Archaeologica.org

so what youre saying is that because theres no evidence whatsoever of Israelite slaves in egypt then they were definitely there
lolololol
is this how all christians think or is it just you Arch

the kind of archaeological evidence that would be needed to examined which would relate to the Israelite time in Egypt.

But there is no Israelite Time in Egypt...the first mention of them occurs c 1207 BC in Canaan. From the arguments between Dever and Finkelstein about their origins I am considering an idea about that, too.

The only thing you've got to say that they were ever there as slaves is the bible which at this point is not reputable source.

But there is no Israelite Time in Egypt..

that is a conclusion from an absence of evidence and dever and finkelstein can't be relied upon to tellthe truth nor tointerpret the evidence properly.

remember, the Israelites were a small group when they first came to Egypt, why would there be any fanfare or recording of the event? it was a personal invitation, not an official one.

then if you are looking for the wrong evidence, then your conclusions will be off. since they came in as a small group, why would they have their own pottery style? most everyday things would have been learned from the egyptians and most likely done inthe egyptian style with a little influence fromtheir own personal beliefs etc.

thus on the exodus, you would find, egyptian style pottery, not israelite,if they had any, you would find egyptian style evidence because for 400 years the Israelites were influenced by the egyptians.

so how are you going to find evidence for israelites when almost everything they did, had their host's influence?

thus on the exodus, you would find

maybe the actual kings name or a description of pyramids ?
or a knowledge that it doesnt take 40 years to cross 800 miles of land between egypt and israel

lol
an absence of evidence IS an evidence of absence
especially when the proposed non credible evidence is wrong in every aspect

You're really desperate, arch.

The "absense of evidence" for a large Davidic empire in the 10th century is not that there is no evidence of Jerusalem. There is evidence which shows that it was a shitty little hill town at the time your bible claims that it was the capital of a great empire.

What is "absent" is any evidence for the Empire. All the people who were supposedly living under David's Empire seem to have been living under others, or independently, at the same time.

That is not "absence of evidence." That is the evidence showing something which the bible-thumpers cannot explain.

As far as your "Israelites in Eqypt" stuff goes you have never been able to identify a time period where both of these biblical passages can be true:




Genesis

15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

and

1 Kings 6

6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.

Giving a mid 10th century date for Solomon....(let's say 950 BC for the sake of argument) that means the exodus would have been in 1430 BC and the 400 years of bondage which preceded it would have begun in 1830 BC and would have meant that your precious Israelites, even if they had existed, would have been enslaved by the Hyksos (Canaanite countrymen) not Egyptians....who were servants to an occupying power until Ahmose I threw the Hyksos out.

It is simply a preposterous argument.

even if they had existed, would have been enslaved by the Hyksos (Canaanite countrymen) not Egyptians..

they weren't slaves for the full 400 years, whuch means that after Ahmose threw out the Hyksos, he then could have enslaved the Israelites.

"then a pharaoh who knew not Joseph..." thus it is still a possibility.

It is simply a preposterous argument.

no, you are just pissed off because my theory makes sense and shows that dever and finklelstein are wrong.

There is evidence which shows that it was a shitty little hill town at the time your bible claims that it was the capital of a great empire.

remember what Kenneth Kitchen said, 'solomon did the building, david did the fighting.' so what would you expect to find during the time of david? plus have you heard of treaties? Kitchen does do a very good job in showing that the 'empire', as you call it, did indeed exist.

and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Hey...YOU'RE the one who believes this stupidity is the word of god. If you want to chuck it all and substitute your own opinions, we can start over.

'afflict' doesn't necessarily mean slavery. it would take some research to get at the gist of what is being said. i am not chucking it out at all, but i am also not putting limitations on it at the moment.

besides, even if they were slaves for the full 400 years, they would still be using egyptian products and not their own thus my theory still stands true.

and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Come on, arch, get real. What were they? On vacation on the Egyptian Riviera and were enslaved because they couldn't pay their bar tab?

No matter how you slice it unless your bible is total horseshit (and I think it is) there is simply no time period in history in which the conditions that your own book lays out could be true.

Come on, arch, get real. What were they

the israelites would not have been making their own products, their own pottery and so on. they would be working for the egyptians making egyptian products and so on.

when they left, what were they taking with them? egyptian products they owned, the egyptian things given to them by egyptians. thus what are you going to find along the route of the exodus? egyptian artifacts not Israeli.

No matter how you slice it unless your bible is total horseshit

now you know i am right on this one and with this theory it explains why modern archaeologists cannot find evidence other than egyptian. now you have two options:
1. find israeli artifacts in egypt at that time, which would prove me wrong but the Bible right
2. find egyptian artifacts everywhere and prove me right and the Bible right still.

ah so they were using egyptian hieroglyphs as language as well i expect then
because apparently while building two cities they never not once thought to carve their names anywhere
which means of course that the ten commandments were written in hieroglyph
on a format that is sumerian in origin
before they knew that sumer existed
according to the claims made in the bible
total horseshit when you actually look atthe facts.
how about the fact that canaanite women were often married to egyptian men and were recorded as such on their grave markers
Egyptians didn't marry their slaves according to the bible arch
so these girls must all have been imports right
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/courses/rs135/samples.html
but of course this is about 1500 years after the claimed exodus

that is why marduk has no credibility with me...nothing but unsubstantiated garbage. case in point: israelites are not canaanites no matter how hard you wish it to be.

that is why marduk has no credibility with me...nothing but unsubstantiated garbage. case in point: israelites are not canaanites no matter how hard you wish it to be.

http://www.mideastweb.org/palmaps.htm

According to Hebrew tradition, 12 tribes entered Cana'an from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses. Historical evidence from the Amarna tables suggests that there were already 'apiru' (probably Hebrews) in Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule,

now your regurgiatated nonsense is really getting sloppy

laughing at your knowledge of your own fairy tales here
suggest you sign up for a bible reading class soon or youre going to get your ass kicked seven ways from sunday

now your regurgiatated nonsense is really getting sloppy

1. that quote supports nothing you claimed.

2.a.we do not know exactly who the apiru were and it was possible that the israelites were included becauwe they were not canaanites.

2.b. i am making a serious point with minimalist so stop mucking up the topic

3. you really need to use better source material

http://www.answers.com/canaan

Canaan : An ancient region made up of Palestine or the part of it between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In the Bible it is the Promised Land of the Israelites.

Arch you know nothing at all about your own specialist subject (fairy stories)
and once again i just proved to everyone reading this that you don't even know the connection between canaanites and israelites
thats bible class 101 surely
0/10
must try harder

roflmao