"The Bible Unearthed" - Exodus

[Orion]

Re: The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein & Silberman, Free Press Pub.

These two authors, one an archeologist and the other a historian, have published a book which draws attention to some striking discrepancies between certain Bible narratives vs. recent archeological and historical findings. By recent, I mean within the last hundred years.

Of the several topics covered within the book (the Patriarchs, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, etc.), I'd like to discuss the Exodus story within this thread. If this generates enough interest, we can then move on to some of these other topics. I apologize if I'm plowing old ground here. I did a forum search and could find nothing on this subject.

Israel Finkelstein - Director of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University.

Neil Asher Silberman - Director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archeology in Belgium and a contributing editor to Archeology magazine.

The book of Exodus describes the labours of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, their eventual liberation at the hand of Moses, and the subsequent wanderings of these people in Sinai for forty years. Does this story reflect historical reality? Can we find extra-biblical and/or archeological evidence in support of this story?

First, let's establish the time frame. The biblical account in 1 Kings 6:1 dates the Exodus to about 1440 BCE in the Late Bronze age (LB). Right away, problems crop up. Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with what is now Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.

According to the Exodus account (12:37-38), the freed Hebrews numbered almost two million (600 thousand men as well as women, children, and the elderly, not to mention cattle, sheep, etc.), and wandered in the Sinai for forty years. However, archeologists have been unable to uncover a single campsite or sign of occupation within the Sinai during this (LB) period - no pot sherds, no bones, no encampements, nothing.

The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai. The location of this site is set in Num. 34. Repeated excavations within this area have not provided the slightest evidence of occupation during the LB. Ezion-geber is another such site identified in the Bible, and again, no trace of LB occupation has been discovered.

What does this tell us? It suggests that the dates and places mentioned in the Exodus story do not relate to the time of the Exodus as related in the Bible. Quoting from the authors...

The most evocative and consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE, during the great era of the prosperity of the kingdom of Judah - six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place. All of the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering of the Israelites were inhabited in the seventh century; in some cases they were occupied only at that time.

The Bible tells us that Moses sent agents from Kadesh-barnea to the king of Edom to ask permission to pass through the country on the way to Canaan (Num 20:14-21). The king refused. Archeological investigations suggest that Edom reached statehood only under Assyrian rule sometime in the seventh century BCE. Before that, it was a backwater.

Again, this seventh century era keeps popping up in archeological and historical investigations. But by this time, Judah was already established as an Israelite settlement.

[Dr.GH]

You might find William Dever's 2001 book What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What
Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) worth reading. Dever is very irritating, constantly ranting about why he is the only person who is competent to write about the Bible and archaeology. None the less, his is the surviving scientific argument for substantial historical/archaeological correlation with the Bible.

All and all, I find Finkelstein & Silberman much more persuasive.

I also found two books on the pentateuch very interesting:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Friedman, Richarrd Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Both men have substantial careers, and international respect.

[Peter Kirby]

08-08-2003 @ 05:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=173749#post173749)
Dr.GH:

You might find William Dever's 2001 book What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What
Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) worth reading. Dever is very irritating, constantly ranting about why he is the only person who is competent to write about the Bible and archaeology. None the less, his is the surviving scientific argument for substantial historical/archaeological correlation with the Bible.
I have read Dever's 2001 book and enjoyed it. See also Dever's earlier work Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Dever has no more sympathy for the maximalists who search for a historical Abraham than he has for the minimalists who seek to eliminate the first temple. While Dever has his niggling points in relation to The Bible Unearthed, Dever is in full agreement with Finkelstein on the non-historicity of the Exodus narrative.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Esther]

Have any of you seen the video "Exodus Revealed - Search for the Red Sea Crossing"? I'm curious to hear what someone else's thoughts are on it. I found it interesting.

[popof3]

Today @ 02:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179185#post179185)
Esther:

Have any of you seen the video "Exodus Revealed - Search for the Red Sea Crossing"? I'm curious to hear what someone else's thoughts are on it. I found it interesting.


The greek was misinterpreted. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea.

[Patty]

It is a common misconception that 1st Kings 6:1 gives an Exodus date of 1440BCE. So common is this misconception i was most surprised to find upon reading 1st Kings 6:1 to find it gave only 480 years to the incomplete date of the 2nd month of King Solomon's 4th year. Upon further research i discovered that the misconception that it gives the 1440BCE date is based really upon adding years from Shoshenq's 1 reign placed about 960BCE.

This placement is derived by the translation of Champollion in the 1st half of the 19th century CE of Shoshenq I as the Biblical Shishak. This placement is considered rock solid. Despite the fact that modern Archaeologists. Having reviewed his expedition into the "Holy Land." Are no longer so sure that Shoshenq I even made it into what is now considered historical Judea. Considering his expedition to be more in line with an invasion into what is now considered historical Israel. Please see David Rohl's work Pharaohs and Kings a Biblical Quest. As his work on Shoshenq I expedition is the best available at this time. That Shoshenq I makes no mention of having sacked a great temple, such as the Temple of Solomon which he would have, if he had. Ought to make modern scholars a tab more cautious in believing he did.

The placement of Shoshenq I as Shishak places his predecessor Siamun as the most likely Pharaoh to have given Solomon his Pharaonic daughter as wife and Queen. Siamun as this Pharaoh is almost as funny as placing either Ramesses II or Tuthmosis III as the Pharaohs of the Exodus. (The 1440BCE date of the Exodus favors Tuthmosis III as this Pharaoh by the way.) Siamun was to busy robbing and reburying the Pharaonic tombs of the 17th Dynasty through his own. He left no records of having given any cities away. Such as the Biblical recording of Gezar being given to Solomon (1st Kings 9:16) as a dowry for the Pharaoh's daughter. Let alone the fact that he gave a daughter to a powerful King on his northeastern border.

Another reason to question the identification of Shoshenq I as the Pharaoh Shishak (if more is needed). Solomon's great grandson King Asa of Israel (2nd Chronicles 14:9) saves Israel from threaten invasion by Zerah, the Ethiopian. There is no Ethiopian threat in 900BCE! It existed during the reigns of Ramesses II, his son Mernephat of the 19th Dynasty and during the time of Pi Ankiy 750 BCE.

No record, no record, no record is the history of the Pharaohs of the 20th, 21st, and the 22nd Dynasties of any relationship with Israel. The only record of relationship between Shoshenq I of the 22nd Dynasty and the Bible is found in the identification of Champollion 19th century BC. I am sorry it is not acceptable to me. Especially when that identification results in Tuthmosis III as being the most likely Pharaoh of the Exodus! When he left Egypt in the most extreme opposite condition from what the Bible describes Egypt as being at the Exodus.

It is not surprising that those that seek to peg Shoshenq I as Shishak. Can't make heads or tails of the Biblical recording of the Jewish peoples history. Leading them to question the validity of the Bible period. I would be more accepting of the work of such scholars as Dr.s Finkelstein and Silberman if they were as complete in their work as they were in the formation of their theories based upon mid-19th century identification of Shishak.

[Richbee]

Welcome to Theology Web!

I admire your courage to bring your Anti-Biblical, and Anti-supernatural POV's over here.

I would also like to explore, why your thread here generates little interest and posts, but in contrast over at The Atlantic, and at the following link:

http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?14@23.JldqatLGik8.0@.2cb42678

Your POV and agenda is exposed for what it really is, but then why should I care!?

IMHO, over on the Atlantic, your attitude is snotty, and you have, by your own confession spent eight(8) years attacking the Bible, and Christians who proclaim that the Bible is God's Holy scripture, without any concern for the TRUTH.

That is quite an agenda.


Why?

I too, wonder why your posts on the Atlantic generate an emotional response on my part, as originally when I first visited the NYT two(2) years ago and The Atlantic one(1) year ago, I would have thought, that I had no agenda what so ever.

Only after witnessing posts of Biblical nihilism, or your Anti-Biblical agenda, do I realize that I desire to defend my Christian faith. Although, for what gain?

BTW, I have never thought of "converting" or "evangelizing" anyone on the forums. Only God can reveal the truth of Jesus Christ, and IMHO, no one is converted intellectually in cyberspace, or by reading text messages.

In some starnge way, I am drawn to a good cyber contest of wills, and I confess to increasing the drama to maximize the entertainment value. (NYGLAD and KANZEON were my role models.)

:poke:

Any who, have fun, and who knows, we may yet have fun here, where I can be little old "richbee".......again. :bv:

Sincerely,

Richard "B." Goode

P.S. The smiley faces here seem to diffuse some of the high drama??? :huh:

I do apoligize for my part in taking my stage show, and hyperbolic posts, and threads too far, but I just can never resist responding to your posts.

[Socratism]

First, let's establish the time frame.

And therein lies the source of the problem. Why not establish the time frame after establishing synchronism between events?

If one looks in the wrong place for synchronism between events recorded in scripture and those found in Egyptian history with dates estimated by archaeologists, it would not be surprising to conclude that the scriptural accounts were pure fiction.

However, if one simply looks for synchronism between scripture and Egyptian history, with a modestly sliding scale of dates, then astounding synchronism can be achieved.

From reading the other side of the argument a believer can be quite optimistic that the Biblical chronologies are the correct ones and the Egyptian ones are those which are in error datewise.

The record of the events themselves seems to be in both cases reasonably accurate, although of course I favor the Biblical version.

[Orion]

Me: First, let's establish the time frame.

You: And therein lies the source of the problem. Why not establish the time frame after establishing synchronism between events?

Well, the only time frame we have is the biblical one. Don't you agree? And it is both the biblical time frame and the biblical account of the Exodus events whose historicity is under question.

If you have authoritative information which you are willing to bring to bear on this complex subject, please don't hesitate. Perhaps you could address the points I raised in my initial post?

[Socratism]

Orion,

Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with what is now Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.

All of the problems which you have raised are solved by the simple expedient of finding synchronisms with Egyptian accounts instead of citing the lack of synchronism with accepted Egyptian history in the time periods specified in scripture. In other words the Egyptian datings, based primarily on the dubious accounts of Manetho are wrong.

This was first discussed by Velikovsky in his book "Ages in Chaos", where he cites examples from ancient records discovered by archaeologists to prove his case. Others have recently published books along the same lines except that there is agreement among the various sources only that the previously accepted Egyptian chronology is off by hundreds of years. Incidently, by moving dates by several hundred years, the Joshua stories are also matched very well with findings by archaeologists at Jericho. There is also good internal evidence in the "Sun stood still" story that this was a real event recorded by eyewitnesses.

[Orion]

All of the problems which you have raised are solved by the simple expedient of finding synchronisms with Egyptian accounts instead of citing the lack of synchronism with accepted Egyptian history in the time periods specified in scripture.

I'm sorry, but none of the problems I raised regarding the historicity of the biblical Exodus story have been solved to date. And, trust me, I only scratched the surface - there exist a great many other problems associated not only with the Exodus story, but with the conquest of Canaan story, as well.

This was first discussed by Velikovsky in his book "Ages in Chaos"...

I'm surprised that you would cite Velikovsky. Almost no one within the academic community takes him seriously. However, if you like Velikovsky, you'll certainly like this guy (http://www.wyattmuseum.com/).

[Socratism]

One does not need to agree with all of Velikovsky's many hypotheses to recognize that his books contained many interesting and frequently valuable citations of work from mainline journals.

Of course he was vilified as an "outsider" and also because his only journal publications were in his professional field of psychiatry. Nevertheless, the citations he gathered remain, and these were what I was referring to in his book, "Ages In Chaos".

You can ignore data if you wish. That is your choice and also your blind spot.

BTW, Velikovsky was an evolutionist and believed that the catastrophic events documented in the citations greatly affected the ecostructure, and this led to rapid adaptation and hence rapid change in the morphology of lifeforms.

[NeilUnreal]

I like what Carl Sagan said about Velikovsky: he realized Velikovsky's planetary science was all bunk, but he thought the archaeology was pretty good. Then he met an archaeologist who said he thought that the archaeology was all bunk, but that the planetary science was pretty good...

-Neil

p.s. Loosely paraphrased; I don't have the original handy. I think Sagan relates the story in The Demon-Haunted World.

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 10:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270363#post270363)
Socratism:

You can ignore data if you wish. That is your choice and also your blind spot.

Maybe he doesn't want to miss the forest by looking at the trees?

BTW, Velikovsky was an evolutionist and believed that the catastrophic events documented in the citations greatly affected the ecostructure, and this led to rapid adaptation and hence rapid change in the morphology of lifeforms.

Actually, this sounds a lot more like the creationist model, where the Flood (undoubtably a catastrophic event) was followed by rapid adaptation and super-fast changes in morphology.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270689#post270689)
DunnySaze:
Actually, this sounds a lot more like the creationist model, where the Flood (undoubtably a catastrophic event) was followed by rapid adaptation and super-fast changes in morphology.

Some evolutionists, including Velikovsky, have called this "evolution".

Remember the NAS article "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" that claims that changes in finches due to environmental change could generate a new "species" in just a few hundred years?

[Richbee]

Finklestein is a Biblical Minimalists with a duly noted agenda.

Orion has been refuted many times over on the The Atlantic board, and he just keeps posting this stuff!

[Orion]

Finklestein is a Biblical Minimalists with a duly noted agenda. Orion has been refuted many times over on the The Atlantic board, and he just keeps posting this stuff!

Hi, Richbee. For your consideration...

Israel Finkelstein's credentials (http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/faculty/finkelcv.html)

BTW, Finkelstein is not a pioneer on this subject - he's simply reporting, to the interested public, the findings of contemporary ANE history/archeology uncovered by both himself and his peers and predecessors within the academic community.

I've been 'refuted many times' on this subject? Gee, I don't think so, Richbee. But, I welcome your contributions to this thread, so long as you contribute using your own words as opposed to cut&paste. You already know that I don't respond to cut&paste posts.

It might also help if you actually read The Bible Unearthed. Your doing so would allow you to do something more than simply throw rocks at Finkelstein and myself.

[Richbee]

Rocks? Well, in any case, let the visitors and posters judge for themselves, and so accordingly!


Here is an article that addresses some of the facts, and issues of dating, and I gladly, proudly and triumpantly post this, including the hotlink to the full article. It is my intention to bring more facts and a different perspective.



Who Destroyed Megiddo? Was It David or Shishak?

By Timothy P. Harrison

Did King David conquer and destroy Megiddo? Well, that depends partly on the date of Stratum VI. Let me explain why...

Most scholars accept David as a historical figure who was an active military ruler in the period portrayed in the Hebrew Bible (the early tenth century B.C.E.). However, there is considerably less agreement on how to interpret the archaeological evidence for this period. That’s where Megiddo Stratum VI figures in. The dispute is over which archaeological material relates to the time of David’s reign, or, more specifically, over establishing the chronological connections that permit us to link the archaeological record to the events described in the Bible.

And Megiddo Stratum VI is the key.

Until recently, most scholars dated Stratum VI to the period just before the time of David, making him a candidate for its destruction; a later stratum would then represent the town of David and Solomon. However, in a series of articles,1 as well as in a recent interview in this magazine,* the head of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology, Israel Finkelstein, has argued forcefully that Megiddo Stratum VI should be dated to the period of David and Solomon (otherwise known as the United Monarchy). Stratum VI was destroyed, he contends, by the Egyptian Pharaoh Sheshonq I, the Shishak of the Bible (1 Kings 14:25-26; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9).

All scholars agree that Sheshonq/Shishak cut a devastating swath through Israel in about 925 B.C.E. A list of towns he conquered and destroyed is inscribed in a poorly preserved hieroglyphic inscription in the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak. More than 50 towns are named, including Megiddo.

If Stratum VI was destroyed in 925 B.C.E., as Finkelstein contends, then it dates to the time of David and Solomon, or the United Monarchy. As I shall show, however, a later stratum preserves the destruction of Sheshonq/Shishak. Stratum VI therefore must have been destroyed earlier—by someone else, perhaps King David.

Why is this important?

Put simply, the outcome of this debate has a direct bearing on our understanding of the historical development of the early Israelite Monarchy. If Finkelstein is correct, the cultural activities of the United Monarchy will be reflected in the remains of Stratum VI (and contemporaneous strata at other sites). If the traditional understanding is correct, however, then we must trace the historical development of the United Monarchy from evidence preserved in later strata.

Ancient Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) sits at a strategic point along the corridor that the Levant forms between Egypt and Mesopotamia, where for millenia economic goods, peoples and ideas have passed. It is located at the entrance to the Wadi ’Arah, a key pass through the Mount Carmel Range that obstructs the north-south trunk route traversing the region.

In the 15th century B.C.E., Pharaoh Thutmosis III, the great empire builder of New Kingdom Egypt, campaigned north to subdue a coalition of rebellious principalities led by the city of Kadesh, on the Orontes River in modern Syria. His major obstacle was Megiddo, which had joined the Kadesh coalition. “The capture of Megiddo is as the capturing of a thousand cities,” the pharaoh said. He was successful, but only after a protracted siege of the defiant town. Over the centuries, Megiddo witnessed the passing of numerous invading armies and military campaigns, securing for itself a prominent place in the historical memory of the region, and earning it the apocalyptic designation as the scene of the final conflagration, the Armageddon of the Bible.


< snip >



The key to resolving this debate lies in the strata that seal Stratum VI. Immediately above the destruction debris of Stratum VI were the fragmented remains of Stratum VB. Superimposed on this occupational phase, in turn, and in large part obliterating it, were the substantial remains of Stratum VA/IVB. Dominated by a series of monumental structures, the settlement of Stratum VA/IVB reflects a decisive shift in the character and function of the site. Despite the considerable debate that has occurred in recent years regarding the date of this stratum, there has been general agreement that it, too, experienced a decisive destruction.

In their stratigraphic reconstruction, P.L.O. Guy and the Chicago expedition assigned the impressive architectural remains of Stratum VA/IVB to the reign of Solomon (see, for example, 1 Kings 9:15), and attributed its destruction to Shishak’s 925 B.C.E. campaign. Their case rested in large part on the chance discovery of a stela fragment bearing Shishak’s cartouche. Although the expedition found the inscription in a dump adjacent to a trench excavated by the German engineer Gottlieb Schumacher earlier in the century, Guy was confident that it had come from the earliest stratum uncovered in the trench, namely Stratum VA/IVB.19

Though this stratum would appear to be the logical choice for the original location of the stela fragment with Shishak’s cartouche, the stratum’s formal architecture and evidence of destruction do not eliminate the possibility that the stela originated from another stratum. Guy’s description of its discovery, however, makes clear that Schumacher’s excavations in this area had not reached the destroyed remains of the preceding Stratum VI, rendering it an unlikely candidate for the settlement destroyed by Shishak’s army, as Israel Finkelstein, and Watzinger before him, have proposed.

When we compare the pottery from Stratum VA/IVB with pottery from nearby sites,20 the Stratum VA/IVB settlement clearly dates, in relative chronological terms, to the early Iron Age II period (specifically Iron IIA), or the tenth century B.C.E.21

Recently published radiocarbon dates also reinforce this conclusion. At Tel Rehov, in the Jordan Valley south of the Sea of Galilee, excavations conducted by Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University have uncovered a sequence of well-preserved Iron IIA cultural strata. Most important, carbonized grain samples from several different sealed loci preserved in the destruction of Stratum V there have produced a calibrated date range between 935 and 898 B.C.E. Since Rehov is included in the list of cities conquered by Shishak, his 925 B.C.E. campaign clearly represents the most likely historical event that could have caused the destruction of this stratum at Tel Rehov.22

As noted earlier, the similarity between the Rehov Stratum V assemblage and the pottery of Megiddo VA/IVB confirms their relative contemporaneity. Thus, comparative stratigraphy and the ceramic evidence, together with radiocarbon data and the documentary/epigraphic record, point decisively toward a late-tenth-century date for the destruction of the Stratum VA/IVB settlement at Megiddo, which Shishak I almost certainly brought about.

Of course, a secure date for the destruction of Stratum VA/IVB also helps to narrow the time range possible for the destruction of Stratum VI. The destruction of Stratum VIIA in 1140/30 B.C.E. (as determined by the cartouches of Ramesses III and Ramesses VI) and the destruction of Stratum VA/IVB by Shishak in 925 B.C.E. provide the chronological parameters for the life of Stratum VI. It must have existed for the most part during the 11th century B.C.E., just before, in Biblical terms, the United Monarchy of Israel. If we are to leave a reasonable amount of time for Strata VB-VA/IVB, Stratum VI must have been destroyed toward the end of the 11th century, or early in the tenth century at the latest.23

Since Shishak I could not have destroyed the Stratum VI settlement; the kings of the early Israelite Monarchy remain the only viable, historically attested political figures from this period. Megiddo does not appear to have been part of the territory claimed by the Israelites at the time of Saul’s death (see 2 Samuel 2:8-9), but clearly was within the Israelite realm by the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:12; 9:15). David (c. 1010-970 B.C.E.) therefore represents the most plausible historical figure responsible for laying waste to the community whose remains are entombed in Megiddo Stratum VI.


:yipee:

[The Bible is true and accurate in regards to King Saul/David, and additional work will recover more evidence as it pertains to Moses and the Book of Exodus, IMHO. ]

Link to Source:


http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f1.html

Note: Please respect the clause for Fair Use of Copyrighted material. You are allowed to post only portions, not entire articles, without prior permission from the original authors. For more information on Copyright law, including Fair Use see...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

[Richbee]

:poke:

You see Orion, I am *NOT* throwing rocks!

:whistle:

In fact, surely I am innocent as a Lamb!

:sher:

[Richbee]

Ha!

That was only a portion of the ARTICLE!!!

Too many words? OK

[Richbee]

I will attempt to post the core issue, and as a portion of the article found at the following link:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f1.html

Who Destroyed Megiddo? Was It David or Shishak?

By Timothy P. Harrison


Did King David conquer and destroy Megiddo? Well, that depends partly on the date of Stratum VI. Let me explain why.

.......However, in a series of articles,1 as well as in a recent interview in this magazine,* the head of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology, Israel Finkelstein, has argued forcefully that Megiddo Stratum VI should be dated to the period of David and Solomon (otherwise known as the United Monarchy). Stratum VI was destroyed, he contends, by the Egyptian Pharaoh Sheshonq I, the Shishak of the Bible (1 Kings 14:25-26; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9).

[Orion]

Who Destroyed Megiddo? Was It David or Shishak?

An interesting question, Richbee, but I fail to see how it relates to the historicity of the biblical Exodus acccounts, which happens to be the subject of this thread. Did I miss something?

BTW, have you gotten around to reading The Bible Unearthed yet?

[Richbee]

Orion,

Finklestein gets the Bible wrong and key dates wrong in Megiddo?

Why should we trust his conclusions regarding Moses and the book of Exodus???

We also have few more issues, we have a false appeal to authority! Finklestein is not a Theologian.

Additionally, we have a case of Finklestein's agenda.

He sides with the Palestian cause, and wishes to degrade the land claims of Israeli's by making the case for different history that under cuts the Biblical account.

[Dr.GH]

I have been re-reading The Bible Unearthed. Better reasoned than I remembered. The objections raised by richbee are unsupported.

[Richbee]

For Finklestein, the lack of "evidence" is not EVIDENCE!

Then again, we never have conclusive evidence for Moses and the Exodus.

Finklestein is free to sell books advancing any theory or agenda he wishes.

[Passant]

For Finklestein, the lack of "evidence" is not EVIDENCE!

Yes it is, when you claim some milion odd people wandered an area of a few hundred miles for 40 years.

[Richbee]

Ah, yes, after wandering in the desert for 40 years, one should be able to find left over Manna from Heaven!

[Undomiel]

I always like to start off topics like this by running them through my logic filter [these things actually crossed my mind while pondering your questions]:

1. What would be the purpose of constructing a complex historical book, dedicating it to memory, passing it down for centuries, either orally or in writing, and carefully guarding it for millenia if it were nothing more than wishful thinking by an entire race of people.

2. Why would this particular account face the fire of refinement in such excruiating detail, in comparison to the countless other historical books of other civilizations, races, people.

3. Why would their history alone, be so scant in archaeological digs. Surely they didn't just materialize one day. There has to be some record of their existence somewhere. The lack of it, leads me to believe other forces have acted against it (i'll explain in a minute).

4. Why would rulers who had kept them as slaves, leave no indication they had done so.

--------

Possible answers my brain came up with:

What would be the purpose of constructing a complex historical book, dedicating it to memory, passing it down for centuries, either orally or in writing, and carefully guarding it for millenia if it were nothing more than wishful thinking by an entire race of people.

This is simply ridiculous. They have a history in the Bible/Torah. They have a country. They have literature galore. Trying to annihilate their memory by refusing to believe it ever happened, is really.... weird and obsessive.

Why would this particular historical account of a people face the fire of refinement in such excruiating detail, in comparison to the countless other historical books of other civilizations, races, people.

This one really floors me. I have NO CLUE. It just seems totally illogical to me, bordering on psychotic and freaky, that anyone would go to that much trouble to refuse an entire race their heritage and history.

Why would their history alone, be so scant in archaeological digs. Surely they didn't just materialize one day. There has to be some archaelogical record of their existence somewhere. The supposed lack of it, leads me to believe other forces have acted against it (i'll explain in a minute).

The pharaohs were famous for erasing the memories of their enemies from their records, this much is a given. Moses would've qualified as an especially lethal enemy of the pharaoh and Egypt, itself. Afterall, according to the account, he was a Prince in line for the throne at one point. The israelite people were a mish mash of israelites who followed egyptian religion and israelites who followed the hebrew religion. Their melding into egyptian society was probably seamless for the most part. Their style of dress would be the same. They would appear like all the other pyramid builders and workmen, who were natural born egyptians. It isn't likely there was a big differentiation, culturally, except for those who openly tried to practice the hebrew religion. In hieroglyphics they were probably simply referred to as slaves or workmen. It would be Moses, specifically, who would've been in the record and then stricken from the record.

In addition, since the days of the Egyptian empire, four additional separate and unique world empires have had their fingers in the proverbial historical pie - Greek, Roman, Catholic and Muslim. At least three of those would've had very good reasons to destroy hebrew archaeological relics and in fact, that is still going on today on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

[Orion]

What would be the purpose of constructing a complex historical book, dedicating it to memory, passing it down for centuries, either orally or in writing, and carefully guarding it for millenia if it were nothing more than wishful thinking by an entire race of people.

A great many ancient societies constructed legends concerning their origins. The literal truth of these legends is not as important as is the fact that they tended to bind people together and gave them a sense of common history.

This is simply ridiculous. They have a history in the Bible/Torah. They have a country. They have literature galore. Trying to annihilate their memory by refusing to believe it ever happened, is really.... weird and obsessive.

Are you suggesting that the objective of ANE archeologists/historians is to attack the Bible? That this objective constitutes some sort of grand conspiracy?

[James]

11-20-2003 @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=300147#post300147)
Undomiel:

1. What would be the purpose of constructing a complex historical book, dedicating it to memory, passing it down for centuries, either orally or in writing, and carefully guarding it for millenia if it were nothing more than wishful thinking by an entire race of people.

One might say as much about the Illiad or the Odyssey. Like Exodus, both describe personal interactions with gods and fantastic events that seem to be ficticious, even though there may be a kernel of truth in the story (Such as an actual battle at the city of Troy).

2. Why would this particular account face the fire of refinement in such excruiating detail, in comparison to the countless other historical books of other civilizations, races, people.

As above, if you apply the same criteria to the Illiad or the Odyssey, you will find that they contain about the same amount of confirmable historical truth as Exodus.

[Passant]

Ah, yes, after wandering in the desert for 40 years, one should be able to find left over Manna from Heaven!

Well, manna was not all they ate. What about cooking fires? What about graves? What about pottery? What about latrines? A million or so people would leave ALOT of evidence.

[Richbee]

Orion is a rare poster with a fascinating internet histroy.

For over eight(8) long years he has trolled the internet Religious forums and bragging about taking on Christian "fundamentalist".
(i.e. fundies in his lexicon)

Over course he never has, and never will be able to distinguish Evangelicals or RCC Orthodox believers, from Southern Baptist or Pentecostals.

The repeated use of the term: "fundamentalist" is a sign of intellectual laziness.

Orion has been refuted, repudiated, and retorted literally over 10,000 times on the USA Today, NY Times, and The Atlantic forum.

(BTW, I invite everyone here to join us over at:

http://www.theatlantic.com

It is a kind of open season, where Orion preaches his Universal Unitarian nonsense, and spams the former Bishop Spong endlessly.

He has an obsession with Spong fave's Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels.

A wandering cyber Jew who adores Christian apostes and heretics. (enemies of the faith and the faithful)

Go figure.

Arguments from silence is the major in the minors for this spiritually challenged curmudgeon.

Happy Holidays!!!

;-0)

[Richbee]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=329884#post329884

Re: evidence

History is full of wandering tribes.

Have they found the graves of Attila the Hun>

Ghengis Khan?

Evidence for Vandles?

Visigoths in Northern Africa?

Goths in Rome?

Osigoths in Milan?

Tuetonic peoples in Northern France?

[Richbee]

Here is a good one.

Hannibal and his elephants in the alps?

or in Italy?

Elephants would leave behind A LOT of EVIDENCE!

[kofh2u]

10-18-2003 @ 04:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=248804#post248804)
richbee:

Welcome to Theology Web!

I admire your courage to bring your Anti-Biblical, and Anti-supernatural POV's over here.

I would also like to explore, why your thread here generates little interest and posts, but in contrast over at The Atlantic, and at the following link:

http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?14@23.JldqatLGik8.0@.2cb42678

Your POV and agenda is exposed for what it really is, but then why should I care!?

IMHO, over on the Atlantic, your attitude is snotty, and by your own confession spent eight(8) years attacking the Bible, and Christians who proclaim that the Bible is God's Holy scripture, without any concern for the TRUTH.

That is quite an agenda.


Why?

I too, wonder why your posts on the Atlantic generate an emotional response on my part, as originally when I first visited the NYT two(2) years ago and The Atlantic one(1) year ago, I would have thought, that I had no agenda what so ever.

Only after witnessing posts of Biblical nihilism, or your Anti-Biblical agenda, do I realize that I desire to defend my Christian faith. Although, for what gain?

BTW, I have never thought of &quot;converting&quot; or &quot;evangelizing&quot; anyone on the forums. Only God can reveal the truth of Jesus Christ, and IMHO, no one is converted intellectually in cyberspace, or by reading text messages.

In some starnge way, I am drawn to a good cyber contest of wills, and I confess to increasing the drama to maximize the entertainment value. (NYGLAD and KANZEON were my role models.)

:poke:

Any who, have fun, and who knows, we may yet have fun here, where I can be little old &quot;richbee&quot;.......again. :bv:

Sincerely,

Richard &quot;B.&quot; Goode

P.S. The smiley faces here seem to diffuse some of the high drama??? :huh:

I do apoligize for my part in taking my stage show, and hyperbolic posts, and threads too far, but I just can never resist responding to your posts.



????????? I don't understand your purpose here.

You seem to have attacked this fellow Orion and maligned his integrity. Yret, you made no response to what he actually said.


If we read the scriptures we see that this wasn the wayn Jesus wasn treated. He told us that under these circumstances we can know that we ARE in the Kingdom of Heaven.

That your mind is so set seems dangerous. That you attack the messenger rather than the messsge appears evil.

[learning]

Hi, just new to this, but I have an keen interest, mostly cause I had a couple of great aunts who were missionaries to Egypt.

Anyways, I have read the book "A Test of Time" by Egyptologist David Rohl, and from what I remember, he said that when Napoleon's soldiers found the Rosetta stone, and Britain began to send people to study Egypt, it was there very belief in the Bible that may have set the dates of archaelogical things to do with Egypt, and therefore the Bible, off. He believes that there have been some Egyptian leaders found in some historical carvings in Egypt, that throw the time of when Israel was in Egypt and he believes he has found where the children of Israel, and possibly Joseph's palace was located in northern Egypt. But the biggest 'proof' for me from all of his research, is that in the place where he believes that Joseph had his 'palace' there is a bay called "The Bay of Yosef" (I could be spelling this wrong.)

so, have you read "The Test of Time"?

Just curious.I am about to read "From Eden to Exile" by David Rohl and also "Abraham" by Bruce Feiler.

[learning]

this is just a little bit of extra info from David Rohl's 'new chronology' time, but from what I've read, it helps to fit in that the Bible indeed is accurate in archaeological timing, it was just the early archaeological time that was off, not the Bible!

so, here is the Pharaoh that David Rohl puts in at the time of Joseph and the time of Moses.

Joseph, King Nimaatre Amenemhat III, who appointed Joseph as vizier of Egypt.

Moses, Pharoah who raised Moses, Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV (Karnak)

well, I'm not sure of their exact times, even the Egyptologists are not exactly sure, but this is what David Rohl has said.

any thoughts?

and the reason I find the 'bay of Yoseph" or "Yuseph" so neat, as that bodies of water, rivers, streets, are usually named after famous people of the area, so this makes sense that this area is indeed the place where Joseph and his people did indeed settle.

[bandecoot]

11-06-2003 @ 01:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272674#post272674)
richbee:

Finklestein is a Biblical Minimalists with a duly noted agenda.

Orion has been refuted many times over on the The Atlantic board, and he just keeps posting this stuff!

Velikovsky has about as much credibility as Von Daniken, whats your point? There is NO evidence for the Exodus event where the bible says it was. If We are looking in the wrong place, do enlighten us as to where We should be looking, and I am sure that someone will find what you claim in that place. Until you can come up with some evidence, leave off the Ad Homs, OK.

They contribute nothing to the discussion at hand and just slow things down to the point where the thread is unreadable. Evidence, my dear richbee, is what is needed, and Mr Velikovsky provides nothing but beetle tracking and wild suppositions, no evidence at all.

Wild cries of "Manetho was wrong" will earn you blank stares and the academic equivalent of " well duh". Manetho is inaccurate, not wrong, and the gaps and inconsistancies in his list are well known to professional Historians and Egyptologists. The blanks and obvious errors are already well and truly covered in the mainstream Journals. You may want to have a look one of these days at those bastions of conservative scholarship, and you might find that what you are told by the fringe elements is just plain wrong.

All the best
Andrew

[learning]

Well, I have seen on the news where a few years ago, some people were upset cause some extremists were attacking the grave site of Joseph.
and, that grave site is IN Israel, and archaelogists, when they looked at it, (many years ago) found his body was buried or prepared like Egyptian ones. So, that is enough evidence for me.

The fact that my great Aunts were able to go to Egypt, and some Egytpians became christians, and when she went back and met them at the airport, they sang Hymns greeting her,( and she said it was like heaven), to me, that is also a fact that makes me believe that the Exodus took place. Why else would some Egyptians believe in a Christ, who came from a book that was connected to them, if they didn't believe that it happened.

There will always be some who will try to discredit some things. Lack of 'proof' doesn't mean something didn't happen. We have eye witness written down 'proof' And yes, how does one distinguish that from the truth. Well, if they say that Joseph was in Egypt, and that the children of Israel brought him back, and his body had been originally buried like an Egyptian, and then that is what they find in Israel, well, what else do you need? If that isn't enought, nothing will be.

[sweet_jess]

i read about what you say with egypt.

egypt does not write about exodos? rememnber moses send plague. ten times with bugs and frogs anfd things. egypt write about these things or not? same time as moses exodos.

find plague is dfinding moses. many people die. fish in rivber die. turniogfnm turning to blood.

moses makes sea swallow armh army of pharo. look for this in egypt bboks. then you know when is exodos

[learning]

i don't know why there isn't anything written about the plagues, I suspect that it is because most historians of any country don't like to write about their defeat, and also, I read in National Geographic, that leaders that lost respect, or had done something wrong, had their names struck from the history that was carved about them, and their images destroyed. That is why they think that the statue of Joseph was destroyed that was found in the tomb in northen Egypt. The thing was broken apart, and the eyes gouged out. They removed any 'history' about enemies so that they would not be allowed in the after life. You can read about this in one of the recent National Geographics, last fall, the one that had the 'Phaorohs of the sun' on the cover.

[learning]

Here's a link from the November 2003 National Geographic
that talked about what I just mentioned. But it only teases you
to go to the real magazine to get the 'rest of the story' so you'ld have to check it out in a library.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0311/feature3/index.html

I have often wondered about the Pharoah that this servant was a servant for, for it mentions he had an older brother who died, and it is blury about when or how his father died. In another National Geographic, it mentions that he changed the religion and capital of Egypt, and I often wondered why, the archeologists wondered why. We only know that he was mad at the priests for some reason. Could it be because of what happened in Exodus? I wonder?

I'm not very good at links, so if that link doesn't work just go to the National Geographic magazine site, and look for stuff about the Sun god section of the November 2003 issue.

[Passant]

Have they found the graves of Attila the Hun

No, but plenty of evidence of him and his army

Ghengis Khan?

Same here

Evidence for Vandles?

Yes

Visigoths in Northern Africa?

Yes

Goths in Rome?

Yes

Osigoths in Milan?

I don’t know, who were the Osigoths?

Tuetonic peoples in Northern France?

Yes

[Robyn Banks]

"Ancient Egypt's population numbered about three million or so. The books of Exodus and Numbers state that some 600,000 men of military age followed Moses from Egypt. If one adds women, children and elderly men to this figure, a total of about two million is implied. It is reasonable to expect that such a massive exodus should be recognizable in the archaeological record of ancient Egypt."
- Kurt L Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity - An Introduction
The Bible dates the Exodus and Conquest as follows:
- From 1 Kings 6.1, the 4th year of Solomon's reign was the 480th year after the Israelites left Egypt.
- Nebuchadnezzar II attacked Jerusalem and took is king, Jehoiachin, to Babylon (2 Kings 24.10-17)
- Babylonian royal archives narrate this to 597BCE
- The total years of reigns of kings from Solomon till Jehoiachin (597BCE) is 423 years.
- 423 + 597 = 1020BCE
- The 4th year is therefore 1016BCE
- Add 480 years, and get 1496BCE = The Exodus
- Add 40 years, and get 1456BCE = The Conquest

The archaeological record shows that the population of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age (1550BCE - 1200BCE) decreases from 140,000 to 70,000. In the highlands (North Galilee to Southern Central Hills north of Jerusalem), the population increases to 100,000 from 1100BCE to 900BCE.

Hmmmm. Take 2 to 3 million people out of an Egyptian population of 3 million? There's hardly anybody left there!!! And, if there is, we would undoubtedly expect to note the drastic reduction in the archaeological record. But we cannot.

Hmmmmmmmm. Add 2 to 3 million people in the Palestinian Highlands. And the population goes down. To 70,000. Oh dear.

The archaeological record not only doesn't support an Exodus or Conquest as described in the Bible. It is drastically inconsistent with it.

“By the time one adds women and children – and anyone else subsumed under the rubric of ‘mixed crowd’ – it is a mass of people, at least 2.5 million, that is moving out of Egypt. Such a number, particularly when combined with ‘livestock in great number,’ would have constituted a logistical nightmare and is impossible; if all 2.5 million people marched ten abreast, the resulting line of more than 150 miles would need eight or nine days to march past any fixed point. Taken at face value, such a host could not have crossed any ordinary stretch of water by any ordinary road or path in one night; nor could these numbers, or anything remotely approaching them, have been sustained in the inhospitable Sinai desert. Modern census figures suggest a current total of approximately forty thousand Bedouin for the entire Sinai Peninsula; in the late nineteenth century CE the figure was under five thousand. The entire population of Egypt in the mid-thirteenth century BCE has been estimated at 2.8 million.”
- Carol A Redmount, “Bitter Lives – Israel in and out of Egypt” in Michael D Coogan, ed., The Oxford History of the Biblical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)

Not to mention that 1496 BCE is at the time of the height of power for the 18th Egyptian Dynasty! The Israelites not only escaped out of Egypt into... Egypt, but they escaped into a very powerful Egypt! "Under King Thutmoses III the Egyptian armies pushed up into Syria and the border of Egypt was established there. The whole of Palestine was an Egyptian province. In other words, Joshua's Canaan, the land flowing with milk and honey, the promised land of the Bible, was part of the Egyptian Empire! Moses led his people out of Egypt and they wandered for 40 years in a part of Egypt (the Negev and Transjordan), then Joshua brought the Israelites across the Jordan and right back into another part of Egypt!"
- Kurt L Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity - An Introduction
Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[markporter]

Hmmmm. Take 2 to 3 million people out of an Egyptian population of 3 million? There's hardly anybody left there!!! And, if there is, we would undoubtedly expect to note the drastic reduction in the archaeological record. But we cannot.


Hmm, so there are no places in the Egyptian record where it seem some huge disaster or something ocurred? I find that hard to believe, I think you're being a little too stubborn with your chronology, it is in revising both Egyptian and Biblical chronologies that solutions to this sort of thing seem to happen.

[Robyn Banks]

Hmm, so there are no places in the Egyptian record where it seem some huge disaster or something ocurred?

To the contrary, significant population changes are quite easily able to be 'read' from strata analysis. And this is the basis of my very point. By analysing strata, archaeologists are able to discern the population of an area at a particular period. Yet, the Bible claims that Egypt's population was reduced by what constitutes a 70%-90% reduction. About 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 Jews are claimed to have left an Egypt that only had 3,000,000 population in total! And there is no evidence either of:
1. A reduction of population of this scale anywhere in the Middle to Late Bronze eras.
2. An increase of population in Canaan in the middle to Late Bronze eras (to the contrary, there is a decline from the Middle Bronze era until the Late Bronze era.

Archaeology has completely disproved the Bible's account of an Exodus - a fact accepted by all but the most fundamentalist of archaeologists.



I find that hard to believe, I think you're being a little too stubborn with your chronology,

To the contrary, I am leaving open two entire ages - the Middle to Late Bronze eras - as 'possible' times for an Exodus. This is a period of 800 years!




it is in revising both Egyptian and Biblical chronologies that solutions to this sort of thing seem to happen.

Nonsense. No solution accords with the Biblical claims of an exodus of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people from Egypt. You will find that the theories put forward to find some rational explanation for an 'Exodus' simply dismiss these numbers from the outset.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[markporter]

To the contrary, I am leaving open two entire ages - the Middle to Late Bronze eras - as 'possible' times for an Exodus. This is a period of 800 years!

mmm, well one article I've been looking at seem to favour an earlier date than that, Israel entering the promised land at the end of the Early Bronze. A wide open period isn't much help if it's the wrong one.

[Robyn Banks]

mmm, well one article I've been looking at seem to favour an earlier date than that, Israel entering the promised land at the end of the Early Bronze.

More than 500 years before the Bible dates it? Now, that's imaginative.

[markporter]

More than 500 years before the Bible dates it? Now, that's imaginative.
Or perhaps we're somehow misinterpreting the dates in the Bible to put it more than 500 years later?

[Socratism]

I used to be an avid reader of articles on archaeology, but after following that stuff for about a half century I gave it up, probably because things changed so drastically every couple of decades or so.

Perhaps the comment on astronomers also applies here, because as the saying goes "they are frequently wrong but never in doubt".

[Robyn Banks]

Or perhaps we're somehow misinterpreting the dates in the Bible to put it more than 500 years later?

Well - I've shown you what the Bible says. If you can plausibly add another 500 years in here, then I'd be interested in what you are saying. But at the moment you are just making 'but maybes'.


The Bible dates the Exodus and Conquest as follows:
- From 1 Kings 6.1, the 4th year of Solomon's reign was the 480th year after the Israelites left Egypt.
- Nebuchadnezzar II attacked Jerusalem and took is king, Jehoiachin, to Babylon (2 Kings 24.10-17)
- Babylonian royal archives narrate this to 597BCE
- The total years of reigns of kings from Solomon till Jehoiachin (597BCE) is 423 years.
- 423 + 597 = 1020BCE
- The 4th year is therefore 1016BCE
- Add 480 years, and get 1496BCE = The Exodus
- Add 40 years, and get 1456BCE = The Conquest

Robyn Banks

[markporter]

Well - I've shown you what the Bible says. If you can plausibly add another 500 years in here, then I'd be interested in what you are saying. But at the moment you are just making 'but maybes'.
Yes, I know, I'm not a scholar so I don't really have much knowledge about this type of thing, it's just that I'm very wary of taking all the numbers in the Bible literally, as so often there's a symbolism there that would lead to a different reading.

[Dr.GH]

Yes, I know, I'm not a scholar so I don't really have much knowledge about this type of thing, it's just that I'm very wary of taking all the numbers in the Bible literally, as so often there's a symbolism there that would lead to a different reading.

I quite agree. And that is a main point of the discussion. Can we simply add up guesses and interpretations and call it holy? I think that sort of thinking is more holely than holy.

Additionally, there is ample evidnce that numbers themselves were used metephorically and symbolically, rendering most of the so-called "plain language" interpretations useless as chronology.

[kofh2u]

[QUOTE=Undomiel]I always like to start off topics like this by running them through my logic filter....

Great open minded world view post!

I agree with what you said, and I commend you for your ability to stand outside the entire box of human contemplation. I am sincere in my appreciation of your wide scope in viewing the largest scenario, inspite of supposed authoritative academicians.

Realky. It is wonderful to have read a view coming from my oen perspective.
thanxs

[kofh2u]

[QUOTE=James]One might say as much about the Illiad or the Odyssey. Like Exodus, both describe personal interactions with gods and fantastic events that seem to be ficticious, even though there may be a kernel of truth in the story (Such as an actual battle at the city of Troy).

NO.
Emphatically, no way.

You have the wrong gendre of literature in this comparison.

Whereas you speak correctly, in that every society has had its own Epic, you are incorrect in placing the Torah in that category.

Torah would be more proper among the writings and revelations of those other ancient Mystery Societies, the Elyusian Mystery, or perhaps a written commentary from the great Temple of Diana.

Although many historians agree that these secret societies had profound effect upon the advancement of our civilization, no other writing has been allowed to reach us, the common people.
Was this due to conspiracy? Absolutely. Only a select "initiate" into those societies had hope of gaining that knowledge.

Matthew confirms this in the statement where Jesus admits to mere parables for the masses, but that the secrets of the kingdom where withheld for his apostles. The nysterious "keys" give to Peterm tge sane as thise found on tge shoikder of tge nessuah, staed in Is 22:22, and the clear statement in Rev 10:7, about this being one of those mystery societies, support me here.

We are not talking the discipline of History here, in scripture. We are privy to writings concerning what these mysterysocieties (The Hebrew Mystery bring one of many) were engaged in, in general, and specifically just what was the secret esoteric knowledge of the Hebrew Mystery.

That is not to imply we should ignor its inckusion of history, nor ought we assume it reaches us unadulterated. Neither do I admonish you or others for serious inspection of every aspect if these scriptures. We do want to do this.

No. I don't do that. No, these writings are not like the epics of other societies. No, they ought not be examined for their intended meaning by Scientific Evolutionists, their historical infallliblity, nor their literal justification.

Yes, we ought focus more on what the mystery societies were doing, and why. Because this is the ONLY body of work suspected of being able to tell us HOW.

[kofh2u]

Well, manna was not all they ate. What about cooking fires? What about graves? What about pottery? What about latrines? A million or so people would leave ALOT of evidence.

PATIENCE ...

We didn't find the WMD in Iraq yet, either. Its a big country, Sinai... way bigger than California.

(Also, off the subject, a friend is mailing me a photo from Iraq showing a picture of the remains of The Temple of the Moon God, Sin. Genesis says Abraham's father (that'd be Terah) worshipped there.)

[kofh2u]

I quite agree. And that is a main point of the discussion. Can we simply add up guesses and interpretations and call it holy? I think that sort of thinking is more holely than holy.

Additionally, there is ample evidnce that numbers themselves were used metephorically and symbolically, rendering most of the so-called "plain language" interpretations useless as chronology.


And, how about the most recent data from GENETICS?

Applying the techniques of modern biology to members of the ancient
institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Beginning with Aaron, priestly status has been passed down through the ages, from fathers to sons through word of mouth. To this day, all the Cohanim are seen as descendants of Aaron, not just figuratively but by blood. Many, but not all, have the surname Cohen, Kohen, Cohn, Kohn,
Cone, Kone, Cahn, Kahn or Kahane. (Cohan in Hebrew means priest.)

In Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, they are accorded special respect and are the only ones who can perform certain important religious duties. The Cohanim Blessing is made by holding the hand with a split between the ring finger and the middle finger- a gesture decidedly similar in posture to the greeting of Dr. Spock's hand on "Star Trek."

The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron.

Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick tompoint out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of Aaron, at @1200BC.

(3300 - 2000 = 1300 years - Aaron's age +/- @ 1200 BC)

[Robyn Banks]

Additionally, there is ample evidnce that numbers themselves were used metephorically and symbolically, rendering most of the so-called "plain language" interpretations useless as chronology.

The writer of Acts disagrees with you. He says that the period of the Judges was "about 450 years" - which agrees with a literal interpretation of the 480-year period until the building of Solomon's Temple:"And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet."
- Acts 13.19-20
Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

And, how about the most recent data from GENETICS?

Applying the techniques of modern biology to members of the ancient
institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

This is incorrect.

A Y-chromosome study can determine whether Cohanim have a common ancestor. A Y-chromosome study cannot date that common ancestor with the precision you assert.

This is the study you refer to: Skorecki K, Selig S, Blazer S, Bradman R, Bradman N, War-burton PJ, Ismajlowicz M, et al (1997) 'Y chromosomes of Jewish priests' Nature 385:32.
http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html

Late last year I attended a very interesting series of lectures by Brian Sykes. It struck me at the time that this emerging science could be put to use in determining Israel's origins. For instance - is the Jewish Y-chromosome indistinct from other Palestinians, Syrians and Lebonese? If this is so, then this would lend considerable support to the leading theory of Israel's origins: that there was no 'conquest' from outsiders, but it was merely a development from within this region.

And, indeed, one study (M.F. Hammer et al., "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97:6769-74, June 6, 2000 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769 ) has concluded that based on Y-chromosome analysis, Jews and Palestinians derive from the same common ancestor.

"Of the Middle Eastern populations included in this study, only the Syrian and Palestinian samples mapped within the central cluster of Jewish populations."

Based on this study, Jews are Syro-Palestinians. This is, of course, only one study, and many more would be required before firm conclusions are made.

Hmmmmm... here's one more recent study:
"Surprisingly, in the present study, Jews were found to be even closer to populations in the northern part of the Middle East than to several Arab populations. It is worth mentioning that, on the basis of protein polymorphisms, most Jewish populations cluster very closely with Iraqis (Livshits et al. 1991) and that the latter, in turn, cluster very closely with Kurds (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history
...
Jews exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to populations living in the north of the Fertile Crescent."
"The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East" by Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, and Ariella Oppenheim The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001): 1095-1112
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n5/013033/013033.html

This is all quite interesting, I reckon.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[markporter]

I'm not sure that you can draw such firm conclusions from the genetic data Robyn, surely we can avoid the problem just by allowing for a significant amount of inter-breeding between those coming out of Egypt and the locals?

[Robyn Banks]

I'm not sure that you can draw such firm conclusions from the genetic data Robyn, surely we can avoid the problem just by allowing for a significant amount of inter-breeding between those coming out of Egypt and the locals?

You seem to think that there is a 'problem' to be 'avoided'. But the DNA analysis does in fact allow a general dating to 3,000 years ago. And where a people had allegedly been separated for some 480 years, we could still expect a difference in this DNA - which is not the case.

In any case, I would treat DNA evidence as corroborative of the archaeological evidence (strongly conclusive) and the language evidence (that Hebrew comes from Canaanite - good evidence for origins). The DNA evidence does not stand on its own, but - to the contrary - supports a very strong body of evidence demonstrating that Israelites ARE Canaanites.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[markporter]

It is a problem to be avoided if I believe the rest of the evidence to point in a different direction from that which you suggest. I personally don't have a clue what 480 years separation will do to the DNA in this case, but I find it hard to believe that when the Israelites came into Canaan they kept themselves entirely separated from the locals, I think that enough probably went on interbreeding with the locals to make whatever differences had occured in the 480 years to be blurred away. I think that with both local people being incorporated into the nation and with Israel having it away with those around them it creates a rather more foggy picture.

[Robyn Banks]

I personally don't have a clue what 480 years separation will do to the DNA in this case...

It shows. If Israelites really were a distinct people for that long, and really numbered 2-3 million as the Bible states, that's going to show up in DNA, that's for sure. Your explanation requires that they were completely interbred with the Canaanites - which is above and beyond what even the Bible claims.

On top of the very strong archaeological evidence, and the strong linguistic evidence, the DNA evidence corroborates what had become the majority position: that Israelites were always indigenous to the land of Canaan. Israelites are Canaanites.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[markporter]

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks
well, it certainly does something, I'm not convinced that helps is the word I'd use though

[learning]

Yes, I know, I'm not a scholar so I don't really have much knowledge about this type of thing, it's just that I'm very wary of taking all the numbers in the Bible literally, as so often there's a symbolism there that would lead to a different reading.

Indeed, I learned at a Bible study on Mark, that this minister had a friend who was a Rabbai, and this Rabbai had explained to this minister that there is no words for 'long time' and 'short time' in Hebrew, and therefore 'forty years' means 'a long time' and 'three days' means a short time. This sure changed the way I looked at some things in the Bible. I do believe where they are specific (in the Bible) about something happening in such a day, month, year, that it is specific, but I found it very interesting to learn this.

Also, in www.sonlight.com, a homeschooling website, I read an article about young earth, old earth, and one of this owner's discussions on this reported how some people in Africa wondered why the Hebrews in the Bible only remembered so many ancestors for so many years. The Africans stated that when they did their genealogy, they only put in the most important people as their ancestors, and therefore, they would only remember so many to keep it important, and if someone came along who was more important than another, they would drop one of the other names. So, this could have happened in the Bible as well, as there are places where names are a bit different, ie. there are people who are grandfathers or great-grandfathers of someone, and they are called the 'father' of someone. I think this could explain why sometimes dates are off when it comes to our way of lining up genealogy. :)

[Dr.GH]

Welcome to the discussion. I think that you are quite likely correct on both issues. I'd ammend the geneology a bit to note that clan's are often given the name of their clan founder, and new leaders are often then renamed with the clan name when thsy assume command. Thus, geneologies can reflect the 'lives' of groups of people rather than actual individuals.

The use of 40 to represent a long while actually dates back to the Sumerian Epic of Attrahasis, and probably earlier. It was literally 4 of the ten day 'weeks' then used to divide time.

[learning]

Hi, thankyou for your welcome. I should say I think I'll let this subject 'stew' a little, for it was one that at one time, helped to 'throw the sword' out of my hand. I had always believed the Bible literally, and found it hard, when pressed, to come up with 'proof' that the Exodus happened. But I do have one proof, I think. The Jews in the land of Israel today. :)

Well, I also read where there were some tribes in the land of Kashmir who had a story of walking through a sea on dry land.
I have to end with, I lost my faith once, over some of this stuff, and it's not worth it. A friend prayed for me, and now I feel like a dyslexic (which I may be one) starting with the answer and working backwards. I know there is a God, cause He saved me from ending it all one night, when my lack of faith made me feel that this life wasn't of any hope. But someone prayed for me, that dark cloud was lifted, so no matter what, I know my Redeemer lives. I'ld like answers to all my past questions, but He is enough for now.

[kamelion2]

Hello,

This forum seems to be dead now, but it was a very interesting read. If anyone wants to discuss these things still, please e-mail me at: kamelion_2@yahoo.com.

The book recommended by Dever sounds interesting, but the information presented in "The Bible Unearthed" is too great to ignore. One possibility comes to mind, that the Israelites were wandering in the Arabian desert instead of the Sinai. This would quickly erase any archaeological remains; plus, the Bible said the wandering generations of the Israelites had to stay in the desert until their fathers' carcasses were "consumed" (Num. 14:33). Perhaps they were very meticulous about remains. Also, the Gulf of Aqaba may have grown merely a few hundred yards to cover up Ezion-geber. The Septuagint version of the Bible also seems to place 'Kadesh' in the vicinity of Mt. Paran in more than one instance. However, this doesn't explain the 600,000-man march or the lack of evidence for cities in Israel.

It'd be a joy to discuss these things with anyone on this list. My mind is always privy to new information. Please e-mail me if you've got anything to talk about regarding the information in this book.

Thanks,
kam

Re: The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein & Silberman, Free Press Pub.

These two authors, one an archeologist and the other a historian, have published a book which draws attention to some striking discrepancies between certain Bible narratives vs. recent archeological and historical findings. By recent, I mean within the last hundred years.

Of the several topics covered within the book (the Patriarchs, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, etc.), I'd like to discuss the Exodus story within this thread. If this generates enough interest, we can then move on to some of these other topics. I apologize if I'm plowing old ground here. I did a forum search and could find nothing on this subject.

Israel Finkelstein - Director of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University.

Neil Asher Silberman - Director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archeology in Belgium and a contributing editor to Archeology magazine.

The book of Exodus describes the labours of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, their eventual liberation at the hand of Moses, and the subsequent wanderings of these people in Sinai for forty years. Does this story reflect historical reality? Can we find extra-biblical and/or archeological evidence in support of this story?

First, let's establish the time frame. The biblical account in 1 Kings 6:1 dates the Exodus to about 1440 BCE in the Late Bronze age (LB). Right away, problems crop up. Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with what is now Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.

According to the Exodus account (12:37-38), the freed Hebrews numbered almost two million (600 thousand men as well as women, children, and the elderly, not to mention cattle, sheep, etc.), and wandered in the Sinai for forty years. However, archeologists have been unable to uncover a single campsite or sign of occupation within the Sinai during this (LB) period - no pot sherds, no bones, no encampements, nothing.

The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai. The location of this site is set in Num. 34. Repeated excavations within this area have not provided the slightest evidence of occupation during the LB. Ezion-geber is another such site identified in the Bible, and again, no trace of LB occupation has been discovered.

What does this tell us? It suggests that the dates and places mentioned in the Exodus story do not relate to the time of the Exodus as related in the Bible. Quoting from the authors...

The most evocative and consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE, during the great era of the prosperity of the kingdom of Judah - six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place. All of the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering of the Israelites were inhabited in the seventh century; in some cases they were occupied only at that time.

The Bible tells us that Moses sent agents from Kadesh-barnea to the king of Edom to ask permission to pass through the country on the way to Canaan (Num 20:14-21). The king refused. Archeological investigations suggest that Edom reached statehood only under Assyrian rule sometime in the seventh century BCE. Before that, it was a backwater.

Again, this seventh century era keeps popping up in archeological and historical investigations. But by this time, Judah was already established as an Israelite settlement.

[ChrisChillin]

I'm going through Finkelstein and Silberman's book, as well as several others, right now as I research for a paper. But I would be willing to discuss the various issues soon enough.

[Celsus]

I've reviewed Dever's case at length here (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=219). Needless to say, I think he's a load of tripe.

Joel

[shunyadragon]

Re: The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein & Silberman, Free Press Pub.

These two authors, one an archeologist and the other a historian, have published a book which draws attention to some striking discrepancies between certain Bible narratives vs. recent archeological and historical findings. By recent, I mean within the last hundred years.

Of the several topics covered within the book (the Patriarchs, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, etc.), I'd like to discuss the Exodus story within this thread. If this generates enough interest, we can then move on to some of these other topics. I apologize if I'm plowing old ground here. I did a forum search and could find nothing on this subject.

Israel Finkelstein - Director of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University.

Neil Asher Silberman - Director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archeology in Belgium and a contributing editor to Archeology magazine.

The book of Exodus describes the labours of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, their eventual liberation at the hand of Moses, and the subsequent wanderings of these people in Sinai for forty years. Does this story reflect historical reality? Can we find extra-biblical and/or archeological evidence in support of this story?

First, let's establish the time frame. The biblical account in 1 Kings 6:1 dates the Exodus to about 1440 BCE in the Late Bronze age (LB). Right away, problems crop up. Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with what is now Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.

According to the Exodus account (12:37-38), the freed Hebrews numbered almost two million (600 thousand men as well as women, children, and the elderly, not to mention cattle, sheep, etc.), and wandered in the Sinai for forty years. However, archeologists have been unable to uncover a single campsite or sign of occupation within the Sinai during this (LB) period - no pot sherds, no bones, no encampements, nothing.

The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai. The location of this site is set in Num. 34. Repeated excavations within this area have not provided the slightest evidence of occupation during the LB. Ezion-geber is another such site identified in the Bible, and again, no trace of LB occupation has been discovered.

What does this tell us? It suggests that the dates and places mentioned in the Exodus story do not relate to the time of the Exodus as related in the Bible. Quoting from the authors...

The most evocative and consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE, during the great era of the prosperity of the kingdom of Judah - six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place. All of the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering of the Israelites were inhabited in the seventh century; in some cases they were occupied only at that time.

The Bible tells us that Moses sent agents from Kadesh-barnea to the king of Edom to ask permission to pass through the country on the way to Canaan (Num 20:14-21). The king refused. Archeological investigations suggest that Edom reached statehood only under Assyrian rule sometime in the seventh century BCE. Before that, it was a backwater.

Again, this seventh century era keeps popping up in archeological and historical investigations. But by this time, Judah was already established as an Israelite settlement.
To rectify these problems some fundimentalist scholars place Moses and Exodus about 300 - 400 years or so later. I consider this a historical squeeze and mismatch. I am not comfortable with this but I am not a scholar so I cannot directly refute this.

Any comments why this rewrite is plausible or not?

[Socratism]

To rectify these problems some fundimentalist scholars place Moses and Exodus about 300 - 400 years or so later. I consider this a historical squeeze and mismatch. I am not comfortable with this but I am not a scholar so I cannot directly refute this.

Any comments why this rewrite is plausible or not?

What I find interesting as someone who has been observing what has been happening over many years is that the bible accounts are always proved to be accurate in the end and the "estimates" by secular researchers always are shown by new discoveries to have been somewhat in error.

The dates currently "established" for the very earliest Egyptian eras will in my opinion eventually be shown to be in error and the biblical dates will be shown to have been right all along. We just have to be patient for that to happen, because it always does.

[Robyn Banks]

What I find interesting as someone who has been observing what has been happening over many years is that the bible accounts are always proved to be accurate in the end.

What I find interesting as someone who often looks up at the sky is that it is always purple in my world, even though other people say it isn't.

[kofh2u]

What I find interesting as someone who often looks up at the sky is that it is always purple in my world, even though other people say it isn't.

Hello Robyn,
I was glad to see that you are still posting. You add much to these boards in that you are so well informed.

I wonder if our ancient epics, Beowulf, for instance, are what you make of the Hebrew Scriptures, or do you see them as of the gendre of, say, the Eleusinian Mystery?

What I am saying is that if for argument sake we discount scripture as a historically accurate document or a factual record of the Hebrew people, then what is it? It can not be dismissed easily in light of its success in surviving and, very so important, maintaining such enormous world wide credibilty. What is it if not as represented?

(Mysteries:
Secret cults of the Greco-Roman world. Derived from primitive tribal ceremonies, mystery religions reached their peak of popularity in Greece in the first three centuries AD. Their members met secretly to share meals and take part in dances and ceremonies, especially initiation rites. The cult of Demeter produced the most famous of the mystery religions, the Eleusinian Mysteries, as well as the Andania mysteries. Dionysus was worshiped in festivals that included wine, choral singing, sexual activity, and mime.
The Orphic cult, by contrast, based on sacred writings attributed to Orpheus, required chastity and abstinence from meat and wine. Mystery cults also attached to Attis, Isis, and Jupiter Dolichenus, among others.)

[Robyn Banks]

I wonder if our ancient epics, Beowulf, for instance, are what you make of the Hebrew Scriptures, or do you see them as of the gendre of, say, the Eleusinian Mystery?

What I am saying is that if for argument sake we discount scripture as a historically accurate document or a factual record of the Hebrew people, then what is it? It can not be dismissed easily in light of its success in surviving and, very so important, maintaining such enormous world wide credibilty. What is it if not as represented?

The Hebrew Scriptures are many things: narrative, history, poetry, folk-wisdom, philosophical wisdom, song, worship, law-code, genealogy, saga, myth, cosmogony, apocalyptic, warnings, etc. It is incorrect to narrow the genre down when it comprises so diverse a group of materials.

[kofh2u]

The Hebrew Scriptures are many things: narrative, history, poetry, folk-wisdom, philosophical wisdom, song, worship, law-code, genealogy, saga, myth, cosmogony, apocalyptic, warnings, etc. It is incorrect to narrow the genre down when it comprises so diverse a group of materials.

It is hardly fair of me to impose again becausevyou answered wisely. However, I left enough "wiggle room" that you might avoid a direct answer concerning not what the text concerns but its origin. To be more specific. If it is not what the Christian and the Jew say it is, The Word, from divine sources, who and for what purposes, and more important, to whom was it written?

It seems difficult to suddenly perpetrate a story, such as Exodus, which appears unsupportable today, and reasonably, less supportable at the "supposed" time.

How would we devise such a clever scheme today? To write a book which would become what this book has become? And, what genre of literature would that be, other than the Secret Esoteric Knowledge of the Mystery of Israel, ie; Kabbalah?

Is it then Kabbalah, if in your opinion, not strictly factual, nor "narrative, history, poetry, folk-wisdom, philosophical wisdom, song, worship, law-code, genealogy, saga, myth, cosmogony, apocalyptic, warnings,"... nor truly divine?

[runtmc2jc]

The greek was misinterpreted. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea.


i favor the crossing site to be on the east coast of sinai and the crossing over to the arabian peninsula, thus putting mt. 'sinai' in arabia (jebel el-lawz) and most likely the wandering of 40 years on the arabian peninsula.

[runtmc2jc]

It is a common misconception that 1st Kings 6:1 gives an Exodus date of 1440BCE. So common is this misconception i was most surprised to find upon reading 1st Kings 6:1 to find it gave only 480 years to the incomplete date of the 2nd month of King Solomon's 4th year. Upon further research i discovered that the misconception that it gives the 1440BCE date is based really upon adding years from Shoshenq's 1 reign placed about 960BCE.

This placement is derived by the translation of Champollion in the 1st half of the 19th century CE of Shoshenq I as the Biblical Shishak. This placement is considered rock solid. Despite the fact that modern Archaeologists. Having reviewed his expedition into the "Holy Land." Are no longer so sure that Shoshenq I even made it into what is now considered historical Judea. Considering his expedition to be more in line with an invasion into what is now considered historical Israel. Please see David Rohl's work Pharaohs and Kings a Biblical Quest. As his work on Shoshenq I expedition is the best available at this time. That Shoshenq I makes no mention of having sacked a great temple, such as the Temple of Solomon which he would have, if he had. Ought to make modern scholars a tab more cautious in believing he did.

The placement of Shoshenq I as Shishak places his predecessor Siamun as the most likely Pharaoh to have given Solomon his Pharaonic daughter as wife and Queen. Siamun as this Pharaoh is almost as funny as placing either Ramesses II or Tuthmosis III as the Pharaohs of the Exodus. (The 1440BCE date of the Exodus favors Tuthmosis III as this Pharaoh by the way.) Siamun was to busy robbing and reburying the Pharaonic tombs of the 17th Dynasty through his own. He left no records of having given any cities away. Such as the Biblical recording of Gezar being given to Solomon (1st Kings 9:16) as a dowry for the Pharaoh's daughter. Let alone the fact that he gave a daughter to a powerful King on his northeastern border.

Another reason to question the identification of Shoshenq I as the Pharaoh Shishak (if more is needed). Solomon's great grandson King Asa of Israel (2nd Chronicles 14:9) saves Israel from threaten invasion by Zerah, the Ethiopian. There is no Ethiopian threat in 900BCE! It existed during the reigns of Ramesses II, his son Mernephat of the 19th Dynasty and during the time of Pi Ankiy 750 BCE.

No record, no record, no record is the history of the Pharaohs of the 20th, 21st, and the 22nd Dynasties of any relationship with Israel. The only record of relationship between Shoshenq I of the 22nd Dynasty and the Bible is found in the identification of Champollion 19th century BC. I am sorry it is not acceptable to me. Especially when that identification results in Tuthmosis III as being the most likely Pharaoh of the Exodus! When he left Egypt in the most extreme opposite condition from what the Bible describes Egypt as being at the Exodus.

It is not surprising that those that seek to peg Shoshenq I as Shishak. Can't make heads or tails of the Biblical recording of the Jewish peoples history. Leading them to question the validity of the Bible period. I would be more accepting of the work of such scholars as Dr.s Finkelstein and Silberman if they were as complete in their work as they were in the formation of their theories based upon mid-19th century identification of Shishak.


velikovsky quite convincingly equates shishak with thutmose III, and his reconstruction is well-documented in "Ages in Chaos".

[meforevidence]

May I suggest looking at meforevidence.googlepages.com under The Exodus. There is also a great Jewish site at: http://aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp

Hope you don't mind the referrals. The above show numerous supporting evidences of the exodus in secular history. William Dever is also presented as being upset toward the minimalists who do not look at the evidence. Even though he is not really a supporter of the Exodus, he does believe in a historical Israel including the United and Divided Kingdom based on several excavations.
One more site that is the most persuasive is The California Institute of Ancient Studies found at specialtyinterests.net where you can read of evidences supporting the destruction of Jericho and surrounding cities based on scarabs as well as the Ipewer Papyri supporting the plagues of the Bible. It also will refer to an ABC special in Australia where Dever and Finklestein were embarrased by evidence of King David based on the Tel Dan inscription and David was grudgingly acknowledged as a historical person. Furthermore, the presenter of the show was convinced that the alter on Mount Ebal was in fact the very alter that Joshua and the Israelites made based on it being more of a Mesapotamian model rather than a late Hebrew Model.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The greek was misinterpreted. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea.
Greek? The OT is Hebrew. And yes, yam suph means Sea of Reeds, which is the same body of water that we call the Red Sea.

A sea by any other name is just as wet (and salty).

[meforevidence]

Actually, the oldest OT is in Greek (LXX). The Samaritan Pentateuch is about 100 years older and is just the Torah but it matches the LXX over 90% as opposed to the modern Hebrew which was completed almost 900 years after Jesus. The writing is different and that is how they can date Hebrew writings. I believe Jebel el laws is the real Mt. Sinai, but I am still not convinced of the crossing site. If we use the Bible as a map, it states they crossed the sea before they traveled the wilderness of Shur and we know that Shur was bordered with Egypt according to the Bible. Abrahm went there earlier.
Some evidences supporting the Biblical Exodus are:
1. MUD BRICK STAMPED WITH THE CARTOUCHE OF RAMSES II
Egypt: Thebes, Ramesseum Dynasty 19, ca. [B]1279-1212 B.C.Sun-dried mud and straw. Skeptics before did not believe this occurred until centuries later.
2. A well-known painting in the tomb of Rekhmire (15th century B.C.E.) shows slaves making mudbricks. One text even complains about a lack of straw for brickmaking—a situation encountered by Israel in Egypt.
3. Ancient Tablets dated close to the time of the Exodus list names of numerous slaves. Many of them listed both the Egyptian names alongside the Hebrew names. One of the names is Shiphrah which is a name that is used in Exodus 1 for one of the midwives.
4. ... it was discovered that there was a higher percentage of infant burials ... than is normally found at archaeological sites of the ancient world. Sixty-five per cent of all the burials were those of children under the age of eighteen months. Based on modern statistical evidence obtained from pre-modern societies we would expect the infant mortality rate to be around twenty to thirty per cent. Could this be explained by the slaughter of the Israelite infant males by the Egyptians?
5. The Ipewer Papyrus written by an Egyptian sage parallels the plagues of Egypt.
6. Diodorus Siculus, Greek Historian wrote of this Exodus and Moses.
7. Skeptics doubted the Exodus due to lack of evidence of cities listed in the book of Exodus. However, archeology has revealed those very cities listed on Egyptian Temple walls in the exact order mentioned in the Bible and dated to the time of the Bible.
8. Sinaitic Inscriptions in Wadee El-Mukattab are very specific on details of the Exodus.
9. "it is an ancient report among the Ichtheophagi, who inhabit the shores of the Red Sea, that by a mighty reflux of the sea which happened in former days, the whole gulf became dry land, and appeared green all over; and that the water overflowed the opposite shore, and that all the ground continued bare to the very lowest depth of the gulf, until the water, by an extraordinary high tide, returned to its former channel." (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, lib. iii., c. ¢o). The parallels between Diodorus' report and the Exodus account of the Red Sea crossing are fascinating.
10. Josephus in Josephus Against Apion. I, 26, 27, 32 mentions two Egyptian priest-scholars: Manetho and Cheremon who in their histories of Egypt specifically named Joseph and Moses as leaders of the Jewish race. Josephus states that Manetho and Cheremon stated that the Jews rejected Egypt’s customs and gods. They noted that the Jews practiced animal sacrifices which they witnessed on the first Passover. These historians also confirmed that the Israelites migrated to "southern Syria" which was the Egyptian name for Palestine. They also mentioned that Israel’s exodus occurred during the reign of Amenophis who was the son of Rameses and the father of Sethos who reigned toward the close of the 18th dynasty which places the Israelites exodus between 1500 and 1400 BC. This confirms the Old Testament’s chronology for the exodus occurring in 1460 BC.
11. In 1761 a German explorer Barthold Niebuhr found an extensive ruined cemetery grave site of Jews which was discovered with inscriptions confirming they died as a result of Yehovah’s supernatural plague mentioned in Numbers 11:34-35.
(33) While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the anger of YHWH was kindled against the people, and YHWH smote the people with a very great plague. (34) And the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people that lusted.
12. Greek Historian Herodotus wrote: "This people (the Israelites), by their own account, inhabited the coasts of the Red Sea, but migrated thence to the maritime parts of Syria, all which district, as far as Egypt, is denominated Palestine."
13. Strabo (pagan historian) wrote: "Among many things believed respecting the temple and inhabitants of Jerusalem, the report most credited is that the Egyptians were the ancestors of the present Jews. An Egyptian priest named Moses, who possessed a portion of the country called lower Egypt, being dissatisfied with the institutions there, left it and came to Judea with a large body of people who worshipped the Divinity." (Strabo,Geography, lib. xvi., c.2).
14. The Stela of Merneptah – Thebes, Egypt 1210 BC - Poetic Eulogy to Pharaoh Merneptah.
15. The Temple of Balaam found in Moab confirms the following which parallels the Bible: The Balaam Inscription
There was a prophet
He was a Moabite
His Name was Baalam
He was the son of Be’or
He was a prophet of the night
16. There is an Egyptian letter called Papyrus Anastasi I (13th century B.C.) describes fierce warriors in Canaan that are seven to nine feet tall. Two female skeletons about seven feet tall from the twelfth century B.C. have been found at Tell es-Sa'ideyeh in Transjordan."
17: Jericho:
The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5, 7, 15, 6:5, 20). The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10). The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1). The siege was short (Joshua 6:5). The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20). The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18). The city was burned (Joshua 6:24).{24}
Time? Scarab evidence is another area of methodology which helps to place the date of the destruction of City IV. Using scarabs to date archaeological finds is done by determining which king is on the scarab, and trying to place that king in history. In this way, archaeologists can determine at least a rough date for a particular strata.
(To use a modern example, if in the year 2997 an archaeologist unearthed a coin in my home dated 1850, the assumption that the house was built then would be erroneous. If however, that same archaeologist found numerous coins from the 1990’s, the assumption that the house stood near the end of the 20th century would be much safer.) Garstang and Wood cite the fact that both in tombs and in the city, a continuous series of scarabs have been discovered covering the reigns of the Pharaohs from Thothmes III to Amenhetep III, whose reign ended around 1385 B.C.. No scarab evidence of the next Pharaoh, Ahkenaton, is found in City IV, and thus it is likely that inhabitation of the city ended before his reign began around 1385 B.C.
18. Execration Texts:
The so-called Egyptian Execration Texts, composed between 1900 and 1700 B.C., substantiates the biblical account of a gigantic people called the Anakim. These texts, written on Pharaoh's orders, put curses on some Anakim leaders who lived in Canaan.

[Mountain Man]

I just have to say, that's the prettiest post I've ever seen.

[meforevidence]

LOL!
Thanks! That sounds pretty good coming from a Mountain MAN. :)
Have a blessed Day.

[truthforlife]

Did you get to see "The Bible's Buried Secrets" PBS NOVA special. Dever made some amazing statements.

Dever is wrong. The problem is not with biblical historicity. The problem is with biblical chronology.

Biblical archeologists are not biblical chronologists. Biblical chronology is a specialized discipline upon which biblical archeology is dependent.

Dr. Gerald Aardsma, a professional CHRONOLOGIST, has pointed out repeatedly that traditional biblical chronologies (such as Usher's chronology) are seriously in error prior to the time of Samuel and the Israelite kings. (See, for example, his article "Evidence for a Lost Millennium in Biblical Chronology" (Radiocarbon 37, No. 2 (1995): 267--273; Proceedings of the 15th International 14-C Conference, edited by G.T. Cook, D.D. Harkness, B.F. Miller and E.M. Scott.) This is why later events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., have been so well confirmed by biblical archeology and why no earlier biblical events, such as the Exodus, have been confirmed at all by biblical archeology. Biblical archaeology, as a scholarly discipline, persists in using a wrong, out-of-date biblical chronology. There is no more chance of finding the Exodus in the second millennium B.C., where old-time biblical chronology scholars such as Ussher placed it, and where ALL biblical archaeologists continue to insist on looking for it, than there is of finding World War II in the first millennium A.D.

When one gets their biblical chronology right, biblical archeology confirms the historicity of the Exodus every bit as much as it confirms the historicity of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Read Dr. Aardsma's book "The Exodus Happened 2450 BC" (http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/Exodus_book.php) if you doubt this.

Dr. Aardsma has been attempting to get the biblical archeology community to adjust their biblical chronology to bring it into line with modern scholarship in this area for years, but has repeatedly been denied publication in biblical archeology journels. One can only wonder what motivates biblical archeologists, such as Dever, to be so closed to inter-disciplinary scholarship vital to their field. Is it possible they hold an over-riding bias which compells them to warp their discipline into service to disprove the Bible? [/B]

[FreezBee]

Dr. Gerald Aardsma, a professional CHRONOLOGIST, has pointed out repeatedly that traditional biblical chronologies (such as Usher's chronology) are seriously in error prior to the time of Samuel and the Israelite kings. (See, for example, his article "Evidence for a Lost Millennium in Biblical Chronology" (Radiocarbon 37, No. 2 (1995): 267--273; Proceedings of the 15th International 14-C Conference, edited by G.T. Cook, D.D. Harkness, B.F. Miller and E.M. Scott.) This is why later events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., have been so well confirmed by biblical archeology and why no earlier biblical events, such as the Exodus, have been confirmed at all by biblical archeology. Biblical archaeology, as a scholarly discipline, persists in using a wrong, out-of-date biblical chronology. There is no more chance of finding the Exodus in the second millennium B.C., where old-time biblical chronology scholars such as Ussher placed it, and where ALL biblical archaeologists continue to insist on looking for it, than there is of finding World War II in the first millennium A.D.

When one gets their biblical chronology right, biblical archeology confirms the historicity of the Exodus every bit as much as it confirms the historicity of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Read Dr. Aardsma's book "The Exodus Happened 2450 BC" (http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/Exodus_book.php) if you doubt this.

Dr. Aardsma has been attempting to get the biblical archeology community to adjust their biblical chronology to bring it into line with modern scholarship in this area for years, but has repeatedly been denied publication in biblical archeology journels. One can only wonder what motivates biblical archeologists, such as Dever, to be so closed to inter-disciplinary scholarship vital to their field. Is it possible they hold an over-riding bias which compells them to warp their discipline into service to disprove the Bible? [/B]

Hi truthforlife and welcome to TWeb :hi:

As I understand it, Dr. Aardsma's thesis is that the time between the Exodus and the building of the 1st temple, which is recorded in 1 Kings 6:1 as 480 years, should be adjusted to 1,480 years -- the '1' having been lost, as the text got copied and copied.

The Exodus would thereby align largely with the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt.

Textual corruption such as this is not impossible, howewer I will assume that most biblical archaeologists are reluctant to assume textual corruption without really good arguments. And they may have a good case that Aardsma hasn't provided sufficiently good arguments. Or what do you think?


- FreezBee

[truthforlife]

I think Aardsma has some sufficiently good auguments. All it takes is one of the so called "experts" (Dever, etc.) to prove, by factual, scientific evidence, that just one of Aardsma's points is false. I have yet to hear anyone prove a single one of his claims false. I don't want to hear "anyone that believes in Adam and Eve has committed intellectual suicide" or "We never heard of Aardsma!" type of character bashing, but real honest-to-goodness research/study that comes up with facts that all agree cannot be disputed. If you can prove Aardsma wrong, let's hear it! What I want is the truth. It will mean taking the topic seriously and actually reading his books and testing his claims, not just shooting form the hip! Aardsma has invested most of his life studying/researching and is a serious scholar that should be taken seriously by anyone who is searching for truth. The truth will ultimately win! To God be the glory!

[FreezBee]

I think Aardsma has some sufficiently good auguments. All it takes is one of the so called "experts" (Dever, etc.) to prove, by factual, scientific evidence, that just one of Aardsma's points is false. I have yet to hear anyone prove a single one of his claims false. I don't want to hear "anyone that believes in Adam and Eve has committed intellectual suicide" or "We never heard of Aardsma!" type of character bashing, but real honest-to-goodness research/study that comes up with facts that all agree cannot be disputed. If you can prove Aardsma wrong, let's hear it! What I want is the truth. It will mean taking the topic seriously and actually reading his books and testing his claims, not just shooting form the hip! Aardsma has invested most of his life studying/researching and is a serious scholar that should be taken seriously by anyone who is searching for truth. The truth will ultimately win! To God be the glory!

Well, to prove Aardsma wrong would require the original autograph of 1 Chronicles, and we don't have that. But then I could claim that it was really 2,480 years, and why would I be wrong?

- FreezBee

[truthforlife]

Hello FreezBee,

I think you meant 1 Kings 6:1, not 1 Chronicles?

If you propose that 1Kings 6:1 was supposed to read 2,480 BC instead of Aardsma's theory of 1,480 BC then let us test your theory. This is what science is; checking the facts. Check out an archeology encyclopedia. Is there a destruction layer at Jericho at 3,450 BC? What about Jericho at 3,410 BC? Nothing agrees with your theory. So now the theory has been disproven. Add any number you want to the 480 BC date in 1 Kings 6:1. The only number that works is 1,480. Everything falls into place. Ai, Jericho, the Exodus. If you could see this it would change your life!

I disproved your theory, now it is your turn to disprove Aardsma's theory. May I humbly suggest you read his materials www.biblicalchronologist.org before making up your mind? If you want the truth, you must search for it; and it takes work and thought. Prove to me you are not prejudiced and read his works.

[FreezBee]

I think you meant 1 Kings 6:1, not 1 Chronicles?

Yes, you are right, thanks for the correction :bow:

If you propose that 1Kings 6:1 was supposed to read 2,480 BC instead of Aardsma's theory of 1,480 BC then let us test your theory. This is what science is; checking the facts. Check out an archeology encyclopedia. Is there a destruction layer at Jericho at 3,450 BC? What about Jericho at 3,410 BC? Nothing agrees with your theory. So now the theory has been disproven. Add any number you want to the 480 BC date in 1 Kings 6:1. The only number that works is 1,480. Everything falls into place. Ai, Jericho, the Exodus. If you could see this it would change your life!

Except that the Old Kingdom in Egypt didn't end around 3,450 BC, but a couple of centuries later.

And couldn't instead one of the ciphers be wrong? Could it have been 680 years?

I disproved your theory, now it is your turn to disprove Aardsma's theory. May I humbly suggest you read his materials www.biblicalchronologist.org before making up your mind? If you want the truth, you must search for it; and it takes work and thought. Prove to me you are not prejudiced and read his works.

Ok, maybe I will, if I can find the time.

I happen to find Aardsma interesting, though not because of his 'revisionism', so I do read his stuff from time to time.


best regards
- FreezBee

[truthforlife]

You said, "Except that the Old Kingdom in Egypt didn't end around 3,450 BC, but a couple of centuries later." (How do you highlight the previous person's comments?)

You must mean 2,450 BC?

Aardsma has already covered this and many more questions in his materials. I'm glad to hear that you are going to read his stuff and get the answers for yourself. :smile:

[FreezBee]

You said, "Except that the Old Kingdom in Egypt didn't end around 3,450 BC, but a couple of centuries later." (How do you highlight the previous person's comments?)

You must mean 2,450 BC?

Yes, 2,450 BC.

As for how to "highlight the previous person's comments", I suppose you mean, how to quote. Just click on the button marked "quote" in the lower right corner of the post.

Aardsma has already covered this and many more questions in his materials. I'm glad to hear that you are going to read his stuff and get the answers for yourself. :smile:

:lol: Well, some sunny day, when I have the time for it.


- FreezBee

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

I have recently discovered an artifact that will prove that the earth isn't millions of years old or the universe billions of years old, but only 10, 989 years and five days.............The King James Bible.

Reverend Carlton

[technomage]

Greetings,

I have recently discovered an artifact that will prove that the earth isn't millions of years old or the universe billions of years old, but only 10, 989 years and five days.............The King James Bible.

You do know that there is a forum for humor, satire, and the like, yes?

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Oh I was not trying to be funny at all. It can be proven.

Reverend Carlton

[Mountain Man]

And your proof is...?

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

The King James Bible is the first real English translation of the scriptures. It is a History Book, handed down to man by "God"...no...but rather Lucifer as "the LORD God" or "the LORD" in it. It includes everything that both "God" did and tried to do as "God" and Lucifer did as "the LORD". "God" made him do it as part of his punishment.

If you take what is presented in the King James as simple reading it starts "IN THE beginning" these words signify that there was no prehistoric times. Being the earth was created on day 3 and man was created on day 6 (not Adam and Eve). This account of Adam that "God" had created is in Ch 5. If you begin where Adam begets Seth and each generation after that when they each begot and add them up you will get this proof!

Example: Adam was 130 years old when he begot Seth and Seth was 105 years old when he begot Enos. So you begin by adding 130 + 105 and then add that to the age Enos was where he begot Cainan and add that to the age Cainan was when he begot Mahalaleel and so on.

The age of the earth presents itself when you add the 5 days to it all. Generation to generation.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

[The Curtmudgeon]

The King James Bible is the first real English translation of the scriptures.

I have a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible at home, published 12 years before the AV/KJV. William Tyndale's NT was printed in 1526, 85 years before the AV/KJV.

The (just read the Translators' Preface to the KJV, it mentions earlier English translations) Curtmudgeon

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Curtmudgeon, Excuse me, must I always have to clarify for everyone? I mean the first real English translation which became mass produced for the whole world. I would love to see this Geneva Bible, because it may be more accurate than the King James. Is there any way you could scan me the first three chapters of Genesis? I would greatly appreciate it. You can email them to me...maybe?

Let me give you a little bit of what I know and have written in my book:

As early as the 1300's these scriptures began to be attempted to be translated into English. Most of the translations came from the Greek meaning of Hebrew symbolic representations. John Wycliffe was the first to attempt to retranslate them into English using the Latin Translation. Then in the year 1521 a man named William Tyndale began retranslating what would become the New Testament. He used the original Greek translations which were not really original because the originals were in the possession of the church, but these ones were supposedly identical to them.

He began his retranslations out at sea, but while he was at sea, all the scriptures were lost he was translating from and his retranslations. So he started again and remained in seclusion until it was done. His first publication only contained the New Testament. His translations were not accepted and John Tyndale was sought by the English Church to be silenced. By this time he continued with the Old Testament books too. He was forced to use another retranslation of Hebrew to do this and not the same original scripture reproductions he once had in his possession.

In 1534 Miles Coverdale was picked by King Henry the VIII after he declared himself head of the church to begin to compile a version using Tyndale’s New Testament, Luther’s German, the Vulgate, the Santi Pagnini Latin translation and the Zurich bible. It was the first time any attempt was made to combine the scriptures of Old and New Testaments. Coverdale translated directly from the publications rather than the original scriptures and their languages. This compilation of translations became called as expected; the Coverdale Bible.

Soon after in 1537, a compilation of both Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s publications were ordered by Thomas Cromwell to be revised by John Rodgers who together with Tyndale and Coverdale had published biblical works called, “ The Translation of Thomas Matthews”. Rodgers had previously published unpublished translations of historical books of the Old Testament done by William Tyndale. He had done it under an assumed named of Thomas Matthews. This new compilation of was published under the pseudonym “Matthew” and became of course: the Matthews Bible.

In 1539 it was Miles Coverdale who was chosen by Thomas Cromwell on behalf of the king to retranslate all the scriptures and compile them into one big book to be taught in the church. He used Tyndale’s translations, his own translation, Greek, Hebrew and a Latin translation by Sebastian Munster as references and came up with the Great Bible. The Great Bible is also known as Cranmer’s Bible.

Soon following would be William Whittingham’s Geneva Bible in which almost all the translating came from Greek translations in 1560. Both the Great Bible and Matthews Bible were used as references and the placement of the books. It contained revisions to mostly the New Testament and there was a Latin translation used also as well as having the assistance of a few other well known scholars of that age.

More revisions were made concerning the existing bibles at the time and the queen of England had her archbishop revise the Great Bible to compete with the most popular and accurate of the bibles so far; the Geneva Bible. This revision was given the name of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568. This attempt was short lived and the Geneva Bible remained the most popular of the bibles. In 1582 the Latin translations were used among other languages to produce the Douay-Rheims Bible of the New Testament. It was later combined with the Latin Vulgate and became a full production in 1609-1610; it was printed in two volumes.

It was not until 1611 that these scriptures were retranslated into a full acceptable English publication and one more giant revision was made to it all. It was assembled by churchmen and scholars that were headed by Lancelot Andrewes and two Hebrew professors. There were forty-seven men divided into six companies. They were at three different locations within England. Each company had the assignment of revising one section of the translations. They were given instructions by the king on to how they were to translate the scriptures. They were told to use the Bishop’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthews, the Great and Geneva Bibles as references. Then they added their own comments and opinions to them as one of the instructions gave them permission to do as long as it was agreed upon and it is highly probable that the King of England had William Shakespeare edit it afterward and retanslate it further to his liking.

Shakespeare was a reader of the Great Bible; which may even be the most accurate of all the bibles, but this newest translation would give man the closest English version bible that there is today that The Truth could and should have been plainly seen in, but never was. It is reported that even earlier English translations may very well have been circulating which may even have been more accurate than any of them so far or what was given the title of King James Holy Bible.

Beginning with the first translations into Hebrew, from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin and from when the English Bible was published, the bible was revised twelve times before even the King James Version was printed. The church would acquire the need to keep altering and adding to the bibles. It was the king of a nation that would believe he was getting his authority from “God” to rule by way of his church. After these publications, Tyndale, Rodgers and Coverdale were imprisoned and eventually Tyndale and Rodgers were murdered by the king’s church for heresy. What else is new or expected from devil worshipers? Coverdale escaped execution and went on to live in Switzerland. Many others were executed as well for their participation in or attempting to retranslate scripture.

Today's vipers have retranslated it and retranslated it, thinking they are being more and more accurate and they are actually going the other way becoming less accurate and turning it into bigger lies. The first attempt to retranslate the bible into other English versions resulted in the English and American Revised Versions. In a few centuries there would come the Revised Standard Version. This started a chain of retranslations that would produce version after version of nothing more than the thoughts of the imaginations of man’s hearts.

Even though the New Testament scriptures were being taught by the church; they did not become part of one volume until 1961 and called the New English Bible. Then came the New Revised Standard Version which also included the New Testament. Soon afterward more and more bibles with both the Old and the New Testaments were being printed. It seemed that man after man printed their own translations at will and all were correct even though the words and meanings actually differed, but were believed to be the same; including the future New Jerusalem, New American Standard, The Living Bible, New King James, New World Translation and the New International Version...the worst and most inaccurate version to date. This includes the Gideon Bible, the Book of Mormon and New World Translation of the Jehovah Witness religion as well. There have been many versions of the bible that been published, but these are the major ones.

To quote both John, who was sent from “God” and “God” Himself as “The Word” that was made flesh in the person of “Jesus Christ”

"Oh generation of vipers”!

You see I am not as unlearned as you might think.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

[meforevidence]

Wow! There are a lot of smart people here. :)
I really enjoy reading your words. have a powerpoint presentation of refuting the minimalists with so much evidence. Many quotes from Dever who as many of you have seen refutes Finklestein and points out that no other credited archeologist supports Finklestein's calendar (in writing). Also, the stones themselves refute him as well as most reputable archeologists. Not to bring spam or anything because this website is awesome, but you can look at meforevidence.googlepages.com for a more concise answer. God bless and peace.

[meforevidence]

Mr. Carlton,
Have you considered the fact that the KJV has so many more contradictions than the older texts? Jesus, his disciples and the early church quoted the Septuagint which existed at the time. The text the KJV and most other Bibles of today used were taken from a text finally completed almost a thousand years after Jesus.

[Knowing Thomas]

Out of curiosity, where does Dever stand on what is true and what is not in the OT. I know he doesn't accept Joshua's invasion and everything beforehand, but does he accept Judges onward as factual?

[Mountain Man]

Greetings,

The King James Bible is the first real English translation of the scriptures. It is a History Book, handed down to man by "God"...no...but rather Lucifer as "the LORD God" or "the LORD" in it. It includes everything that both "God" did and tried to do as "God" and Lucifer did as "the LORD". "God" made him do it as part of his punishment.

If you take what is presented in the King James as simple reading it starts "IN THE beginning" these words signify that there was no prehistoric times. Being the earth was created on day 3 and man was created on day 6 (not Adam and Eve). This account of Adam that "God" had created is in Ch 5. If you begin where Adam begets Seth and each generation after that when they each begot and add them up you will get this proof!

Example: Adam was 130 years old when he begot Seth and Seth was 105 years old when he begot Enos. So you begin by adding 130 + 105 and then add that to the age Enos was where he begot Cainan and add that to the age Cainan was when he begot Mahalaleel and so on.

The age of the earth presents itself when you add the 5 days to it all. Generation to generation.
That's only if you assume the geologies are comprehensive, which isn't necessarily the case. It wasn't uncommon in ancient writings to simplify and compress information to make it easier to remember (keep in mind, it existed as an oral tradition long before it was put down in writing).

[squeehunter]

I have read Finkelstein's, Dever's, and Kitchen's accounts of what really happened. Finkelstein's hypothesis sounds unlikely but possible, Dever's hypothesis sounds near impossible, but Kitchen's hypothesis sounds most likely to me.

The method of the Finkelstein and Dever is somethign I have a problem with. They go in thinking the bible is ahistorical in the first place, and then come up with their own ideas. I don't agree with that reasoning at all. You don't go looking for Troy without reading the Illiad. I'm not saying that you take any text and expect it to be true, but after removing any supernatural elements from Exodus, you get a pretty good historical frame where one doesn't have to suspend disbeleif to think it might have happened.

Another problem I have with their method (I could very well be wrong on this paragraph. I haven't read their books recently so I apologize if this is incorrect) is that they seem to think that if it didn't happen exactly the way Exodus says it did (millions of people in the 1400's), then it didn't happen at all. Again, I can't remember this exactly, but they seem to think that if something isn't written in stone that it didn't happen, regardless of the time since the events are said to have happened.

[technomage]

They go in thinking the bible is ahistorical in the first place, and then come up with their own ideas.

The issue here did not originate with Dever and Finklestein: the anhistoricity of the Exodus account was established long before either one of them turned over his first spadeful of dirt. Start with Kathleen Kenyon, and proceed from there forward.

[Knowing Thomas]

Shouldn't it be the otherway around, squeehunter? Where Finkelstein is the least believable and Kitchen is most believable? Dever believes the Bible is more accurate than Finkelstein AFAIK.

I kinda put a bunch of the OT scholars I know and rated them on a 1 to 10 scale, with one being total maximalist and 10 being a minimalist and from what I understand:

Albright: 1
Kitchen: 1.5-3
Dever: 5
Finkelstein: 7-8
Lemche and Thompson: 10? Though I frankly think those two are loonies.

[technomage]

Shouldn't it be the otherway around, squeehunter? Where Finkelstein is the least believable and Kitchen is most believable? Dever believes the Bible is more accurate than Finkelstein AFAIK.

I kinda put a bunch of the OT scholars I know and rated them on a 1 to 10 scale, with one being total maximalist and 10 being a minimalist and from what I understand:

Albright: 1
Kitchen: 1.5-3
Dever: 5
Finkelstein: 7-8
Lemche and Thompson: 10? Though I frankly think those two are loonies.
Is the sole criterion for the "believability" of an archaeologist or biblical scholar the degree to which they hold the Bible to be historical?

[squeehunter]

The issue here did not originate with Dever and Finklestein: the anhistoricity of the Exodus account was established long before either one of them turned over his first spadeful of dirt. Start with Kathleen Kenyon, and proceed from there forward.

That's not what I meant. If you approach something to examine it, you're most likely going to come in thinking it's true or not.

Finkelstein comes in expecting it to be wrong and then Kitchen comes in expecting it to be right. I'm saying that I disagree with the approach of Finkelstein because if you remove the supernatural elements from Exodus, the story isn't far-fetched enough for someone to think it didn't happen. "Didn't Kitchen just do the opposite?" Including what I said in the last sentence plus basic... logic I guess, you should expect the account of something to basically be true due to an account even being made. You might say "It was for propaganda." but that doesn't work so well with the embarassment of ~400 years of captivity mention (I'm not sure how long things were rough for the Jews at that time so that number might be too big but it's still there). I don't go reading some biography written about someone from ages past expecting it not to be true. You have to give something the benefit of the doubt when it meets the criteria I stated above.

One other problem that comes from expecting it to be false is that once Finkelstein finds a piece of evidence that he thinks disagrees with the biblical account, he takes it and doesn't consider that he might have the wrong dig site (ancient backwoods settlements in the middle of the desertwith ancient names are hard to pin down) or maybe they haven't dug in the right spot. For example, what about Edom? No one thought it existed before the 7th century BC but in 2004 (after Finkelstein's book was written, mind you), what do you know, they dug it up and found evidence of a settlement there going back to the 11th century BC. This isn't the best example since it's about 100 years shy of the late dated Exodus but it still proves my point.

A better example are camels in Genesis. We first have camel bones in settlements dating from between 4000BC to 2000BC but no hard evidence that they were domesticated before around the late second millenium BC. Finkelstein takes this and runs with it saying that they are anachronisms because there is no hard evidence that they were domesticated. Well, we don't know if they were or not for sure, but he insists that they were not domesticated back then (with what negative evidence?)

Again, you can say that Kitchen is doing the opposite but if you agree that an account is at least slightly more likely to have happened than not have happened, then it's not so a=b anymore. You need to give it the benefit of the doubt.

What I'm not doing here is trying to disprove Finkelstein point for point. It would take too much time. I just used those examples to show how I disagree with his method. If you want to have an argument on who is right, then read both books yourself and let them have it out in your head.

[slaveofone]

Have any of you seen the video "Exodus Revealed - Search for the Red Sea Crossing"? I'm curious to hear what someone else's thoughts are on it. I found it interesting.

I used to own the video on VHS. So, yeah, seen it. It's risible. It makes wild, unsubstantiated claims throughout which it pretends to back up with some sort of evidence, but the evidence is make-believe and the video doesn't tell you that. So, for instance, it goes to great lengths to say how it sent submersibles down into the Gulf of Aqaba and how they found unnatural coral formations down there shaped like chariot wheels, says it has pictures of these “chariot wheels” or what's left of them, shows these “chariot wheel coral pictures”, and then never bothers to say anywhere but on the back of the VHS sleeve that the pictures of the so-called wheel formations are “re-creations” and not actual pictures of anything at all. This is just one of the many ways the video (at least when I owned it) tries to deceive its audience into believing its story to be true when almost everything it says is pure speculation and most of its "evidence" amounts to little more than flashing some “re-creation” photo or other photos that supposedly prove something even though there's no scientific foundation to the claims made from those pictures whatsoever—such as a picture of a boulder with a split down it and erosion at the base, which is said could be the very stone that Moses struck and water came from it! Goodness gracious, I'm a believer and even I don't believe the hogwash in that video. The only valid points the video makes are points that have been made elsewhere by better people (scholars who know what they're talking about) than those that put the video together and who aren't doing a slight-of-hand to make you think you saw what you didn't see. Trustworthy it is not.

[technomage]

That's not what I meant. If you approach something to examine it, you're most likely going to come in thinking it's true or not.

What you are talking about is called a "preconception." Preconceptions that are not based on evidence are not good in any scientific endeavor. Preconceptions that are based on previous evidence are usually not as bad (though even these can blind a person to evidence that does not fit the usual conclusion).

However, if the historicity of an account has already been established (as false or true), then those who use the established facts on the ground are not engaging in preconceptions. They are simply using what others have already discovered as a basis for their own investigations. That's how science works--and as archaeology is a science, it's perfectly legitimate.

if you remove the supernatural elements from Exodus, the story isn't far-fetched enough for someone to think it didn't happen.

"Far-fetched" is irrelevant--it is nothing more than an argument from personal credulence, and is a fallacy whether you are arguing for or against a proposition. What is relevant is the (literally) tons of evidence that paints an entirely different story than the one depicted in the Bible accounts. I've gone into some specifics through the course of the thread, but a far better picture can be obtained by reading just about any modern scholarship on Middle Eastern archaeology and history.

I cannot (due to space and time considerations) supply you with an exaustive list of differences between the Exodus narrative and actual history, but if you have specific questions, post them here, and I will provide what assistance I can.

you should expect the account of something to basically be true due to an account even being made.

Let's see ... accounts have been made of lots of places. Atlantis, Terra Australis, Camelot, Meropis, Narnia, Erewhon, Mu, Brobdingnag ... which one do you propose we look for first?

Oh, that's right--these places are either mythical, legendary, or fictional. We know they are mythical either because (a) we have massive amounts of evidence that contradict their existence, or (b) we know enough about the genre of the text to know that we don't need to go digging, or most often (c) both. We go out in the field with the "preconception" that they are mythical because science builds on previous discoveries.

Now, why precisely do you argue that Middle-Eastern archaeology should work differently from every other science, or even differently from archaeology in every other part of the world?

You might say "It was for propaganda." but that doesn't work so well with the embarassment of ~400 years of captivity

I'm not so much for the "it was propaganda" argument. And I must point out that even the most ardent minimalist does not hold the accounts of the Babylonian Captivity to be "propaganda." The Old Testament is a combination of several genre: myth (in the sense of "sacred narratives of a culture," not as an insult); legend (again, in the sense of "heroic narratives of a culture," not as an insult); hagiography; prophetic oracles; sermons; theoretical law; even a hymnody and some poetry.

I am of the opinion that none of the above was written as "propaganda," though I think that the process of compilation was largely begun during the Babylonian Captivity as a source to teach children, in order to prevent the assimilation of those children into the Babylonian culture. Now, that doesn't mean that they were not used as propaganda later--Josephus and Philo provide some classic examples of (morally neutral) propaganda based on the Bible.

I don't go reading some biography written about someone from ages past expecting it not to be true.

Actually, I do--no, I'm not talking about throwing the entire book out, I'm speaking of selectively and critically analyzing the claims made in the book, and comparing them to history.

More later, as time permits.

[Knowing Thomas]

Is the sole criterion for the "believability" of an archaeologist or biblical scholar the degree to which they hold the Bible to be historical?
No, because I personally find Kitchen (who believes in a naturalistic Exodus and that the events of Jericho didn't happen) and Hess (who believes a lot of the Israelites during the oT were polytheistic) more believable than Albright.
And I never said that the "sole criterion for believability" is belief that the Bible is true. :hrm:

As for "Exodus Revealed", I heard that it was mostly a hoax.

[squeehunter]

More later, as time permits.

Don't bother. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. Do you subscribe to the works of Gerald Gardner though?

Even if not, it's quite easy to stand on a pedestal and criticize a roughly 4000 year old religion while belonging to a 50 year old one that doesn't require a shred of evidence.

[technomage]

Don't bother. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

I do not make my posts for the purpose of "convincing" anyone. On the other hand, if facts do not persuade us, then there is something grossly wrong with our worldview.

Do you subscribe to the works of Gerald Gardner though?

As myth? Certainly. As history? Certainly not.

Even if not, it's quite easy to stand on a pedestal and criticize a roughly 4000 year old religion while belonging to a 50 year old one that doesn't require a shred of evidence.

At least you recognize the approximate age--many Wiccans, and many critics of Wicca, still go by the"ancient history" myth. But in failing to distinguish between myth and history, your critique of Wicca fails almost as badly as your understanding of your own texts.

[squeehunter]

I started here trying to get someone to help me with Hebrew and I end my stay here with a witch telling me I'm the crazy one.

[technomage]

I started here trying to get someone to help me with Hebrew and I end my stay here with a witch telling me I'm the crazy one.

If you weren't crazy when you first got here, we can help you get that way! :dizzy:

[runtmc2jc]

The greek was misinterpreted. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea.

Actually, Yam Suph did not come to be called the "Reed Sea" until the Middle Ages. Much weight was given to this interpretation through the work of Egyptologists Heinrich Brugsch and Alan Gardiner. M.J. Schleiden (in 1858) was the first to propose a non- Red Sea site, moving Yam Suph to Lake Sirbonis - calling it "Schilfmeer" (Reed Sea)....Brugsch agreed with this concept and Gardiner proposed that suph was an Egyptian loanword for papyrus to justify locating Yam Suph in the marshes of the eastern Delta.

The early interpretations of "Red Sea" (Septuagint) and later Greek classical sources used "Eruthra thalassa" as they had no knowledge of any alternative sea to accurately correspond to the Biblical location of Yam Suph. However they understood it to definitely be a traditional "sea" and not a different body of water like a marsh, lake, estuary or some 'land-locked" sea. Early cartography demonstrated an abysmal understanding of the other arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aqaba, either vastly understating its location and size, or not including it altogether.

The literal and contextual meaning of the word actually pertains to "end" or "ending". It is tied geographically to the "end" or boundary of the Promised Land as it is stated: "And I will set thy bounds from Yam Suph even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river. (Ex 23:31). Also, 1 Kings 9:26: "And King Soloman made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of Yam Suph, in the land of Edom. Other verses which hint at the true location of Yam Suph include Jer 49:21, Num 14:25, Num 21:4, Deut 1:40 and 2:1.

The Gulf of Aqaba satisfies all criteria for the true identity/location of Yam Suph. Most likely the crossing site is Nuweiba on the Egyptian side, which topographically matches the descriptions stated in the scriptures. Taking the route southward via the Wadi Watir, the fleeing Hebrews are encompassed by the surrounding mountains and trapped at the huge delta-alluvial fan beach at Nuweiba. They are hemmed in by mountains to the north and south, the Gulf of Aqaba to the east, and Pharoah's army following down the Wadi. Coincidentally, there exists at this site the underwater "land bridge" comprised of a 5-mile wide, fairly gently sloped pathway and made up of siliciclastic sediments, compacted to form an even surface. The seafloor sediment is composed of sand and fine gravel in the range of 2-6 mm, There is also a text in the scriptures which states: "To Him who divided Yam Suph in two"... (Ps 136:13).....which makes a quantitative statement using the world "l'gezarim", which indicates the sea was divided in half, i.e. two equal parts. At the Nuweiba site, the Gulf of Aqaba is basically divided in half, lengthwise (north and south). This crossing itself is about 9.7 miles from Nuweiba to the large, opposite Saudi Arabian shore. Directly opposite is the Wadi Hamza, which leads eastwards to the main north-south route on the Saudi side, the Wadi Ifal. Of course fitting neatly within the scriptural description, chronological and geographical parameters is the mountain of giving, in the Jebel el-Lawz range of North Western Saudi Arabia, as well as access to Edom and the land of Midian.

For an erudite study of the history of the "Red Sea" and "Reed Sea" translations, the geography of the area in question, the linguistics - both scripturally and from classical and modern sources, and shedding much light on the little-known Gulf of Aqaba, replete with many maps, sat images and pictures, I recommend the book "The Lost Sea of the Exodus" by Dr. Glen A. Fritz, which is the source for most of this post.