRC the text tells them to put Lavatories outside the camp, so one can assume that normal defacatory funtions were maintained under a Manna diet.

Now people excrete about 150 grams of waste on average per day. that comes out for 6 million people as being a bit over 857142 kilos per day every day for 40 years.

the amounts when you get to them are simply staggering. 12 512 200 is the total metric tonnage after 40 years.

Where is it? I have held a 14000 year paleofecal sample so I know that feces can survive that long.


I trust you see the implied humour here. The point does stand 857 tons of poo per day would leave traces.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just found it odd that after attacking Judaism, you posted a Jewish source.My references are your posts on page 9. Take posts 131 and 134, for example.You blithering idiot ...

I'm sitting here at my desk. Within reach are five different Torahs/Tanachs and an extensive library on Judaism. I'm on the Board of Directors at my Synagogue. I've taught adult education classes. My wife chairs the Social Action Committee.

You demonstrate no more credibility determining what constitute an attack on Judaism than you do determining what constitutes good archaeology. Now, either substantiate your ridiculous charge with specific quotes or retract it

Do you expect me to suddenly become a new age chronology apologist? I expect that someone who stumbles across some fringe archeological hypothesis and proclaims, in total disregard of scientific consensus, "I think it very well could be valid" should have some basis for dismissing that consensus other than wishful thinking enabled by ignorance. Have you ever - ever - actually read a peer reviewed archaeologist on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology? Good grief!

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point is, there is no hard evidence that proves anything in the Bible false.And how the hell would you know?

[NJon]

bandecoot:

How do you know that sample is 14,000 years old? That's a highly-speculative estimate at best. And even so, because excrement is biodegradable, even if it could preserve doesn't mean that it would in this case. Furthermore, as I said, there is the factor of undiscovered evidence which could very well exist.
In any case, at least you pose good questions worth discussion. Unlike someone else around here <cough>. Which brings me to...



Jayhawker Soule:

Getting a little flustered, are we? Back to what I said to you when we first began --- you have no real substance to contribute. All you are capable of is insulting people (and poorly at that).
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore; it's really a waste of time to dabble with people whose only function is to get hyped up and babble from outrage when their views are questioned.
Thank you for the comedy these past few days, my friend.



Farewell,
NJon

[bandecoot]

bandecoot:

How do you know that sample is 14,000 years old? That's a highly-speculative estimate at best. And even so, because excrement is biodegradable, even if it could preserve doesn't mean that it would in this case. Furthermore, as I said, there is the factor of undiscovered evidence which could very well exist.
In any case, at least you pose good questions worth discussion. Unlike someone else around here <cough>. Which brings me to...

I know its 14 Kya because thats what C14 dates it to, the fact that eveything else in the strata had the same date and the tool assamblages were of the right timeframe.

But That cant be right can it? The evidence Must be wrong....all of it, just because you dont like it.

857 metric tonnes/day ....maybe you can get a grant and an interferometer and start looking.


Jayhawker Soule:

Getting a little flustered, are we? Back to what I said to you when we first began --- you have no real substance to contribute. All you are capable of is insulting people (and poorly at that).
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore; it's really a waste of time to dabble with people whose only function is to get hyped up and babble from outrage when their views are questioned.
Thank you for the comedy these past few days, my friend.



Farewell,
NJon


Your problem with JS are just that...dont run away.

[NJon]

I know its 14 Kya because thats what C14 dates it to, the fact that eveything else in the strata had the same date and the tool assamblages were of the right timeframe.

But That cant be right can it? The evidence Must be wrong....all of it, just because you dont like it.

857 metric tonnes/day ....maybe you can get a grant and an interferometer and start looking.


Carbon-14 dates formerly living things. I've never heard of it being able to date feces.
Disregarding evidence which someone dislikes...that seems to be a popular theme around here.
Not to mention, my claim on undiscovered evidence still stands. If you say otherwise, I suppose we know 100% of everything about everything and science is "complete?"


Your problem with JS are just that...dont run away.

Why is it that when a discussion (if you can call it that) goes nowhere, and resorts to insults (though that's all Jayhawker Soule has been capable of from square one, so I'd be lying if I said I was surprised) or repetition, and one party decides to conclude, suddenly it's "running away?" You can think that way if you so desire, but it's a flawed way of thinking.


Example:

Party 1: <Point>
Party 2: <Counter-point>
Party 1: <Same point phrased differently>
Party 2: <Restates counter-point>
Party 1: You moron!
Party 2: Okay, this is going nowhere. I'm done.
Party 1: Don't flee, you coward!

Sorry, but I don't have the time for that sort of hee-hawing.

This is obviously going nowhere. It all started when all I did was post a relevant link of interest, and because it disagrees with Jayhawker Soule's preconceived notion that the Exodus never happened, he felt compelled to attack the evidence. Of course, that's acceptable. What's unacceptable is attacking people simply for disagreeing with you.

All of the "evidence" for atheism doesn't worry me. In fact, it strengthens my faith, so thank you all for that. If evidence that shows otherwise worries Jayhawker Soule or anyone else because they'll never accept that God exists, that's their problem. I'm not losing sleep over it. What I won't do is sit here and keep reposting to someone who has nothing to speak but vitriol.

So feel free to reply to this as you will. I'm sure that Jayhawker Soule will have some other random incongruous lunacy to post about what an idiot I am. Have at it. I'm finished here.

[bandecoot]

Carbon-14 dates formerly living things. I've never heard of it being able to date feces.
Disregarding evidence which someone dislikes...that seems to be a popular theme around here.
Not to mention, my claim on undiscovered evidence still stands. If you say otherwise, I suppose we know 100% of everything about everything and science is "complete?"

Feces is non organic? News to me but to explain a little more fully C14 was done on undigested seedpods and parasite eggs as well as the waste which is made up of dead red blood cells and digested food. ( all ex living matter you know)

The seed pods matched the palynology of the strata. All the other dates came in at the same range for the stratum .....The tool assemblages were consistant with that date range. you see error bars are pretty low when you get confirmation across the board for a date range.

Ill tell you what, I will suggest a book on Archaeology methods and mechanics and you read up. "Archaeology Third Edition" David HurstThomas isbn 0-15-501369-6

Once we are on the same page roughly speaking then you will be in a position to understand answers regarding evidence from the stone bones and shards when they are given to you.



Why is it that when a discussion (if you can call it that) goes nowhere, and resorts to insults (though that's all Jayhawker Soule has been capable of from square one, so I'd be lying if I said I was surprised) or repetition, and one party decides to conclude, suddenly it's "running away?" You can think that way if you so desire, but it's a flawed way of thinking.


Example:

Party 1: <Point>
Party 2: <Counter-point>
Party 1: <Same point phrased differently>
Party 2: <Restates counter-point>
Party 1: You moron!
Party 2: Okay, this is going nowhere. I'm done.
Party 1: Don't flee, you coward!

Sorry, but I don't have the time for that sort of hee-hawing.

This is obviously going nowhere. It all started when all I did was post a relevant link of interest, and because it disagrees with Jayhawker Soule's preconceived notion that the Exodus never happened, he felt compelled to attack the evidence. Of course, that's acceptable. What's unacceptable is attacking people simply for disagreeing with you.

All of the "evidence" for atheism doesn't worry me. In fact, it strengthens my faith, so thank you all for that. If evidence that shows otherwise worries Jayhawker Soule or anyone else because they'll never accept that God exists, that's their problem. I'm not losing sleep over it. What I won't do is sit here and keep reposting to someone who has nothing to speak but vitriol.

So feel free to reply to this as you will. I'm sure that Jayhawker Soule will have some other random incongruous lunacy to post about what an idiot I am. Have at it. I'm finished here.


The discussion breaks down when it becomes plain to the more educated of the 2 that the other person lacks even basic skill to understand a response the temptation to call names gets very strong.


for example you thinking that feces is nonliving lets me know a lot more about your skillset in this area than you might know. Your (excuse the term) Ignorance of the dessication as preservation principle tells me a lot more.

Thats why I suggested the above book. if you wish to discuss matters on an Archaeology board it behooves you to KNOW some archaeology.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Carbon-14 dates formerly living things. I've never heard of it being able to date feces. Disregarding evidence which someone dislikes...that seems to be a popular theme around here.Remarkable ... :ahem:

[bandecoot]

Remarkable ... :ahem:


In my very best Stargate SG-1 T'ilk Voice "indeed"

[curium]

Here is a related resource I thought I would share:

Did God speak at Mt. Sinai?
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Exodus.asp

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here is a related resource I thought I would share:

Did God speak at Mt. Sinai?
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Exodus.aspThe AISH stuff on the exodus is deceitful garbage. So, for example, your article notes:Biblical Archaeology is often divided into two camps: The "minimalists" tend to downplay the historical accuracy of the Bible, while the "maximalists," who are in the majority and are by and large not religious, tend to suggest that archaeological evidence supports the basic historicity of the Bible text.The assertion is a lie, or, more accurately, a clever distortion. If you go to the bottom of that vapid piece of apologetics, you will find that it links you to Archaeology and the Bible - Part Two (http://aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp), which begins with a quote from Dever (presumably one of the 'good' maximalist) and later notes:If anything gets Dever's blood boiling it is when revisionists distort archaeology, thus cheapening and mocking the integrity of his entire academic field.

Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere "propaganda" to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, "the archaeological record is silent."

"In fact," asserts Dever, "the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."What this slimy apologist fails to mention is that Dever, along with most 'maximalists', rejects the historicity of the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative. I've already demonstrated this in Post #129 of this thread, but let me again quote Dever's conclusion:Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...The remainder of the 2-part polemic is no less worthless. The people at aish.com, some of whom I know personally, should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such crap.

[curium]

Jaywalker,

I don't believe you addressed the principle arguments of the piece "Did God Speak at Mt. Sinai" given in my previous post and I don't believe you can do so.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jaywalker,

I don't believe you addressed the principle arguments of the piece "Did God Speak at Mt. Sinai" given in my previous post and I don't believe you can do so.curium, please find and name a single "principle argument". I will be more than willing to address it. Meanwhile, I don't believe you addressed the deceitful reference to Dever nor, for that matter, Dever's evaluation.

[curium]

Jayhawker Soule,

I am not going to play games with you. If you do not want to address the principle arguments for the resource I provided that's your choice. On the other hand, I did notice that you did not address the principle arguments.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Soule,

I am not going to play games with you. If you do not want to address the principle arguments for the resource I provided that's your choice.curium, I am playing no game here, and I suspect you fully realize it. Again, I challenge you to find a single "principle argument" that serves as evidence for the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative. You'll fail, and fail miserably. The entire unprincipled polemic agaist Rabbi Wolpe is little more than a montage of innuendo and misdirection, all based on the ludicrous proposition:

Some things in the Bible are true, therefore all things in the Bible are true.

Your willingness to dish up nonsense, followed by a cowardly refusal to defend it, is irresponsible in the extreme, while attempts to conceil such cowardice with ad hominem spittal about me 'playing games' is simply juvenile.

[NJon]

This is fairly recent:

http://theexodusdecoded.com/vm.jsp

Dr. Bryant Wood at ABR (a Christian, mind you) recently published this article criticizing The Exodus Decoded.

Click here (http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article.html).
However, the article may be archived after 1 week. It was first posted on September 20th.

This goes back to what I said in the beginning (before being ambuscaded :ahem: ); I just found the documentary interesting. I never said that I agreed with it. This counter-article is actually pretty good, and I reccomend checking it out.

[NJon]

Click here (http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article.html).
However, the article may be archived after 1 week. It was first posted on September 20th.

The article is now archived at http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article58.html

[doc303]

Christian Greetings, All

A simple question from a simple guy.

My first Bible made this an easy question for a youngster - which I remain in many respects.

I seems the publishers believe Archbishop Ussher had all the answers, so I ask: What is wrong with an Exodus date of 1531-1492 BC from Exodus Ch 3 & 4?

1492 B.C. becomes 3499 BCE - who dares argue with Ussher?

doc303

[Adam]

The article is now archived at http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article58.html
Yes, I saw Jacobovici's Orthodox Judaic presentation of the Exodus in 2006. It did not impress me. I remained partial to two earlier TV documentaries that support a high date for the Exodus.
I was so impressed by both that I bought the books.
For Fundamentalist Christians, the preferred book/video is The Exodus Case by Lennart Mohler, 2002. Not in the TV show (to my recollection) but on the back jacket (and expanded at page 13) is this: "This book is based on the discoveries made by Ronald E. Wyatt. These discoveries have been evaluated, analysed and supplemented with much additional material." (Wyatt died in 1999.) Its Exodus route is the middle route through Sinai, and the Red Sea parting is really the underwater bridge in the Gulf of Aqaba. The mountain of God is Jabal Al Lawz in Midian, current Saudi Arabia. What is spectacurlarly impressive about this theory is the remains of chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqaba off Nuweiba.
Before that book/video my favorite was David M. Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings (in UK: A Test of Time), 1995. He radically recasts Egyptian Chronology as wrong by centuries. He comes up with the Exodus at 1447, corresponding for him with the 13th Dynasty. By his total reworking of Egyptian chronology, for Rohl the Amalekites are the Hyksos invaders coming into Egypt!
I like Rohl best, personally, not because he departs from the Bible whenever necessary, but because he does not take as a necessary preconception (as Mohler does) that the Bible must be right and every fact must be made to agree with the Bible.
I don't know how to reconcile Rohl and Mohler, I just take it as sufficient that the Exodus has been found to be factual, whatever the particular details are.
Coming in third for me, obviously, the The Exodus Decoded, particularly now that Jacobovici has discredited himself by originating this Tomb of Jesus Revealed hokum. Nevertheless, he is fun to watch, and I never miss his The Naked Archaelogist whenever History International Channel runs it on Sunday afternoon.
Adam

[mikeledo]

The Exodus is a Cosmic Myth. It was originally written during the Early Bronze Age at the time of the Great Famine when Egypt fell into chaos. Text was added to it during the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age to give it an appearance of later origin, such as was done to Gilgamesh.

I write extensively about this in my latest book for anyone interested in a detailed explanation.

http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=993434

[Adam]

I can see why, mikeledo,
You did not copy in part of your blurb for the book. Is your "knowledge" about the Exodus acquired from astrology? You disagree both with Mosaic authorship and Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis? Who "buys" this?
Adam
Print: $19.95
This is the ultimate book in Biblical Astrology....This book creates a new Biblical time line. It identifies many Biblical persons with documented historical characters unlike ever before. ... The Old Testament is a cosmic myth which starts with creation and runs through the crowning of Solomon. This book details that myth.
.I have started a forum for questions, discussion, and debate. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblemyths/ Book contains over 70,000 words plus and additional 40,000 words in source material. Book is heavily sourced with sources quoted. .. I watched Dr. Richard Elliot Friedman on such a broadcast as he explained his work The Hidden Book in the Bible. ... I was almost done with the first chapter. My goal was to combine the ideas of Gerald Massey and E.W. Bullinger into one small unnoticed publication. In listening to the program I was amazed on how the stories in The Hidden Book were the ones I thought had a basis in astrology. I had been looking at the idea all wrong.... Friedman claimed his text had no contradictions in it. I consider myself a self proclaimed expert on the matter of biblical contradictions. Not only could I find contradictions in Friedman’s text, it seemed very “wordy” at times and phrases often repeated themselves for no apparent reason. .. I had discovered a new way to edit the Bible. The Bible was not put together from various texts as Wellhausen supposed, but was rather a living document added to over time, with the original text remaining basically untouched. .; l. This whole text was used to explain the stars and constellations, which in turn was used for prophecy. ..

[doc303]

1 Corinthians 3:19-20

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." NKJV

Keep seeking, and you may yet find truth !

[shunyadragon]

1 Corinthians 3:19-20

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." NKJV

Keep seeking, and you may yet find truth !

Could you add something that is relavent to the discussion at hand.:sigh:

[doc303]

Could you add something that is relavent to the discussion at hand.:sigh:

I believe it was relavent to mikelado who seemed to be seeking truth but of course the Bible is not a credible document for you, is it shuny?

[shunyadragon]

I believe it was relavent to mikelado who seemed to be seeking truth but of course the Bible is not a credible document for you, is it shuny?

The Bible is credible for the time it is writen, but obviously flawed in places in respect to our knowledge of history and archeology.

The topic of the thread is not specifically concerning the credibility of the Bible. The thread involves comparing dating sources for the early date of Exodus, this would include references within and outside the Bible.

[doc303]

The Bible is credible for the time it is writen, but obviously flawed in places in respect to our knowledge of history and archeology.

The topic of the thread is not specifically concerning the credibility of the Bible. The thread involves comparing dating sources for the early date of Exodus, this would include references within and outside the Bible.
So what is wrong with Ussher's dating, shunny?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1922999&postcount=170

It is based on his estimation of Bible genealogy - credible for it's time, certainly. For me this Tome is timeless and has as much moral applicability then as now.

[lao tzu]

So what is wrong with Ussher's dating, shunny?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

[shunyadragon]

So what is wrong with Ussher's dating, shunny?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1922999&postcount=170


Now you are bringing up a more specific question related to the thread and not pitching quotes to reflect your bias. I did not say the Bible was right or wrong at present on any particular point, but it is best to consider different sources, and not assume that one source the Bible is absolutely and completely correct, because the bottom line is that it is not always accurate historically. I will respond more specifically to Ussher's dating shortly.

It is based on his estimation of Bible genealogy - credible for it's time, certainly. For me this Tome is timeless and has as much moral applicability then as now.

I would not consider the Bible completely timeless and accurate as applicable to today's world as you, particularly the history of humanity, life, earth and the universe, laws of of Deuteronomy, and the status of women, and the view of slavery in both the OT and the NT.

[mikeledo]

I can see why, mikeledo,
You did not copy in part of your blurb for the book. Is your "knowledge" about the Exodus acquired from astrology? You disagree both with Mosaic authorship and Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis? Who "buys" this?
Adam

I didn't but in the blurb. I was trying to avoid some spam.

The Exodus is Cosmic Myth. My knowledge comes from studying the myths associated with the stars and comparing those myths to the Biblical text using a more literal translation.

Richard Hinckley Allen appears to be the best source on Star Lore. I use him cheifly as my source as to what cosmic myths were believed by the ancients. When the Hebrews were conquered by the Greeks they created myths that resembled Greek cosmic myths. Graves does a good comparison job of Hebrew and Greek myths. Thus it makes it a snap to indentify which Hebrew story goes to which constellation. At that point a light comes on and makes it obvious. So simple even a caveman could do it.

All scholars worth their salt disagree with the Mosaic authorship since the book mentions his death. I had trouble working around that.

Wellhausen has a problem. It is Gigamesh. It refutes Wellhausen. I contend the Bible was a living document constructed in the same identical fashion as Gilgamesh as descibed by Tigay.

I am not sure what you mean "who buys this? " You mean the theory or the book?

The theory is mine. It is unique. No one has been exposed to it so no one has been able to "buy" into it. except my editor, who loves conspiracy theories and Steve, the head of the Atlanta Freethought Society who is reading the book now.

As far as the book goes, I don't know the names of the people who order it. That is private.

[shunyadragon]

So what is wrong with Ussher's dating, shunny?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1922999&postcount=170

It is based on his estimation of Bible genealogy - credible for it's time, certainly. For me this Tome is timeless and has as much moral applicability then as now.

We are not addressing 'moral applicability', there have been a lot threads on this. The problem with Ussher's dating is that it does not take into consideration the archeological evidence and other sources. Based on the evidence there were several migrations from Egypt to the lands that are centered on what is now Isreal. Based on the evidence none would be the scale of migration out of Egypt and the reported Invasion of Canan


The following is good overview of Egyptian History with the following comments concerning the different dates for the Exodus based on different sources.

It was agreed since the days of Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian of the days of Emperor Vespasian, that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt took place after the Second Intermediate period, during the Egyptian New Kingdom, whether at its very beginning or several generations later. However, they disagree among themselves, some placing the Exodus under Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty, others under Amenhotep III or his heir Akhnaton of the same dynasty (the time of the el-Amarna correspondence), some placing it under Ramses II or Merneptah of the Nineteenth Dynasty (“Israel Stele” ), and some as late as the Twentieth Dynasty (after Ramses III repelled the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea, supposedly in the first quarter of the twelfth century). So many various dates for the Exodus—a point that connects the Hebrew and the Egyptian histories—could be contemplated because these two histories as they are usually taught are remarkably out of contact for the entire length of the New Kingdom, and equally so for the rest of their histories, down to the time of Alexander of Macedon.

More specifically Josephus gives a different date for Exodus that is possible and has some basis in history. A severe catastrophic drought ~4200 years ago devastated Egypt and a new dynastic period began setting the stage for problems of over population and migrations. The eruption of Thera may have also caused catastrophic climate changes around Egypt causing similar events like reported as the plagues.


In Against Apion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Apion), the 1st-century historian Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus) identified the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos). Thus the Pharaoh of Exodus is one of the Theban Pharaohs of the late-17th or early-18th Dynasties, who fought against the Hyksos, especially Ahmose I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I) (1570–1546 or 1550-1525).
Some suggest the Pharaoh of the Exodus is one of the Hyksos, who conquered Egypt, in which case, Israelites like other Egyptians are among those subdued.


One of the biggest problems is the numbers involved and the invasion of Canaan. There is no evidence that such an invasion took place, nor an increase in population reported in Exodus. The current evidence indicates a number of migrations from egypt to Canaan took place.

[Adam]

It was agreed since the days of Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian of the days of Emperor Vespasian, that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt took place after the Second Intermediate period, during the Egyptian New Kingdom, whether at its very beginning or several generations later. However, they disagree among themselves, some placing the Exodus under Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty, others under Amenhotep III or his heir Akhnaton of the same dynasty (the time of the el-Amarna correspondence), some placing it under Ramses II or Merneptah of the Nineteenth Dynasty (“Israel Stele” ), and some as late as the Twentieth Dynasty (after Ramses III repelled the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea, supposedly in the first quarter of the twelfth century). So many various dates for the Exodus—a point that connects the Hebrew and the Egyptian histories—could be contemplated because these two histories as they are usually taught are remarkably out of contact for the entire length of the New Kingdom, and equally so for the rest of their histories, down to the time of Alexander of Macedon.

The eruption of Thera may have also caused catastrophic climate changes around Egypt causing similar events like reported as the plagues.
Thus the Pharaoh of Exodus is one of the Theban Pharaohs of the late-17th or early-18th Dynasties, who fought against the Hyksos, especially...
Some suggest the Pharaoh of the Exodus is one of the Hyksos, who conquered Egypt, in which case, Israelites like other Egyptians are among those subdued.

It's even more complicated than that.
David Rohl in Pharaohs and Kings (book and DVD) presents the Exodus as occurring even before the Hyksos invasion. He holds that the Amalekites that Moses battled were the Hyksos on their way into Egypt. But this does not mean he holds to a very early date, because Rohl attacks standard Egyptian chronology by up to four centures. His date for the Exodus still holds to the conservative 1447 B. C.
Adam

[OU812]

It's even more complicated than that.
David Rohl in Pharaohs and Kings (book and DVD) presents the Exodus as occurring even before the Hyksos invasion. He holds that the Amalekites that Moses battled were the Hyksos on their way into Egypt. But this does not mean he holds to a very early date, because Rohl attacks standard Egyptian chronology by up to four centures. His date for the Exodus still holds to the conservative 1447 B. C.
Adam

It's my contention that those who latch onto Rohl's chronology are primarily YEC-'6000yrEarthers' - who already have a tendency to disparage 'traditional' Egyptian chronology (for obvious reasons: it doesn't quite 'square' with a 6,000 yr-old Earth/4,000 yr-old global deluge). Note however, that I don't impugn Mr. Rohl's motives for thinking that an alternative chronology is in order........

[shunyadragon]

It's my contention that those who latch onto Rohl's chronology are primarily YEC-'6000yrEarthers' - who already have a tendency to disparage 'traditional' Egyptian chronology (for obvious reasons: it doesn't quite 'square' with a 6,000 yr-old Earth/4,000 yr-old global deluge). Note however, that I don't impugn Mr. Rohl's motives for thinking that an alternative chronology is in order........

Agreed, Rohl's and Ussher's chronology is primarilly geared to YEC chronology keyed to the Bible, the evidence is for smaller migrations at different times.

[OU812]

Agreed, Rohl's and Ussher's chronology is primarilly geared to YEC chronology keyed to the Bible, the evidence is for smaller migrations at different times.

Yes, and it also doesn't allow any civilization to be older than that of 'biblical' or 'proto-Israelite' (read: 'Antediluvian' - 'Sethite') civilization/history/culture.

[shunyadragon]

It's even more complicated than that.
David Rohl in Pharaohs and Kings (book and DVD) presents the Exodus as occurring even before the Hyksos invasion. He holds that the Amalekites that Moses battled were the Hyksos on their way into Egypt. But this does not mean he holds to a very early date, because Rohl attacks standard Egyptian chronology by up to four centures. His date for the Exodus still holds to the conservative 1447 B. C.
Adam

In summary, The archeological evidence indicates that after the progressive drying out of the Sahara, the global great drought of ~4200 years ago and the Thera eruption the civilizations of Egypt and the Middle East were devastated by climate changes and disruption of previous normals of rainfall patterns. Civilizations collapsed and great cities vanished. In Egypt the Hyksos invasion took place and the New Kingdom(s) began develop a new stable civilization. The several known Semitic migrations (expullsions or rebelions?) due to the instability of the region took place. With the expanding deserts and shrinking fertile valleys turf wars were the result and the Isrealites fought with the Canaanites(?) and others over the Jordon River Valley region.

[shunyadragon]

It's my contention that those who latch onto Rohl's chronology are primarily YEC-'6000yrEarthers' - who already have a tendency to disparage 'traditional' Egyptian chronology (for obvious reasons: it doesn't quite 'square' with a 6,000 yr-old Earth/4,000 yr-old global deluge). Note however, that I don't impugn Mr. Rohl's motives for thinking that an alternative chronology is in order........


A parallel meaningful thread probably goes deeper into the problems of chronology, and the attempts to support Biblical dates.

The thread is here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=27094