Ion

This post is to reply to E_muse's last post.

When reading your last post, I see the issue being considered by an author of a book, who offers no scientific evidence that the Exodus happened like in the Bible.

When July 18, at 10:14 p.m. I posted
I see thousands of scientific people first-hand involved in digging, evaluating named and dated excavation sites, as reported in professional archaeological magazines, and summarized by a journalist of Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2001, who conveyed the already formed scientific consensus on the Exodus, as Exodus being something else than what the Bible writes.

sighhswolf

You know, I look at the Exodus story as being of the same material of the search for the Historic Jesus.

There is plenty of historic information that can be read by scholars like reading a newspaper.
Egyptian history is well documented from about 1200 BCE.

Just as in the search for the historic Jesus,
the Exodus story was a tremendous event.
Plagues visited upon Egypt.
Masses of Runaway slaves.
The swallowing of the Army of Pharaoh by the red sea.

Yet Egyptian history does not record these specific events, based on what I have read.
There has been more scholarly, archeological, and historical research on ancient Egypt than almost any other time period or culture.

In reading some works by various reseachers,
the only thing that even comes close is the
expulsion of the "Hyksos" people from Egypt.

Another area that lacks historical hard facts, like so many others in the Bible.

E_muse

I think first of all that your post highlights the futility of arguing from authority - scholars think, scholars say etc as not many of us are in a position to evaluate their findings.

I have attempted to avoid an arguement from authority by deliberately picking quotes which include hard facts about the seismology of the Jordan Valley and archeological discoveries concerning Jericho. I have also picked quotes from a man who is an agnostic, wouldn't treat the Bible as entirely reliable and certainly doesn't have a fundamentalist agenda. You asked for scientific evidence.

Do these findings contradict the Biblical account? Does the Biblical account give an accurate account of the physical nature of the Jordan Valley aside from any theological embellishments? Are claims in the Bible that the Jordon river dried enabling the children of Israel to pass over it completely irrational in light of what is now about the unstable nature of the rift valley?

Well, a consensus view doesn't make it right.

I'm a little confused as to the purpose of your thread. You started by saying that you wanted to 'knock out' theists. You said:

However, theists are made up of liberal scholars as well as fundamentalists; Bible inerrantists as well as those like Tercel who would consider that the Bible contains errors. Which group of theists are you aiming at?

I think that your initial comments grossly misrepresent the intentions of honest open minded scientific enquiry which would never have such an aim at its heart and wouldn't want its findings used in such a way or as a means of gaining such cheap oneupmanship.

What do you consider to be scientfic evidence if the seismology of the Jordan valley isn't (you claim that the quotes I used contain no scientific evidence)? Don't you consider study of the geology of the Jordan Valley a scientific discipline? Which particular scientific disciplines are you looking for evidence from - geologists, archeologists, physicists? You simply run back to the article again in much the same way that a fundamentalist would run back to the Bible. 'God says..' becomes 'Scientists say...' or 'Scholars say'. There may be more evidence for what scientists say but the basis for expecting others to believe it is the same.

Personally, I am responding to claims that the Bible is a total fabrication and that there is nothing factual in it at all and that Christians have no evidence for their claims.

[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

E_muse

Can I ask by what objective criteria the Egyptian records can be considered more reliable than those of the Hebrews?

I am aware that the Egyptians attempted to erase evidence of certain of their own people from their histories and am curious.

E_muse

Without being able to check much of the background information, this is what Pellegrino has to say on this:

He also describes that radiocarbon dating of wood in the fourth city has yielded dates between 1540 and 1450 B.C. for the city's destruction, lending further support to the view that Jericho was standing at the time of Joshua.

Further, a broken water jug found in city four which is known not to have occured before the first decades of the Late Bronze Age.

Quoting archeologist Bryant Woods, the conclusion from these findings is that there was a city for Joshua to conquer.

There is more. Pots of abandoned grain were found in city four. Egyptians were known to attack cities when food supplies were low and starve out their enemies. City Four appears to have been abandoned in a hurry, leaving much grain behind. This flies in the face of what is known about Egyptian Military tactics - meaning that the city was not destroyed by Egyptians.

Pellegrino states:

I could go on.

To summarise:

The Bible appears to accurately describe what construction workers would have eaten in Egypt.

The Bible appears to accurately describe events such as the drying up of the Jordan River, not an unknown event in the rift valley.

The Bible appears to describe perfectly the way in which Jericho fell - tumbling walls.

Scarabs of Hatshepsut, which would only have been used during her reign (to do so after would have meant death) are found in Jericho's city four meaning that it was inhabited at the time the Bible claims Joshua conquered it. Radiocarbon dating on wood confirms this as well as broken pottery.

[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Ion

Thank you, sighhwolf.

To E_muse's "Don't you consider study of the geology of the Jordan River a scientific discipline?":
I do. After re-re-reading in your last posts the quotes from the Pellegrino's book you endorse, I say they are again-again-again teasing about possibilities, but don't show Exodus proofs for baby Moses drifting in a basket on the Nile, Moses living up to age 120 and his fossil proving that, hundreds of thousands of Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years, Joshua and Jericho, etc.; for example "natural dams..." and the conclusion "...conditions in Canaan were just right for some of the events...", only show of the Bible being written around that time, by people familiar with local geography, local events, and having supersitious fantasies when promoting themselves.

To E_muse's "...radiocarbon dating of wood in the fourth city has yielded dates between 1540 and 1450 BC for the city's destruction, lending further support to the view that Jericho was standing at the time of Joshua.":
Exodus supposedly occured in 1250 BC. The archaeologist Bryant Wood, you endorse, wants to date it back to 1450 BC. He thinks he has indications of destruction around that time at Hazor, Jericho and a site he is excavating that he believes is the Biblical city of Ai. Wood says he cannot get his research published in consensus archaeological journals, because his research is deemed unfounded by proofs.

E_muse to the two articles I was promoting a few posts ago, regarding Biblical contradictions, add the post by Donald Morgan July 25, 2001 at 6:23 p.m., under the thread "Noah's Ark and its remains".
I think the Bible, is baloney inherited from thousands of years ago.

E_muse

Well, we all think what we want to think and believe what we want to believe. I prefer to keep an open mind and withhold judgement - I wasn't there when it happened you see

The Bible may prove to be a load of baloney - but the purpose of honest scientific enquiriy is most certainly not to knock out theists but to get to the truth - which is my main concern from your initial post.

The 'Bible Contradictions' link would require different threads on each subject and could not be adequately answered in this one IMHO.

Please raise them with me - but there is no way they could ever be discussed in the context of one thread.

I have attempted to provide information on the situation in Sinai and to demonstrate that information in the Bible with regard to certain events doesn't contradict some archeological discoveries or geological features.

I have also tried to demonstrate that there are non-theists who would disagree with the prevailing view. The book I have referred to was published in 1994 and so it would appear that there is very little new evidence in the newspaper article.

With regard to other opinions - the word 'doubt' has been used and 'no conclusive evidence' (I refer to the newspaper article) suggesting that other opinions are available. Again - what are they?

If the object of the thread is to critique the consensus view then I think this would be admirable.

E_muse

Isn't that what all archeologists are engaged in - teasing about possibilities? No scientific opinion over this matter can be taken as proof, that's why the article you quote is careful to use the word 'theory' with regard to the prevailing opinion.

You demand proof from those who disagree with your viewpoint and yet the ideas you are setting forth over this matter are not themselves proof based, but theoretical, as the opinions being set forth in the quoted article are.

I felt that your original post was raising the issue of a lack of evidence in the scientific disciplines to support Biblical claims. This discussion became focussed on the Exodus.

I have attempted to show that there is much evidence (over this issue) which does not contradict the Biblical account of events surrounding the Exodus.

With regard to Moses in the basket and the age of his death - again would one expect to find fossil evidence for this? Also, neither event demands a supernatural explanation, it's not an incredible claim and so I don't have any strong objections to it. I am also prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the author in the absence of any conclusive evidence.

The final matter seems to be an explanation for the lack of conclusive evidence placing the children of Israel in the wilderness - I will have to read around this further. However, I refuse to use an absence of evidence to form an absolute opinion until I have fully considered all the options available - like I say, I like to keep an open mind.

I have deliberately refused to comment on the spiritual aspects of the passages and have used the term 'theological embellishment'.

Your comment that the evidence provided indicates that the authors were around at the time, knew local geography and had fanciful ideas about themselves is one way of rationalising the evidence given. You claim that the evidence 'only shows' your viewpoint. How does that promote free thought?

Personally I feel that the evidence shows that the events described in Exodus cannot be written off as a complete fabrication and one must keep an open mind with regard to uncertainties.

To quote Mazor:

As for the no remains, no occupation theory, I understand that even Finkelstein documents examples of peoples mentioned in ancient literature (including Egyptian) who have left no archeological trace.

As a non academic, apologies if some of my replies are slow in coming!

[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Ion

E ('E' as in E_muse), I agree with most of your last two posts. We are searching for our history, and to reprise what I wrote, I have faith in the scientific methodology for eventually doing this somewhat accurately. Currently, the scientific knowledge doesn't think the Bible is likely, and is groping for the truth. I go along with the science.

As for your "With regard to Moses in the basket and age of his death -again would one expect to find fossil evidence for this?":
those are Biblical claims, scientifically deemed as being extraordinary; a helpless baby drifting usupervised on the Nile, is exposed to famine, thirst, sun, need to relieve himself while not knowing anything of life, maladies, crocodiles on the Nile, etc.. Proof of this extraordinary claim, would start with generous accounts of this outside of the Bible, by local Egyptians, in spite of the Egyptian different cultural beliefs; for extraordinary Biblical ages of Adam, Moses, Noah, etc., ages that are unheard of in science, I demand fossils of such hominids, skeletons from supposedly less than 6000 years of Biblical account of the whole history.

aza wood

It is interesting to me, that you have picked this precise forty years, out of the thousands that could be questioned! You are to obvious!
Having been in Mitsrayim (The Two Kingdoms) for four hundred years (twice our nations whole history) The Yahudim would have had very little, that would distinguish, them from their Mitsrayimite masters!
The archaeological ruins of the first city that the Yahudim conquered (Jericho)in 1400 B.C.E. immediately after this 40 year period, is still lying there just as The Scriptures say! Also the communiqué between the Governor of Palestine and the Pharaoh of Mitsrayim is available to us today!
An interesting point that does relate to the Yahudim in the wilderness, is the Serpent on a Pole. Which was used by these wanderers, to cure snake bite. This emblem is now used 4,ooo years later by the most prestigious occupation of our time, The medical Profession! We also have their Law, given to them in the wilderness, on the wall of our Supreme Court! 4,000 years from now will there be anyone who remembers you and I Ion ?

[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: aza wood ]