the exodus revisitied

[Guest]

Textual discoveries must be given more scrutiny because of the tendency of people to mis-state facts

not wrong. artifacts are subject to false identifications, false pre-texts, false interpretations, false conclusions and desparately need textual documents to explain what they are and what their use was.

i.e. a bowl is not just a bowl--is it a cereal bowl, fruit bowl, bowl for washing, candy bowl. just looking at it only gives you an idea and without the texts, you are only guessing.

plus i live outside the western world and know how things are different in the oriental mind and practice. one cannot assume using western thought or ideas.

[Guest]

p.s. arguing from a negative just ends up making the arguer look foolish. k.a. kitchen demonstrated that with his example of Ebla. thus OAS' demand for artifacts is just another foolish attempt at denying the truth.

especially if he does not accept the fact that the israelites would have been discarding egyptian cultural products and not israeli ones.

[oldarchystudent]

So if there is no evidence, it must therefore be the truth?

4 step scientific method is just a bit of a mystery to you, isn't it........

[Minimalist]

So if there is no evidence, it must therefore be the truth?

He has used exactly that logic to "prove" that there were Israelites in slavery in Egypt!

[Minimalist]

without the texts, you are only guessing.

And with the texts you are still guessing at the intention and agenda of the author.

Take for instance some greedy priests who write about what "god" wants people to do.

How can anyone take that seriously? Or uncritically?

[Essan]

If you were to read Caesar's commentaries on the Wars in Gaul you would find that he never lost a battle or made a mistake. He did both.

Good analogy

Now, in the case of the Exodus we have a story of a large group of people living in Egypt who, as one, up and leave for Canaan. They spend 40 years in the Sinai desert en route.

So, we want to verify whether this story is true. Or an exagerrated account of, maybe, a much smaller event. Or even wholly fictious (like the strory of the Scots originating in Egypt).

We need evidence for a large group of people living in Egypt. We need evidence for them all laving at the same time. We need evidence for them spending 40 years in the Sinai. And we need evidence for them arriving as complete newcomers to the land of Canaan.

We cannot use anything in the Bible because thet is circular reasoning.

So, what did we have?

The obvious starting point would be Egyptian records from the time. We'd also expect some trace of settlement in the Sinai. Finally we'd expect evidence of a sudden influx of people with different customs in Canaan.

So......

[Minimalist]

They spend 40 years in the Sinai desert en route.

Apparently they spent 38 of the 40 years at a place called Kadesh Barnea, which is an oasis in Sinai.

Oddly, in spite of the efforts of Israeli archaeologists who had unfettered access to the place after the 1967 war, not a trace of the Israelites has been found.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/biblephotos/4



http://skeptically.org/enlightenment/id17.html

** Kadesh-Barnea Deut. 1:19-46. The Israelites spent at any of the most of their 40 years in the wilderness at Kadesh
EVIDENCE : No LB at any of the possible sites for Kadesh-Barnea.

[oldarchystudent]

The obvious starting point would be Egyptian records from the time. We'd also expect some trace of settlement in the Sinai. Finally we'd expect evidence of a sudden influx of people with different customs in Canaan.

So......

According to John Romer in Testament, there are no Egyptian records of such a large chunk of the population doing a "up-stakes".

[Minimalist]

Here is quite an in-depth look at the issue.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/355Exodus.html

It is plain from this examination of supposed scientific evidence that it is a mishmash of allusions, often extremely tenuous, and assumptions based upon the bible being true. These believers never let the evidence stand on its own, speaking for itself. It is always squeezed into a biblical mould until it is forced into the desired shape. Much of this evidence actually tells the opposite story of the interpretation imposed upon it. Once it is realised that Yehouah worship was not confined to Israelites or Hebrews, but extended to Canaanites, Aramaeans and Hittites as well as into Syria, and Mesopotamia, then many of the assumptions of the biblicists fall flat. To maintain, for example that an asiatic name like Jacobel is a sure sign of an Israelite is utter stupidity. It praises El for a a start and not Yehouah, just as Israel does. Whatever Israel stood for initially, it was obviously not someone who worshipped Yehouah.

[Guest]

Hey min, you are obviously a Fundamentalist Darwinite, lots of opinions, no evidences to back it up.

[Guest]

So if there is no evidence, it must therefore be the truth?

i didn't say there was no evidence if you have been reading all the threads you will notice that i pointed out their cultural practices were not israelite in nature till after the settlerd inthepromised land but began at Mt. Sinai.

their whole history from prior to those moments would have been shrouded in the cultures of the times and the nations they lived in. what you are all looking for or demand, i should say, must be stamped in gold lettering 'made in israel by israleites' and that isn't going to happen.

just like the african slave in america. their practices and culture were non-existent as they were forced to adopt american ways set out for them. i doubt if you could prove they were from africa just by the 'evidence' left behind.

nor do we have evidence that they were set free at the time of the emancipation proclamation. we have the document declaring they were free but no evidence that they were at the time of lincoln's announcement.

so again you cannot argu from a position 'we can't verify it thus it didn't happen' position. plus, who are you that God has to verify His word to? the responsibility is upon you to decide to accept or reject that is it. you are not in a position to decide if it is true or not. not your call or authority to do so.

[oldarchystudent]

So where are these sites with Egyptian artifacts that prove the exodus happened? Present your evidence please. Archaeological evidence, that is, not textual evidence.

And BTW - the bible is the writings of men not a deity. I have no problem questioning it.

[Guest]

Your problem, oas, is that you're incapable of demonstrating any flaw in the historical account of the Bible, keep trying though, knock yourself out.

[Guest]

So where are these sites with Egyptian artifacts that prove the exodus happened? Present your evidence please. Archaeological evidence, that is, not textual evidence

sorry but i don't buy into your divisions. if you can't accept what i present then the problem is with you and your unrealistic demands.

[oldarchystudent]

Arch - there is nothing unrealistic about asking for physical remains of a 40 year trot through the desert by several thousand migrants. If it happened it would have left behind physical evidence.

People are messy - they leave stuff all over the place for archaeologists to find. Where are the fire pits? Where are the bones of slaughtered animals? Where are the graves of those that died along the way? Where are the discarded tools that were broken or wore out? Where are your Egyptian artifacts? These are not unreasonable things to ask for.

Think about it - a few guys sitting around a campfire eating a meal leave charcoal in the firepit, splintered bone from the butchering process. Coprolites from crapping after they ate, discarded materials if they were repairing anything that night. On and On it goes - this is the stuff that archaeologists find in a small campsite and they survive for thousands of years, especially in dry desert conditions. Where are the remains of an entire exiled nation coming home on the slowest migration imaginable? If they are there, great! I would love to hear about them. Oddly enough I don't mind having an idea of mine overturned. But I need to see the evidence.