Duvduv

Come on, Shesh. EVERYBODY has a religion. Those who have faith in the limited abilities and reaches of archaeology define their religion in terms of what contemporary archaeology does or does not discover. Others have their faith in other directions. The problem is when those who pretend to be free of religion arrogantly look down on the rest, when those who are free of formal religion have a deep and abiding faith in the religion of archaeology or of human rationality, with all the limitations that exist.

semiopen

Actually one million is probably ridiculously high for a United Kingdom for example, more like 300,000.

It isn't easy to estimate population, but it's very unlikely that existing methods are going to turn out absurdly wrong to the low side.

Regarding the desert thing, they would have found evidence for a group of any reasonable size going through there, its not like nobody has been looking.

Just as an example the Age_of_the_Earth is

This means there is a possible error of 1% in the estimate. Nobody is going to say tomorrow

Granted estimating population isn't this exact, but they didn't miss a million people.

Toto

Those who accept the findings of archaeology are willing to change their opinions when there is new evidence. Those who believe in the Torah are generally not, as you demonstrate with your refusal to accept the complete lack of evidence for the Exodus in spite of extensive searches that have turned up blanks.

That's why it makes no sense to describe archaeology as a religion, and Duvduv is just trying to set up a false equivalency.

Duvduv

I did not say that the two were identical, but they share enough features whereby archaeology (which for all intents and purposes has not changed much about anything in a century) is accepted with FAITH based on its limited findings, resources, scope and technology without regard for the fact of these limitations. To that extent it serves people as a RELIGION.

outhouse

Despite all that.

Israelites factually evolved from displaced Canaanites who settled the highlands in a slow gradual increase from 1200 BC onward.

Sheshbazzar

...and evidently borrowed and adapted much of the religious mythology for their religious folk tales from the older and immediately surrounding civilization's.
The tales don't own much to Egyptian sources or myths, but overwhelmingly to ancient Sumerian, Urgritic, and Mesopotamian roots.

Adam

Just for the record, when Manetho and Josephus spoke of the Hyksos's departure from Egypt as the origin of the Israelites, is that all a myth too? There never were Hyksos and/or nobody knows where they went? (I thought Manfred Bietak had excavated their sites in Egypt.) Is there no archaeological support for where they went when defeated in Egypt? (Rohl's idea was that they were the Amalekites, after making his chronological adjustment of several centuries.)

steve_bnk

How many times has a finding o the tomb of JC appeared in the media?

There is archeology and there is popular for profit Christian archeology.
I do not have a number, but the Christian market for such stuff is large and profitable.

I've had Christians quote books insisting much of the bible is evidenced.

outhouse

Stop the nonsense.

Israelites factually evolved from displaced Canaanites.

Manetho and Josephus used the OT mythology as their influence.


As of now there is ZERO Hyksos tie to Israelites.

outhouse

Who do you know that is not religious that follows apologetically influenced archeology?


Its faith for the faithful and has nothing to do with real history. You do get a few scholars like Ben Witherington that overreach. But we see it coming.