Current Biblical Archaeology

[Guest]

Which is why you can not be taken seriously

that is your loss not mine.

you know i have blown a hole in the theory that the israelites did not exist in egypt and you can't deal with it, that is why you have suddenly changed the topic.

but so be it. i will talk to starflower about it and you and i can move on to the next topic

[marduk]

you know i have blown a hole in the theory that the israelites did not exist in egypt and you can't deal with it

get some help

[Minimalist]

you know i have blown a hole in the theory that the israelites did not exist in egypt and you can't deal with it, that is why you have suddenly changed the topic.

Yeah. I'm sure archaeologists throughout the world are just shitting themselves in terror at your brilliance! Or laughing themselves silly.

As I understand your theory it is that the Israelites were there because you want them to be and the bible says so? Hell of a basis for a theory.

BTW, the thread is CURRENT BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY and the item about the Persian Plumbing in Israel appeared today...which is about as current as one can get.

[Guest]

BTW, the thread is CURRENT BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

you pull that out evertime you have been shown that what you disagree with is viable

but let's talk about the persians

[Minimalist]

They didn't get to Egypt until the 6th century BC, either.

[Guest]

They didn't get to Egypt until the 6th century BC, either.

so you say but what does the Bible say about that?

[ReneDescartes]

quoteArch :ou know i have blown a hole in the theory that the israelites did not exist in egypt and you can't deal with it, that is why you have suddenly changed the topic.unquote
Goodold Basil,tell us who did you demonstrate that to ?Us?Yourself ?
We are talking two different worlds here . We have different standards of reasoning in case you failedto notice .Assumptions do not enter any equasion .

[Minimalist]

They didn't get to Egypt until the 6th century BC, either.

so you say but what does the Bible say about that?

Probably nothing. It has a limited world view. Although since Cyrus let them go they should be kissing his ass.

[Guest]

starflower-- here is what James Hoffmeier has to say on the topic:

pg. 55 'Israel in Egypt'

"For many, the underlying reason for rejecting the history of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the exodus tradition is the absence of corroborating historical or archaeological evidence in Egypt. Recently, Niels Peter Lemche has noted that ' the silence in the Egyptian sources as to the presence of Israel in the country' is 'an obstacle tothe notion of israel's 400 year sojourn.' Thus, scholars are faced with a dilemma not unlike that encountered in Canaan with the absence of evidence for an invasion by Israel and have arrived at similar conclusion: the lack of evidence means the events described in Genesis and Exodus are retrojections of a later period and do not reflect historical reality. Indeed, no one has been able to identify any unimpeachable evidence in Egypt, either historical or archaeological to support the biblical accounts of the sojourn and exodus events. To draw any conclusions from the current state of knowledge (or ignorance) would be to succomb to the fallacy of negative proof."

so what my theory does is question what type of evidence is being looked for? plus what type of evidence would the Israelites leave behind? then it draws into question, what type of culture did Jacob and his family bring with them into Egypt?

in all of my studies, no one has mentioned a text that talks about friendly immigration. they have mentioned many texts which talkabout invasion, wars, and the winning of slaves but nonerefer tothose people who changed countries legally.

we have more documentation on 9/11 than we do on those who came through ellis island or other legal ports of entry, thus it stands to reason that there would be no mention of this immigration by jacob and his family in Egyptian archives. there would be no point because it did not mark a great achievement by a pharaoh or other great egyptian leader.

if there was, how would we know if they took care of the record well enough so that it was preserved? there are too many factors that come into play when dealing with texts from long ago.

[Minimalist]

Hoffmeier is being disingenuous...to put it mildly.

We have evidence of at least three major Egyptian military campaigns into and through Canaan in the very period in question. First, by Ahmose, second by Thutmoses and then by Ramses II on his way to Kadesh which make no mention of any Israelites. It is only with a 4th Egyptian military incursion, that of Merneptah, that we have the first mention of "israelites" and even then, as a people and not as a nation.

So, while it is true that we have no evidence of an Israelite 'conquest' we certainly have records of other conquests.

It is thus not quite the same thing.

[Guest]

the talk of the invasion was just an example here. a comparison to illustrate his point in which to prove that too many archaeologists go by a lack of evidence instead of common sense.

[Minimalist]

No. Too many ignore bible-based propaganda and consider the fact that other nations had histories as well.

The difference seems to be that Egyptian history can be backed up by actual artifacts whereas the bible has nothing but it's presumed status as "the BIBLE" to give it legitimacy.

Science demands proof. You can offer only dogma.

[Guest]

Science demands proof. You can offer only dogma.

that is the error that science makes. it is an unrealistic demand when dealing with thousands of years, filled with mitigating factors such as weather, thieves, war, multiple construction, trade and so on.

to be so rigid (science's demand) puts one in the position of being constantly embarrassed and opens the door to a superiority complex which acknowledges nothing but its own thinking.

that theory i propose is not dogma, but a common sense look at the reality of the situation and explains why there is no evidence per se. it fills in the gaps and sparks researchers to look in the right areas and direction.

besides, i thought you moved onto the persians? yes other countries do have a history but if you will notice, the Bible doesn't disavow that history just records those nations intersecting with the people of Israel at each point in time.

to include the histories of all nations the book would be thicker than ussher's volume on the world.

[Minimalist]

Science demands proof. You can offer only dogma.

that is the error that science makes. it is an unrealistic demand when dealing with thousands of years, filled with mitigating factors such as weather, thieves, war, multiple construction, trade and so on.

How come the Egyptians and others have no such problem? Why is it only the Chosen People who can't seem to get their act together without a healthy dose of magic?

to be so rigid (science's demand) puts one in the position of being constantly embarrassed and opens the door to a superiority complex which acknowledges nothing but its own thinking.

Who is embarassed? The embarassment comes from rigidly holding to a certain belief and having it overthrown by that annoying evidence. Noah's Ark is one such fable that comes to mind.

that theory i propose is not dogma, but a common sense look at the reality of the situation and explains why there is no evidence per se. it fills in the gaps and sparks researchers to look in the right areas and direction.

"Common sense?" No. You start by assuming the bible is fact and trying to rewrite everyone's history to make it fit. Jean Marie's friend, Rohl, did the same thing....about as effectively.

besides, i thought you moved onto the persians? yes other countries do have a history but if you will notice, the Bible doesn't disavow that history just records those nations intersecting with the people of Israel at each point in time.

If you have something to add about Persian plumbing, please do so. BTW, the bible records fictitious events involving Israel with other nations but manages to avoid significant events taking place on its doorstep. In that sense, it is a very insular document. That, in itself, is not surprising. It was not intended to be a history book but a book of rules with which to terrorize the common people into doing what the priests told them to do.

to include the histories of all nations the book would be thicker than ussher's volume on the world.

Sure as hell would have helped the accuracy, though.

[john]

hmmm

vague memories here. lets just say that the breeding stock of the israelite people (after all, they had to come from somewhere) was a bunch of tribal, clan identity (the various tribes, yes?) animal herding nomads. now, tribal animal herding nomads are famous for disregarding borders AND in turn being disregarded by whatever organized government and or dominant social order "ruled" the real estate. they are a very small, somewhat useful link in the socioeconomic chain of command.

so how from "there" to "here", in terms of mythopoetic 'istorin?

that, my friends, is politics.

so i suggest you turn your attention to political forensics rather than physical archaeology.

and its obvious that many of you have already done so.


onward


john