Asha'man

Finkelstein and Silberman (the authors of The Bible Unearthed) are professional archeologists, working in Israel, and doing large scale archeological surveys of the countryside. Their professional conclusion is that not only does the evidence not support an Exodus event as described in the Hebrew Bible, but that there is strong evidence against such an event.

Modern archeology is particularly good at detecting the migration of large groups of people, especially when they meet other groups with a different culture. Such movements leave traces that are very hard to mistake, at least for a professional archeologist.

They have detected traces of nomadic groups passing through the Sinai Desert both before and after the supposed time of the Exodus, groups whose numbers were far smaller than the 2+ million described by scripture. However, for several centuries around when the Exodus is supposed to happen, not a trace was found. For 40 years, with over 2 million humans, plus their livestock, nobody broke a single pot, dropped a single sandal, or even dug a single latrine.

Additionally, the evidence shows that there was no conquest of Canaan around the 13th Century BCE, and that Jericho was actually a small un-walled settlement at that time. The evidence is strong that no large scale burning of buildings happened, that no walls suffered extensive damage, no sudden reduction in population occurred.

The evidence points clearly to the conclusion that the Hebrew people originated within Canaan and never immigrated from Egypt. There is a complete continuity of culture, from pot styles to language to architecture, all of which would be expected to change dramatically during a conquest and invasion from a group that had lived within Egyptian culture for centuries.

There are also references within the text of the story that are clearly anachronistic. Cities and fortifications are described that didn’t exist in the 13th century, but were well known in the 7th. The anachronisms clearly point to the conclusion that the story was composed sometime after the 7th century BCE.

The archeological evidence is pretty convincing, Exodus is simply a myth.

Columbo

While there may be these persuasions - one cannot conclude that no Exodus of any sort happened. Even the egyptologist Bob Bryer, seemed to suggest that the bible matched up with the death of Pharoah's son, and he shown traces of apparent mention of Hebrews - who would have been not as well known as a people back then.

Also - I've seen evidences of stone carvings and stone placement as described in Exodus. But this is small evidences yet one cannot deduce that if one cannot find evidence that the conclusion must be that an Exodus absolutely didn't exist - and is complete myth. This would be to disregard some other possibilites, and logical pathways. For example, you say;

And your immediate premature conclusion is that " Exodus is simply a myth. ".

But that conclusion doesn't follow from those premises, because the only thing one can truly say - is that one has not found those evidences one was looking for. But a true conclusion - is a cordial one, issued forth from stubborn observations of the information in the premises. Therefore - you can't say therefore the Exodus didn't happen, because another cordial and more correct conclusion - would be that the Exodus story could be exaggerated, and/or we simply didn't find those evidences we preferred to

This is an acceptable conclusion, because - as with my murder example - one can desire to find a murder weapon and DNA - and like your archaeologists, one can indeed find evidence BUT does one always find evidence and MUST there be no murder if one doesn't find the desired evidence?

Also - my conclusion accounts for the possibility of exaggeration within Exodus, but also - exaggeration might not be the case - simply not finding your desired evidence might be.

Have you considered all these logical possibilities? I doubt it - because you want to see Exodus as myth. But as I say - there are accuracies like Phaoah's son.

Asha'man

Bullshit. I have no need to see Exodus as a myth, and wasn’t even aware there was a controversy until I read the book recently. Population movements in the ancient world have absolutely no impact on my life in anything but an academic sense. And it doesn’t matter what I want, the question is purely about what the evidence actually supports. I’m reporting to you the findings of professional archeologists, not some badly produced TV special that I only half-remember. (Hint: TV is a really bad source for accurate historical information.)

The evidence is clear: there is absolutely no support for an Exodus anywhere near that described by the Hebrew Bible. If you want to suggest that 3 or 4 slaves escaped from Egypt and ran all the way to Canaan, then you don’t really have much of an Exodus, do you?

Pharaohs always have sons, enough wives make sure of that, and death by violence was a common occurrence in the ancient world. But if you can’t even get the name of the Pharaoh correct, I don’t count that as much of an accuracy. You are just shooting in the dark, and desperately hoping to hit something.

What we do have is strong evidence that the text does not even approximately describe a historical event. That makes the story a myth. The story of King Arthur is also a myth, even though there might have been an early king named Arthur in post-Roman England. Egypt was conquered by and then kicked out a group of foreigners called the Hyksos, centuries before the supposed date of the Exodus. That could easily be a historical seed that grew into the Exodus, but that still means the Exodus is a myth.

You can tap-dance all you like, but the end result is the same: no evidence supports a large population movement as described. You can try to dance around the issue, suggesting reasons why no evidence exists, but you still have no real evidence to support an exodus, and plenty to oppose it. The most reasonable conclusion, the only reasonable conclusion, is that the story is a myth.

Columbo

You ignored all of the logic and my whole post in favour of emotional jive ranting, and said that one must conclude it is a myth. But that isn't logical - it's just stubborn preconception - infact you insist[ there can only be one conclusion. Which infact comes from your own desire that that MUST be the conclusion. Why must it be? If there is no evidence of a murderer at the scene - it doesn't mean there wasn't a murderer.

No, I'd say that any person of intellectual standing, would admitt that there is a possibility that even if they conclude that the Exodus was a myth - it still might not have been. Since you can't even admitt to a logical pathway - then it is far from bulls***, indeed - Columbo thinks it's your strong opinion that a forced conclusion of biased unsubstantiated poppycock delusions of grandeur, must be concluded in order to satisfy your inane atheistic, nihilistic desires that bibleGod is false. :rolling:

So I can't believe you when you say, "bullsh**".

If you were truly objective - you would admitt that what I say is correct logically - one is concluding far too much if he says Exodus is absolutely a myth. One is claiming an absolute - indeed an absolute wish

I totally agree - there is no need to see it as a myth - as that conclusion is to over-conclude from the wishful desires and speculation, and consensus amongst the cream diggers. Nevertheless, not establishing anything - because you can't tap-dance around logic - which dictates that no evidence isn't evidence.

Indeed - there is no evidence against Exodus - just lack of evidence, as can be seen by reading your post. And there is no reason to conclude that no evidence is evidence.

Furthermore - you established what would be evidence and then said we don't find it. This is indeed a lack of evidence of what would confirm it - but not what would falsify it, necessarily - logically, as I have previously indicated.

Example - If Joe claimed he cut his knee - and we thought that it must have ledt a scar (to confirm it) - would it not leaving a scar negate it? Not necessarily - IF we find a scar THEN that confirms it. The contra-positive is that if no confirmation = no scar, and that is all that can be established from the conditional implication. And so - all we can say is that if we do find a scar then we will confirm it.

Sven

The second claim is of course crap, I only pointed to a book with that title. And you should know that titles are chosen to sound provocative.

The same evidence that rules out other claims from ancient manuscripts. For example, other manuscripts without an agenda which say the opposite and which are corroborated by archeology. Such as the conquest of Canaan. And I won't give you every single detail for this, I already gave you the reference to the book - you can do your homework yourself.

We can start in one of those threads:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hew+prophecies
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hew+prophecies
or start a new one, just as you like.
[edit]The Skeptics Annotated Bible also list 18 prophecies in Matthew which are at least questionable. Although the SAB is certainly not the best source, it's at least a basis for discussion[/edit]

Which version? OK, let's choose NIV:

I already gave you the source: "The bible unearthed". Heck, ever heard of amazon?

See up. They showed that the the patriarchs of the OT most likely did not exist. That the Exodus did not happen. That there was no conquest of Canaan. That there never was a united Israel. etc.
Again: Please do your homework.

No. If we would expect evidence - such as inscriptions about kings of Israel in neighbouring countries - and don't find this evidence - although we find inscriptions from this time about other kings - that's very good reason to severely doubt the claims of the bible.

Sorry, I gave you references, not only attacked you. And there was no argument to attack, only a question which demonstrated your ignorance.

The real history of Israel. That was clear from the context.

Of course you do: You resistance to investigate references.
And your repeated denial of the consensus of experts in a field.

See? Here's your double standard. As long as something agrees with your worldview, you are more than willing to follow the experts. But as soon as it doesn't agree, you simply deny that experts are of any relevance and refuse to look at sources which are pointed out.

Of course not. Thanks for building this nice strawman. That's a philosophical question. But what indeed means something is when mainstream archeologists and historians agree that parts of the bible were made up - because this is based on evidence.

:huh: How does god's nonexistence follow from the wrong history of the bible? :huh:

Of course. In case you missed it - science never deals in certainties.
But if many claims in the gospels turn out to be questionable or even wrong (remember the dating of his birth?) and there are extraordinary claims like a resurrection, we have very good reason to doubt that those events happened.

I have. You only refused to look.

[snip more repetition]
OK, but then you have no reason to be surprised that others don't believe in them. Just to clear this up.

And I did provide a miracles which was disproved: The sun standing still. See up. It's simply ridiculous that - despite some cultures recording astronomical events quite meticulously (such as the Chinese, I think) - there are no records apart from the bible of this extraordinary event.

Because this "belief" does not come out of thin air, but is based on evidence. As scientific consensus always is.

Strawman. We are talking about a consensus, which is based on evidence.

Sven

Well, and nobody claims this. Finkelstein and Silverman themselves point to some minor emigrations (perhaps flights) from Egypt to Canaan - but those emigrations are only the source of the myth, they are very far away from the biblical decriptions in time, amount, events, etc.

Reference?

Why? Finkelstein and Silverman also point out that there are traces of Hebrews in Egyptian culture, for example as hired workers. So what?

Where? When?

To repeat: If the Exodus happened, there has to be specific evidence - archeologists know how large scale emigrations look like. They looked and found - nothing. Case settled.

Yeah. Evidence which should be there but is not. That's it.

And there's positive evidence that no conquest of Canaan happened:
How do you address this?

Exactly. So much that it has virtually nothing to do with the story in the bible.

Evidence which is always found for great migrations. When no such evidence is found, archeologists conclude that the migration did not happen, or at least that it was greatly exaggerated. It's that simple.
One could argue that some kind of exodus happened - but the Exodus of the bible clearly did not happen.

No. Why should I want something like this? I have no problem accepting the details of the bible which archeology shows to be true - why should it be different with the Exodus? :huh:

Sven

You missed the word "reasonable" when paraphrasing him.

No, I'd say that any person of intellectual standing, would admitt that there is a possibility that even if they conclude that the Greek gods are myths - they still might not have been.
No, I'd say that any person of intellectual standing, would admitt that there is a possibility that even if they conclude that Gilgamesh was not two-thirds god and one-third human - he still might have been.
No, I'd say that any person of intellectual standing, would admitt that there is a possibility that even if they conclude that Emperor Vespasian curing blindness with spittle was a myth - it still might have happened.
etc.

Maybe you have a problem with the word "myth".
Hint: It does not mean that there was absolutely no event on which the story was based.

The continuity of culture in Canaan is evidence against the conquest of Canaan - and thus against the Exodus.

Of course there is. When one looks for evidence which should be there, then the lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

Do you have a problem with the distinction of "proof" and "evidence"?

If he said it happened yesterday and we find no wound, that's evidence against his claim. That's the better analogy.

Columbo

As can be seen, we are dealing with one instance - Exodus, not unrelated events which are not the Exodus.

You're basically saying that if you make an exception for Exodus - then you have to make one for all those supposed events. This distracts from the true issue, that infact - lack of evidence does not evidence absence of an Exodus.

Example; (this is crucial) - If this cut and scar analogy - (obviously I meant NOT the next day as a scar takes longer) - If there is no scar - how do we establish whether there was a cut or not?

The answer, is that one cannot deduce the difference, by concentrating on the lack of scar. Likewise - one cannot deduce if the Exodus did or didn't happen from there being no traces, as it not happening and it happening, are both possibilities, within the same outcome, of no scar.

So essentially - you must whow why the Exodus MUST show this thing according to one scientist - or must show something else, according to another. And then, you must weigh if it must be the case. A MUST lead to B. And I'd sure have to be convinced firstly.

But also - did you read the post I made dealing with assumptions for example? That one - if he looked for an example, must assume a premise. You even shown this yourself;

Here is a good example - a generalization - a premise that one has seen something else similar to an Exodus - yet not specifically the same, and knows what they look like ( example of error; I have eaten cakes before - so I know what this cake will taste like). But nevertheless - where exactly do the earth-diggers dig? All over Sinai? At the sea of reeds or the red sea? Both? Behind every rock on every mountain in Sinai? Unless every single possible place has been searched - then the fallacy of arguing from ignorance is still in place. One cannot conclude that the Exodus didn't happen because of a lack of evidence - which they say should be there.

Now there just aren't any Exodus's like the biblical one - so how can one expect to see something, when they don't fully know what the specific event would leave?

And yet another assumption - that the present is the same as the past - or that the conditions at these emigrations - are assumed to be the same as this unique biblical event.

Ps. Forgive my small response, I have little time at moment.

Albion

Moving this offshoot to BC&H, since it's started to concentrate on the Bible rather than on evolution.

Albion

E/C moderator

Asha'man

The Exodus is part of a larger story. If 2 million Hebrew ex-slaves fled from Egypt through the Sinai Desert, but never conquered Canaan, then where exactly did they go? If I reject one half of a story as myth, why am I logically unable to reject the other half of the same story?

Satellite photos, and radar images from a Space Shuttle experiment, were able to identify the path that Marco Polo took across the desert between China and the Middle East. This was a caravan path that eventually became a minor trade path. A few hundred camels may have passed a few thousand times, and trace images are still visible from orbit. That same radar mapping mission also spotted images of ancient riverbeds buried beneath the sands of the Sahara. (Isn’t modern technology great?) The neat thing about deserts is that there is virtually no water erosion to destroy evidence, so any disturbance leaves a trace for a very long time.

Care to guess what type of track 2 million people would have made in the Sinai? Are you aware that the Sinai is a very rocky desert, not much sand, so traces don’t get buried under dunes like they might in other deserts?

Imagine for a moment, that every person in the Exodus left a pound of shit behind every day. That means that there should be 2 million pounds, 1 thousand tons, of crap out there for every day they spent in the desert. If the story about 40 years is correct, then you have to account for 14 million tons of shit. Remember, this is a desert, rain doesn’t wash it away, dung beetles don’t carry it off, and sand doesn’t bury it. It generally just sits there and dries out. Where are the piles of shit?

Remember, the entire desert has been surveyed by professionals. Traces of nomads have been found, both before and after the Exodus. That means a pretty good investigation has gone on. You don’t need to dig (rocks, not sand dunes, remember?) around to find such things, just take a survey using modern tools and techniques.

Imagine for a second, that I make a claim that I have a pet elephant who stays in the living room. Imagine that you come over to my house, look around, and see no elephant. You see a small room, with a couch, coffee table, bookcase, and media center. There is no sign of the tons of hay needed to feed it, and no signs of the tons of shit it produces. What exactly is the most reasonable conclusion? If you think that it’s at all reasonable to believe that such an animal exists, just because you haven’t proven that he doesn’t, then your reasoning skills need some work.

This is clearly a case of Evidence of Absence, not Absence of Evidence. Evidence that is almost guaranteed to be there is not found. What other explanation is there to offer?

What exactly do you think the evidence would look like if the Exodus had never happened? What kind of evidence would you accept that might change your mind? What evidence could possibly exist that would prove an event never happened?

And then you utterly ignore the positive evidence. There are pottery fragments from before, during, and after the dates of the supposed conquest of Canaan. Amazingly, after all the potters were killed, and replaced by potters from another culture entirely, yet the pot styles are virtually identical. What are the odds? Writing styles changed in the exact same gradual form as an undisturbed culture, as did clothing styles, building architecture, and even eating habits. Yet you are claiming that the myth is correct, all the natives to Canaan were killed and replaced by a people with centuries of Egyptian culture, but all these aspects of their society remained unchanged?

Remember the Steven Wright joke: “Last night, someone broke into my apartment and replaced everything with an exact duplicate.� Is this what you are suggesting?

So, I will say it again (though you will probably distort it again). The only reasonable conclusion is the only conclusion supported by the evidence. The evidence is entirely what I would expect if the Exodus never happened. There isn’t a hint of evidence that it did happen, and strong evidence that it didn’t. You can dance around all you want, but you have no evidence to support it happening. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that it didn’t happen as described, it is a myth.