Archaeological evidence for the Exodus?

[technomage]

Well in that case my apologies to Technomage.

Thank you, Xru. And I mean that most sincerely. I, too, understand how easy it is to lash out in irritation ... unfortunately, I have far more experience with that than I would like to admit.

[technomage]

Found some interesting speculation here:

http://biblicalchronologist.org/answ...odus_egypt.php

I would be far more likely to trust Dr. Aardsma than any number of others. He and I disagree on the existence of the Exodus, but he is willing to follow the science, even when it gives him answers he does not necessarily like.

[fm93]

Incorrect--we have extensive documentary information, examples of Scythian artwork in cultures they traded with, and considerably more than "a few" grave mounds.

I think I know which argument Cerebrum was alluding to. The argument isn't that there's no evidence of the Scythians besides burial mounds, but that the non-royal, "common" Scythians didn't leave behind evidence of their everyday artifacts. The reasoning behind this argument is that according to the skeptic's logic, the steppes should be teeming with physical evidence from the common Scythians if all those people had been there for several centuries, but such evidence is scant, if present at all. Meanwhile, the Hebrews wandered the desert for a mere (by comparison) forty years. Therefore, one isn't justified in concluding based on lack of evidence alone that there was no group of wandering Hebrews, since the common Scythians left behind little or no evidence at all, yet they certainly existed.

Obviously we have other evidence of the Scythians, especially in the form of Herotodus' writings. But again, the argument that Cerebrum alludes to concerns itself merely with the physical artifacts from common people.

[yxboom]

With Ron Wyatt, take care. Even AiG considers him to be an outright fraud. (see http://web.archive.org/web/200302110...1011hovind.asp)

I was beginning to wonder why you linked me to a response to Kent Hovind when I happened upon this...

Maintaining Creationist Integrity

[KENT H]:
Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark
AiG: This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
KENT H: I disagree. I do not say in my seminar that he did or did not find it but it is not certain that he did not. The mud flow argument is flawed since the point is at the wrong end. Mud flows around an object produce a rounded end on the uphill side and a point on the downhill side much like an airplane wing. I knew Ron [he died a few years ago] and still keep contact with those continuing his ministry. When Creation Magazine published articles to “disprove” Ron’s claims I did what I am convinced is the Christian thing to do in matters like this; I called Ron and allowed him to defend his position. He was able to give very good answers to the objections, misrepresentations and accusations made in the article yet, to my knowledge, neither Ron nor his successors at www.wyattmuseum.com were given the opportunity for a public hearing facing their accusers. I cover some of this controversy in Dinosaurs and the Bible and would be glad to discuss more by phone or you may call Richard Rives at the Wyatt Museum.

[AiG]: We're puzzled by this claim. Wyatt had as much chance as anyone else to rebut the arguments in the refereed literature, and to demonstrate any alleged ‘misrepresentations’. He produced a ‘rebuttal’ document, in fact, to his own constituency, which was presumably the ‘rebuttal’ he gave to Hovind. But it sidestepped, ignored or failed to understand most of the geological arguments. And it completely overlooked the many evidences of false or fraudulent statements. E.g. one of us personally rang the laboratory which he was citing to sustain some of his major ‘Ark’ claims, and also we obtained this lab data ourselves. It is nothing short of outrageous to consider the way in which this lab data was deliberately misrepresented to fleece the gullible.

Incidentally, to have published this ‘upside down mudflow’ argument, were it sustainable, in say CRSQ or TJ, would have been a major coup for Wyatt or his supporters in the face of the devastating article by a Ph.D. creationist geologist which appeared in Creation magazine. (This is the article to which Hovind refers: note that he did not then go back to AiG even, to ask what we thought. We have urged Kent Hovind previously to move away from Wyatt promotion in any shape or form, for the sake of the creation movement, but felt that he did not even begin to understand the basic geological/physical issues, and, worse still, seemed uninterested in anything which might change his mind.)

But even assuming such an article were published showing that the mudflow was ‘upside down’ (something which has not been documented to our knowledge, but simply asserted), all it would have done would have been to show that the alternative explanation for the formation was unlikely. It would have done nothing to counter the blow upon blow dealt by this article (justly) to Wyatt’s own credibility as the claims were shown to be mostly ‘bogus’ (in the words of his former co-fieldworker, respected creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner).

[KENT H]:
Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
AiG: There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
KENT H: I disagree. See above. While I differ with Ron and his successors on several doctrines …

[AiG]: The issue is not doctrines, it is the factual nature (versus the fraudulent nature) of the evidence.

© source where applicable

Thank you for the link, I ended up reading the whole page.

Meh. Frankly, it sounds extremely questionable to me (especially their "statistical analysis" bit). I'd ask John Reece for his opinion on the Hebrew 'elep, but I don't know that I'd put too much weight on this one.

I might just do that.

Well, evidently I'm not that clever either.

[Xru]

I was beginning to wonder why you linked me to a response to Kent Hovind when I happened upon this...

Maintaining Creationist Integrity

[KENT H]:
Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark
AiG: This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
KENT H: I disagree. I do not say in my seminar that he did or did not find it but it is not certain that he did not. The mud flow argument is flawed since the point is at the wrong end. Mud flows around an object produce a rounded end on the uphill side and a point on the downhill side much like an airplane wing. I knew Ron [he died a few years ago] and still keep contact with those continuing his ministry. When Creation Magazine published articles to “disprove” Ron’s claims I did what I am convinced is the Christian thing to do in matters like this; I called Ron and allowed him to defend his position. He was able to give very good answers to the objections, misrepresentations and accusations made in the article yet, to my knowledge, neither Ron nor his successors at www.wyattmuseum.com were given the opportunity for a public hearing facing their accusers. I cover some of this controversy in Dinosaurs and the Bible and would be glad to discuss more by phone or you may call Richard Rives at the Wyatt Museum.

[AiG]: We're puzzled by this claim. Wyatt had as much chance as anyone else to rebut the arguments in the refereed literature, and to demonstrate any alleged ‘misrepresentations’. He produced a ‘rebuttal’ document, in fact, to his own constituency, which was presumably the ‘rebuttal’ he gave to Hovind. But it sidestepped, ignored or failed to understand most of the geological arguments. And it completely overlooked the many evidences of false or fraudulent statements. E.g. one of us personally rang the laboratory which he was citing to sustain some of his major ‘Ark’ claims, and also we obtained this lab data ourselves. It is nothing short of outrageous to consider the way in which this lab data was deliberately misrepresented to fleece the gullible.

Incidentally, to have published this ‘upside down mudflow’ argument, were it sustainable, in say CRSQ or TJ, would have been a major coup for Wyatt or his supporters in the face of the devastating article by a Ph.D. creationist geologist which appeared in Creation magazine. (This is the article to which Hovind refers: note that he did not then go back to AiG even, to ask what we thought. We have urged Kent Hovind previously to move away from Wyatt promotion in any shape or form, for the sake of the creation movement, but felt that he did not even begin to understand the basic geological/physical issues, and, worse still, seemed uninterested in anything which might change his mind.)

But even assuming such an article were published showing that the mudflow was ‘upside down’ (something which has not been documented to our knowledge, but simply asserted), all it would have done would have been to show that the alternative explanation for the formation was unlikely. It would have done nothing to counter the blow upon blow dealt by this article (justly) to Wyatt’s own credibility as the claims were shown to be mostly ‘bogus’ (in the words of his former co-fieldworker, respected creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner).

[KENT H]:
Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
AiG: There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
KENT H: I disagree. See above. While I differ with Ron and his successors on several doctrines …

[AiG]: The issue is not doctrines, it is the factual nature (versus the fraudulent nature) of the evidence.

© source where applicable

Thank you for the link, I ended up reading the whole page.



I might just do that.

Ya okay . . . I'm aware that Wyatt is looked on as an oddball. But what have ya'll heard about the chariot axles on the Sea floor of the Red Sea. I mean they could be fraudulent true. And why haven't others confirmed their existence?

This OT stuff is obscure to me. I'm not sure when the OT is or is not being literal in a description. Is anyone really sure?

Other than this I just really don't know of anything archaeological about the Exodus.

[Xru]

I would be far more likely to trust Dr. Aardsma than any number of others. He and I disagree on the existence of the Exodus, but he is willing to follow the science, even when it gives him answers he does not necessarily like.

Hmmm . . . ya. Then okay . . . I read the link and I knew nothing about this. Interesting. What about the chariot axles in the Red Sea?

[yxboom]

Ya okay . . . I'm aware that Wyatt is looked on as an oddball. But what have ya'll heard about the chariot axles on the Sea floor of the Red Sea. I mean they could be fraudulent true. And why haven't others confirmed their existence?

I think that is a great question.

This OT stuff is obscure to me. I'm not sure when the OT is or is not being literal in a description. Is anyone really sure?

Other than this I just really don't know of anything archaeological about the Exodus.

What I am trying to understand is the reasons to how Moses offers us a treasure map and no one seems to be unearthing the bounty (with exception to spurious individuals with obvious agendas.)

[technomage]

The argument isn't that there's no evidence of the Scythians besides burial mounds, but that the non-royal, "common" Scythians didn't leave behind evidence of their everyday artifacts.

I'm familiar with the arguments, and they do make a measure of sense. But we have a different situations with the Hebrews on several factors:
1. The Scythians mainly lived as small tribal groups spread over the territory. According to the narrative, the Hebrews stayed in a single group, moved with almost military coordination, and would have had a much more concentrated effect on the environment.
2. The pre-Scythian tribes (the sedentary tribes) left some evidence of their existence before they became nomadic. There is a definite absence of the Hebrews in Egypt (and direct evidence that they were in Canaan during this time).

The Hebrews as a culture date back at least to the early 1200s BCE---we know that from the Merneptah stele. We also have considerable archaeological evidence of them existing in Canaan from that time forward, going from maybe 25 identified villages around the time of Merneptah to over 300 by the time the nation of Israel formed, around 1000 BCE. They were sometimes called Israelites, but were most commonly referred to as the House of Omri--this was in what is today Northern Israel. In the south, the coalescence of a nation, then a kingdom, happened a tad later. (See Paula McNutt's Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel.)

As I said, it's more than the absence of evidence--it's positive evidence of absence.

[Xru]

As I said, it's more than the absence of evidence--it's positive evidence of absence.

Meh . . . but that's just me. I don't like facts at all. They challenge my comfort zone.

[technomage]

Ya okay . . . I'm aware that Wyatt is looked on as an oddball. But what have ya'll heard about the chariot axles on the Sea floor of the Red Sea. I mean they could be fraudulent true. And why haven't others confirmed their existence?

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...iot-wheels.htm

http://www.snopes.com/religion/redsea.asp

I'm not definitively saying Wyatt didn't find something ... but even if he found what he thought he found, he absolutely butchered the task of excavating or documenting his find. I highly doubt that he fund anything but the product of an overactive imagnation.

This OT stuff is obscure to me. I'm not sure when the OT is or is not being literal in a description. Is anyone really sure?

I normally treat the OT as a series of theological commentaries and theological statements. Even as a skeptic on the historicity of the OT, this is a concept I can get behind. Now, you will find Christians who argue that if the OT is not historical the entire Bible is up for grabs ... I have no authority to speak on those matters, of course. But you will find Christians who have absolutely no problem positing the OT as largely anhistorical, and who still place full faith and reliance on the saving blood of Jesus Christ.

[Xru]

What I am trying to understand is the reasons to how Moses offers us a treasure map and no one seems to be unearthing the bounty (with exception to spurious individuals with obvious agendas.)

Ya I get it I think. My mind kind of rebels on the no evidence is evidence thing but . . .

Are there other "treasure maps" in the old testament that don't "pay off" with evidence? I'm not familiar enough with the OT to know really.

Like 40 years of wandering around in the desert one would think that there would be SOMETHING left of that. But then it was what . . . 2000 . . . no 4000 year ago right? That's heck of a long time for anything to persist isn't it even in the desert.

How long can the desert allow say a copper bracelet exist. I don't think wood would persist long enough. They were supposedly traveling around for those 40 years so how much stuff would the be dragging around that would persist for 4000 years. They probably wouldn't be making potery, certainly not buildings. Would they be smithing metals?

[technomage]

Meh . . . but that's just me. I don't like facts at all. They challenge my comfort zone.

I can dig, but see what I said in my last post.

And I will also say this ... nobody is forcing you to accept the science. If you want to just say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," well the option is available to you. It's not a position I can maintain, but I have absolutely no right attempting to dictate what you should believe.

[technomage]

What I am trying to understand is the reasons to how Moses offers us a treasure map and no one seems to be unearthing the bounty

Speaking very diffidently now....

I am of the opinion that Moses is an anhistorical character--the parallels to Arthur or Merlin from English legends is (to my mind) sufficient to answer the question. However, even at its best, the Bible is not a "treasure map." That's what Biblical archaeology tried to do from the mid-18th century until the early 20th ... they tried to treat the Bible as a treasure map, and it didn't work.

On the other hand (and I say this as a non-Christian), the OT is an incredible treasure map ... but not for stuff you can dig out of the ground. It is a magnificent insight into the beliefs and mindsets of the various authors who wrote it. Now, I tend to feel that almost all of those authors are later than the traditionally ascribed dates ... but the treasure is still there.

And the literary treasure! Stars and stones, 'Boom, Ecclesiastes is still my favorite book in all the world.

[Xru]

I normally treat the OT as a series of theological commentaries and theological statements. Even as a skeptic on the historicity of the OT, this is a concept I can get behind. Now, you will find Christians who argue that if the OT is not historical the entire Bible is up for grabs ... I have no authority to speak on those matters, of course. But you will find Christians who have absolutely no problem positing the OT as largely anhistorical, and who still place full faith and reliance on the saving blood of Jesus Christ.

Ya I know. I hate to say this but especially with a text that is suppose to be 4000 years old there is always going to be some or a lot of doubt as to what the text actually means because the culture that wrote it is not accessible to us now. It's heard even to approximate the culture of 2000 years ago. So like what is it that the people of the time understood the texts to read is the problem.

In the OT this seems to be insurmountable to me and exceedingly challenging for the NT. See I don't have a problem with the Bible NOT being inerrant.

[Xru]

I can dig, but see what I said in my last post.

And I will also say this ... nobody is forcing you to accept the science. If you want to just say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," well the option is available to you. It's not a position I can maintain, but I have absolutely no right attempting to dictate what you should believe.

Ah . I was being silly. Sorry.