Archaeologica.org

Oas, the only archaeological evidence that you really need to know to confirm the Exodus is that the Jews appeared out of nowhere to seize Canaan circa 1400 B.C., the foreigners were "booted out" of Egypt circa 1500 B.C., at a time of great calamity and climate change (end of the Ice Age), and that you cannot name any other people-group who controlled the Holy Land for almost all of the time after the Canaanites 'til 70 A.D.

archaeologist wrote:an ancient text is evidence in the archaeological sense of the word.

Archy - archaeological evidence consists of artifacts, ecofacts and features of human modification of the landscape. A document, ancient or modern does not qualify as archaeological evidence, regardless of which side of an arguement it may support. It is documentary evidence, and may or may not be distorted by the bias or ignorance of the author. Archaeology and documentation complement or contradict each other but one cannot replace the other.

I know there is documentary evidence in the form of biblical text, I was asking about archaeological evidence.

It is documentary evidence, and may or may not be distorted by the bias or ignorance of the author

and you think the other is free from such mitigating factors?? there is nothing wrong with texts as most archaeologists rely on them to help clarify what they have found.

if your an archaeologist, you would know that. texts play a very important role in archaeology. some day you will learn that, and stop posting drivel that modifies the roles played by archaeological evidence.

the Bible is as valid as any other text or artifact, in fact more so. but answer my question i posted a little while ago.

archaeologist wrote:

It is documentary evidence, and may or may not be distorted by the bias or ignorance of the author

and you think the other is free from such mitigating factors?? there is nothing wrong with texts as most archaeologists rely on them to help clarify what they have found.

if your an archaeologist, you would know that. texts play a very important role in archaeology. some day you will learn that, and stop posting drivel that modifies the roles played by archaeological evidence.

the Bible is as valid as any other text or artifact, in fact more so. but answer my question i posted a little while ago.

No - I don't think I'll be answering any questions from you - I've tried really hard to see you in a different light from GV, but you're just making that impossible.

Don't shove him off on me, he's the one who said that some of his posts he means, and some of them he doesn't.

then how do you expect me to take you seriously if you refuse to answer my questions?

i know for a fact that ancient texts paly a very vital role, your atttempt to dimishes that fact displays your contempt for the biblical record and efforts to dimish its role in biblical and secular archaeology.

when you really are going to be reasonable let me know, so far your thinly disguised attempt to attack a document undermines your stated purpose.

minimalist does the same thing, in fact you all do the same thing. you try and tip the playing field in your direction saying you are just making things even when in fact you are trying to dismiss and omit any theory, document or artifact that disagrees with your position. so you canb say 'we are right, we have the evidence' when in reality you just manipulated the field in your favor.

the problem with finding evidence for the exodus is nicely explained by Kitchen's comments about erosion of the sites (posted earlier here or in another thread).

Funny how such erosion only eliminates evidence of your Holy Goat Herders, Arch. Why is it it that every other culture managed to leave artifacts in the same region?

Answer: Because the other cultures existed at the time and were not invented and given a history later.

Your sad devotion to those fairy tales never considers the fact that people lie constantly when they write. In that sense 'history' is far less reliable than 'archaeology.' Artifacts suffer from no such problem. True, people can argue over them but the artifact itself is what it is and nothing more.....or less.

Hey min, the houses at Armarna from Ahkenaten's time, about a hundred years after the Exodus, had red-paint across the top of the doorframes, just like the Hebrews for the Passover (but not with blood).

Min says "people lie constantly when they write," so how do you know that min, or are you just speaking for yourself?

Funny how such erosion only eliminates evidence of your Holy Goat Herders, Arch. Why is it it that every other culture managed to leave artifacts in the same region

never said it did as that erosion has affected all levels of occupation.

I know there is documentary evidence in the form of biblical text, I was asking about archaeological evidence

one of the things that secular researchers and lay people ignore, is that the extra-biblical texts confirm the terms, names, battles etc., used in the Bible and for the time period it is used in.

thus the Bible is as valid an ancient text, and more so, than any other text. especially so when you compare it ancient works that relate ancient events that captivate today's populace like the story of Atlantis.

Your sad devotion to those fairy tales never considers the fact that people lie constantly when they write

and you are using yourself as the prime example...

archaeologist wrote:

I know there is documentary evidence in the form of biblical text, I was asking about archaeological evidence

one of the things that secular researchers and lay people ignore, is that the extra-biblical texts confirm the terms, names, battles etc., used in the Bible and for the time period it is used in.

thus the Bible is as valid an ancient text, and more so, than any other text. especially so when you compare it ancient works that relate ancient events that captivate today's populace like the story of Atlantis.

One last time in the hope it gets through....

The Bible is an ancient text, yes. So is Pliny the Elder. So is Ovid's Metamorphoses. So is Thcydides, Heroditus etc etc. These are all documentary evidence sources all with varying degrees of usefulness when it comes to historical fact finding.

Documentary evidence can be helpful if accurate. But I wasn't asking about documentary evidence. I was asking about archaeological evidence for the exodus. Were you not in class the day they explained the difference?

one of the things that secular researchers and lay people ignore, is that the extra-biblical texts confirm the terms, names, battles etc., used in the Bible and for the time period it is used in.

So, when god told the jews to stay away from the Land of the Philistines when escaping from Egypt he was just being a typical male who didn't ask for directions?

Hey min, keep your day job.

for those of us who have moved on past kindergarten archaeology we know what the real issues are. a textual discovery is an archaeological one along with being archaeological evidence.

your divisions are just more opportunities for game playing and a waste of time. it is like the specifics of each category of the archaeological ages. just more opportunity for those who disbelieve something by using the minute categories to manipulate evidence and conclusions.

oh this didn't happn in LBIIii1Aa but in LBIIii1Ab thus that part of the Bible isn't true/ or that evidence is indicative of another people not the ones we are studying; even though they may only be a year apart.

it is anal and takes research to asinine levels.

a textual discovery is an archaeological one along with being archaeological evidence.

Wrong.

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

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.


Your problem is that if the bible says something you accept it uncritically because you think it is the word of god.

It isn't.