bfniii

i think that's what i am in the process of doing. it is dishonest to proffer one new, controversial movement within archaeology (which just so happens to buttress the worldview espoused by this website) as definitive or conclusive.

bfniii

actually you don't have to add anything at all for it to be possible.



sure i can imagine that



that's the point. no time frame is specified.



perhaps you could define "plain reading" because the text does not indicate that to me.



if you say so.



no. aliens aren't nearly as prominent in human history as hebrews/jews are.



so far, the kind of evidence that has been mentioned in this thread is unlikely to exist even if the exodus did happen according to the bible's account. i addressed that in post #92

bfniii

first, this is an argument from silence. second, since there is no time frame specified in the narrative the demand might not have occurred all at once. the egyptians might have had time to garner livestock from multiple countries gradually. third, i have already stated that the egyptians might have dealt with the hebrews which would have lessened their need for external sources.



again, we don't know the time frames involved.



this is incorrect. it would be more correct to state that we lack knowledge of the events outside of the biblical narrative. there doesn't seem to be anything external to the bible's account that overtly contradicts what it says, and there is certainly enough opportunity for that to exist. lacking external corroboration to the story is merely an argument from silence.

RED DAVE

it is dishonest to proffer an old, refuted movement within archaeology (which just so happens to buttress the worldview espoused by a poster) as definitive or conclusive.

Like I said, where's the shit as Kadesh Barnia?

RED DAVE

bfniii

nice response. very scholarly

xaxxat

Another piss-poor dodge, "professor"...

bfniii

i meant that there are other, equally plausible explanations. hence, the word "peer".



that's not what this thread is about.

furthermore, my response was a specific as the statement. someone proposed finkelstein as definitive and i challenged that. that doesn't require delving into specifics. it merely requires illuminating the fallacy.



so it's ok for someone to just say that he is the authority without stating why, but it's not ok for anyone to challenge that? certainly you can see that isn't equitable.

Anat

Out of 18 sites that *have* been excavated and studied, only a handful show what one would expect from an organised conquest. The site whose conquest is most elaborately described in the book of Joshua - Jericho - wasn't settled at the supposed time. You claim there is positive support for an Israelite conquest. So far this is lacking. The best you can say, both regarding the exodus and the conquest is that absence of evidence isn't evidence for absence, but you ignore the fact that people have been looking specifically for the type of evidence one would expect if the biblical narrative is to be believed.

Doug Shaver

It is about whether there is good reason to believe that the biblical story of the Exodus is based on any actual historical event. Finkelstein says that the archeological evidence indicates that there is not.

Properly presented, an argument from authority is not fallacious. It cannot prove that the authority must be right, but it can prove that it is reasonable to believe what the authority says.

Equity has nothing to do with it. When you're critiquing arguments, all that matters is logic and the facts to which they are applied.

It is a fact that Finkelstein is widely regarded as authoritative in biblical archeology. That doesn't make him infallible, but it does make the burden of proof shift to those who would claim that notwithstanding his expertise, he made a mistake in this particular instance.

Anat

My understanding that Livingston's identification of Khirbet Nisya with Ai is based on a very selective reading of Joshua. Where is the Ai'a city gates? Where are its walls?