the exodus revisitied

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:38 pm

testing

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:49 pm

did i break this thing? there has been no activity on here for hours...

ANYWAYS... as a side to the present discussion i thought minimalist would enjoy reading this review by bryant wood as he dismantles jacobovici:

http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article.html

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:33 am

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

no because he addresses this issue later in his paper.

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS.

why do they reject that finding? just giving me a closed statement like that just tells me you have no proof for that type of comment. i didn't react to his lack of credentials, as when i did a search on him, i couldn't find even that much.

but i wanted to investigate his claims and see what information i could come up with before drawing any conclusions. i also did a search for information on semites in egypt in the 12th dynasty and so far haven't found anything satisfactory.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history

you can't prove that and finkelstein ignores a lot.

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I.

well that is interesting as i have done some research on that area and i get something different:

from Keil & Dielitsch, v.2:

Pithom was Ba>toumov; it was situated, according to Herodotus (2, 158),
upon the canal which commenced above Bybastus and connected the Nile
with the Red Sea. This city is called Thou or Thoum in the Itiner. Anton.,
the Egyptian article pi being dropped, and according to Jomard (descript. t.
9, p. 368) is to be sought for on the site of the modern Abassieh in the
Wady Tumilat. — Raemses (cf. Genesis 47:11) was the ancient
Heroopolis, and is not to be looked for on the site of the modern Belbeis

{bold mine}

i already know that the israelites were in egypt and they went on an exodus to the promised land, i just want more details and more information.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:37 am

p.s.--- the only time i talk about the hyksos is when i mention them by name. i do not confuse them with any other nation or nationality and so i do not use the word semite for them {since i can use the other name}.

i know when they were in egypt i know they were driven out and i am not refering to them. i am talking about the israleites and investigatung claims. the hyksos are a separate discussion.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:25 am

Jeez! What a mess. All that time I thought nothing was going through and EVERYTHING was going through.

Sorry, Michelle.

This board system is buggier than a happy motorcyclist's smile.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:28 am

archaeologist wrote:did i break this thing? there has been no activity on here for hours...

ANYWAYS... as a side to the present discussion i thought minimalist would enjoy reading this review by bryant wood as he dismantles jacobovici:

http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article.html

I don't think it was you. Might have been me.

Might have been Venus in conjuction with Uranus, too.........

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:35 am

Minimalist wrote:
This board system is buggier than a happy motorcyclist's smile.

Laughed my ass off at this after I read it three times!

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:41 am

You're right about Wood's demolishment of The Exodus Decoded...that was pretty good and reflected a number of the arguments made here.

This criticism, of course, "dates are revised willy-nilly to make everything neatly come together to explain the events of the Exodus, " could equally apply to Montgomery's thesis, as well.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:01 am

archaeologist wrote:
Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.
no because he addresses this issue later in his paper.

Okay. Back to work. He addresses a lot of things...does not make them credible. I didn't write your bible and neither did Bishop Ussher.

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS.
why do they reject that finding? just giving me a closed statement like that just tells me you have no proof for that type of comment. i didn't react to his lack of credentials, as when i did a search on him, i couldn't find even that much.

I can only give you what I've got. If there is a scholarly discussion of the Ipuwer Papyrus somewhere, I haven't found it yet. What I have found indicates that the mainstream of Egyptology considers it to be a work of literature, a dialogue between Ipuwer and some god. Plato wrote "dialogues" too.

I concur. MOntgomery does not seem to have much of a presence on the net.

but i wanted to investigate his claims and see what information i could come up with before drawing any conclusions. i also did a search for information on semites in egypt in the 12th dynasty and so far haven't found anything satisfactory.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history
you can't prove that and finkelstein ignores a lot.

Actually, they have done a pretty fair job of proving it but you wouldn't know that because you only read stuff which supports your basic premise. From what I can see, there are plenty of people out there who will tell you what you want to hear but they seem to have little actual evidence to sustain that position.

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I.
well that is interesting as i have done some research on that area and i get something different:

from Keil & Dielitsch, v.2:

Pithom was Ba>toumov; it was situated, according to Herodotus (2, 158),
upon the canal which commenced above Bybastus and connected the Nile
with the Red Sea. This city is called Thou or Thoum in the Itiner. Anton.,
the Egyptian article pi being dropped, and according to Jomard (descript. t.
9, p. 368) is to be sought for on the site of the modern Abassieh in the
Wady Tumilat. — Raemses (cf. Genesis 47:11) was the ancient
Heroopolis, and is not to be looked for on the site of the modern Belbeis

{bold mine}

Heropolis would be a Greek name and the Heropolis in the Delta seems to have been a Roman town from much (much) later. Moreover, the other source makes clear that Pi_Ramesses was built over the site of Avaris which makes sense as that would have been the "action area" near the mouth of the Delta, for Kings interested in pursuing an interventionist foreign policy at that time.
i already know that the israelites were in egypt and they went on an exodus to the promised land, i just want more details and more information.

You seem to be alone in that 'knowledge.' There was an Exodus show on National Geographic last night with all your pals.....Hoffmeier, Humphreys, Cornulke, etc. Humphreys was demonstrating some of this "scientific" theories of plagues and parting seas. Comical, really, as when he used an enormous leaf blower to move water out of a small tray!
Anyway, at the end they gave archaeologists Kathleen Cooney and Eric Cline the last word which remains that there is not a single "shred of evidence" to sustain the exodus account, according to Cline. I have to go with him unless you can prove otherwise.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:07 pm

Turnabout, Arch.

Here's a (much) longer demolition of Jacobovici. Enjoy.

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?cat=86

Dr. Hickson is undoubtedly giving an accurate description of what it is like to experience a volcanic eruption “up close,” close enough to experience a heavy “rain” of ash. Perhaps the people of Pompeii experienced something much like this when Vesuvius, 8 km to the north, erupted. According to the Michigan Tech volcanism primer that I’ve mentioned before, Dr. Hickson’s description might also be appropriate to the citizens of Yakima, 80 miles east—downwind—of Mount St. Helens, where the ash fallout reached 10 mm in depth, but not the experience of those in Vancouver, Washington, 50 miles south (off the prevailing winds) of Mount St. Helens, where there were no ash depostis. The way Jacobovici edits the footage and splices it together, however, makes it sound like Dr. Hickson is describing the experience of the Egyptians subsequent to the Santorini eruption—while she is speaking off-camera, an animated infographic shows the ash cloud from the initial Santorini eruption rolling over Egypt and the Sinai peninsula in a matter of seconds. But this is entirely implausible. The closest that Egypt and Santorini get to each other is about 715 km (in the film, Jacobovici rounds this down to 700). Avaris is about 870 km away from Santorini, close to a direct southeasterly line on a Mercator projection map. As discussed and documented in an earlier installment of this series, the heaviest ash deposits from Santorini were in the eastern Agean and in Anatolia, demonstrating that the prevailing winds were westerly (that is, coming out of the west and blowing toward the east) at the time of the eruption. It is just not plausible that enough ash from the Santorini eruption blew across Egypt—hundreds of kilometers to the south and off the path of the prevailing winds—to give the Egyptians the kind of experience that Dr. Hickson desribed. They’re too far away from the volcano, in the wrong direction.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:14 pm

I didn't write your bible and neither did Bishop Ussher.

ussher i do not agree with. there are too many inconsistancies in his calculations and why the evangelical world has adopted his dating is beyond me.there is no proof other than the genealogies which they themselves have been described as 'epochal'{manners and customes of the Bible, packer & tenney pg. 56}

What I have found indicates that the mainstream of Egyptology considers it to be a work of literature, a dialogue between Ipuwer and some god.

with allyour complaints about egyptologists, you believe them here? too convenient . again with dating very subjective it is not hard to claim a different date when one wants to.

Actually, they have done a pretty fair job of proving it but you wouldn't know that because you only read stuff which supports your basic premise

let's stick to the issue.

Anyway, at the end they gave archaeologists Kathleen Cooney and Eric Cline the last word which remains that there is not a single "shred of evidence" to sustain the exodus account, according to Cline.

and cline is objective here. i don't believe that there isn't a single shredof evidence, i do believe people reject what evidence there is. but then if you are relying solely on physical evidence that someone existed then most people of the world would not exist after awhile.

i have already shownthat the israelites did not have an israelite culture, ecept for circumcision, prior to Mt. Sinai. that fact alone explains the confusion of finkelstein, Cline and others and their mis-interpretatingthe evidence they do find.

plus given the egyptian's loose record keeping, itis unfair to conclude they did not exist prior to the settlement of the Promised Land.

under the 12th century sohourn subtitle, montgomery writes this:

"was there a powerful vizier in the 12th century who could have been Joseph? Courville identified Josph as Vizier Mentuhotep under Sensuret I, the most powerful vizierof the 12th Dynasty...Such titles were unprecedented either before or after this time."

the key here would be if they found his tomb empty since Joseph's mummy was taken out of egypt when the israelites left.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:07 pm

i don't believe that there isn't a single shredof evidence

Then its up to you to find it and present it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:44 pm

archaeologist wrote:
I didn't write your bible and neither did Bishop Ussher.
ussher i do not agree with. there are too many inconsistancies in his calculations and why the evangelical world has adopted his dating is beyond me.there is no proof other than the genealogies which they themselves have been described as 'epochal'{manners and customes of the Bible, packer & tenney pg. 56}

Well, I always thought that Ussher was a bible-thumping moron but what he thinks is irrelevant and I don't see why MOntgomery mentions him except as a strawman to knock down. This:

1 Kings 6
Solomon Builds the Temple
1 In the four hundred and eightieth [a] year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.
says 480 years and I didn't write it nor did Ussher. Moreover, I am not one of the ones who claims that the bible is the unerring word of god. I think you are one of those except when the narrative manifestly does not work those same people start "interpreting." Either it is the word of god or it isn't. You have to make up your mind and live with it. I think it's a load of crap so don't go by me.

What I have found indicates that the mainstream of Egyptology considers it to be a work of literature, a dialogue between Ipuwer and some god.
with allyour complaints about egyptologists, you believe them here? too convenient . again with dating very subjective it is not hard to claim a different date when one wants to.

There's a bit of a difference between the Egyptologists' claim that the GP was built in 20 years with muscle power and a big ramp to be the tomb of one man, and the idea that these people can read hieroglyphs and comment on Egyptian writing. Recall that there are no textual references to the building of these monuments so the Egyptologists are crossing out of their field into engineering and architecture. If they stuck to what is written, they would honestly state "we don't know who built this stuff or how it was built." I do not read hieroglyphs and neither do you so both of us are at the whim of those who do. In that second review of the Exodus Decoded there is a long dissertation on the Ipuwer Papyrus. I suggest you read it.

Actually, they have done a pretty fair job of proving it but you wouldn't know that because you only read stuff which supports your basic premise
let's stick to the issue.

That is the issue.

Anyway, at the end they gave archaeologists Kathleen Cooney and Eric Cline the last word which remains that there is not a single "shred of evidence" to sustain the exodus account, according to Cline.
and cline is objective here. i don't believe that there isn't a single shredof evidence, i do believe people reject what evidence there is. but then if you are relying solely on physical evidence that someone existed then most people of the world would not exist after awhile.

Until you show that he is wrong, and that there is tangible evidence, then Cline gets the nod on the credibility scale.

i have already shownthat the israelites did not have an israelite culture, ecept for circumcision, prior to Mt. Sinai. that fact alone explains the confusion of finkelstein, Cline and others and their mis-interpretatingthe evidence they do find.

You have shown nothing. You have speculated without proof. That's a long way from showing anything.

plus given the egyptian's loose record keeping, itis unfair to conclude they did not exist prior to the settlement of the Promised Land.

You are back to your "absence of evidence is proof of existence" idea. It's absurd.

under the 12th century sohourn subtitle, montgomery writes this:

"was there a powerful vizier in the 12th century who could have been Joseph? Courville identified Josph as Vizier Mentuhotep under Sensuret I, the most powerful vizierof the 12th Dynasty...Such titles were unprecedented either before or after this time."

the key here would be if they found his tomb empty since Joseph's mummy was taken out of egypt when the israelites left.

I guess you'd have to check the mummy's pecker to see if he was circumsized?

Proves nothing. Manetho aside, Egyptologists do not give great credence to the idea that the Hyksos conquered the country in a military invasion. They see it as bands of Semitic speaking peoples settling in the Delta during a time of famine in Canaan and gradually acquiring status. If one of their leaders subsequently gained status as an ally of the king it still DISPROVES the biblical assertion that these people were slaves in bondage to Egyptian overlords. Archaeological finds show artifacts of the Hyksos as Semites and as rulers not slaves. That is the only major group of Semites detected in 200 years of digging in Egypt. Your side has to disprove that, first.

Start digging.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:27 pm

You have to make up your mind and live with it

i already know it is the word of God and near the end of his paper montgomery addresses the issue of down dating.

then Cline gets the nod on the credibility scale

what does he show that is evidence it did not happen? how would he have the nod of credibility if he can show no proof that there was no exodus?

as an example, on santorini we have no skeletal remains of the minoans does that mean they did not exist on that island? does it mean they were loaded up into spaceships and taken away? the absence of evidence that they got into their boats and sailed away does not mean they did not do just that.

no i am not absurd because what there is as proof is dismissed because it doesn't fit what they are looking for.

so far you have produced very little to support your side. yes you watched the t.v. show but you don't quote anything cline said. i will search the national geographic website to see if i can find some transcripts of the show but i am betting you like him because he only says what you want him to say.

at least i am being open-minded here and investigaing what was written. you keep falling back to the 'there is no evidence there is no exodus or sojourn' mantra and have yet to be open-minded at all.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:15 pm

They see it as bands of Semitic speaking peoples settling in the Delta during a time of famine in Canaan and gradually acquiring status

egyptian historical credibility has been suspect for decades and with known events of their removal of historical figures this is not an assumption or ishful thinking.

If one of their leaders subsequently gained status as an ally of the king it still DISPROVES the biblical assertion that these people were slaves in bondage to Egyptian overlords.

it disproves nothing as you have provided nothing in support in the way of links, credible sources or references.

i am not going to take your word for it.