chapka

Actually, there's no contradiction. The key concept in each case is whether the finds are more or less common than would be expected given the respective hypothesis.

Fossilization is an extremely rare event. When we're looking for fossil hominids, we would expect them to be extremely infrequent and found only in very rare locations, which had the initial conditions suitable for fossilization and then stayed geologically stable from a point in the distant past until now. If we found thousands or millions of complete, intact fossilized hominid skeletons, we'd have to reevaluate our views on when and how they lived. But the numbers found aren't out of line with a plausible hypothesis about paleontological development.

On the other hand, we know from other sites what sort of traces are left by Bronze Age settlements of various sizes. We know under what conditions which traces are likely to survive. And since this is a recent, technological site, we're not dependent on forces like fossilization; we can rely on other processes that yield more and more consistent traces. If we found no evidence of settlement at all, or only as much as we'd find at a paleolithic site, we'd certainly have to reevaluate our hypothesis that there was a large Bronze Age settlement there.

It's all about expectations. If you see the faint outline of a rectangle in a slight color variation of the grass in the field, you might hypothesize that a building once stood there. But you wouldn't accept that, if that was the only evidence, for proof that a building used to be there but had been knocked down yesterday, would you?

WILLOWTREE

60,000,000 bison were killed by Europeans in the New World.

Nobody can find a foot locker amount of bones.

Does this mean the 60,000,000 bison did not exist ?

WT

WILLOWTREE

The only "evidence" against the mid-15th century Exodus is the deliberate evading conclusions of minimalists.

Other than this expected behavior - the evidence says the Exodus happened in 1453 BC.

WT

chapka

Assuming for a moment you're correct in your assertion, the answer is still no.

First of all, the reason bison bones can't easily be found today is that, starting in the 19th century, factory owners started offering substantial amounts of money for bison bones. Hundreds of railroad cars full of bone were shipped east every year to be turned into "bone charcoal" and gelatin and used for clarifying wine and other industrial applications. Many people became "bone pickers." By the turn of the 20th century, the "bone crisis" hit, the bones were exhausted, and many charcoal companies collapsed. So the reason that bones can't be found today is that they were found in the past, and destroyed.

Second of all, we're not just talking about bones. Bison don't make pottery. Bison don't work metal. Bison don't leave tells, dig trash pits, or do any of the other things that humans do. Evidence of human habitation doesn't depend on skeletons alone.

Chris Weimer

The only evidence for the mid-15th century exodus is the deliberate fabrication of evidence known as the "Bible" and literalists undying belief that despite all evidence contrary all scientists must be wrong because their fiction can't be. :down: Go read a book, WT.

spin

Imagine a population the size of Brooklyn, huddled around a pissy little well for 80 years, dying of thirst through lack of access (give 100 people 1 minute's access a day and that's only 144000 people with access), with absolutely no sanitation system whatsoever, living in piles of shit.

If there had been a few million people who spent 80 years at a place they would leave definite traces. Just look at the few thousand Roman troops around Masada: you can still see exactly where their camps were.

The people, who live in denial trying to make the exodus tradition work, afraid to contemplate the logistics of the story, are obviously not going to listen to reason at all.

This is why a lot of believers take the soft approach and claim that the tradition is basically correct (however they would know), though the figures have been confused in transmission.

The rest defy all logic, living in the crazed belief that only they can see the way things are, wasting their time trying to convince others of their rightness so as to convince themseves.

• They refuse the evidence from archaeology, that there was no change in population in the Judean hills at the end of the bronze age, that there was a region-wide drought at the time, that there was a slow urbanization at the beginning of the iron age, ie that there was no intrusive conquest.
• They refuse to contemplate that Hebrew is a Canaanite language, that it is closer to other Canaanite languages than even Phoenician is, so that Hebrew is a locally grown Canaanite language.
  
• They refuse to wonder why there are no traces of the sort of conquest narrated in Joshua, that Jericho had no walls at the time of the supposed conquest, that Ai (="ruin") was a ruin for many centuries through the later Bronze Ages.
  
• They refuse to acknowlege the anachronisms in the hexateuch accounts, that Philistines didn't arrive until the 12th c. BCE when Abraham had known them centuries earlier, that Ur was not Chaldean at Abraham's time.

Do you think logic will have any effect on such people? They use logic only as long as it suits them.

Imagine the population of hominids on earth a few million years ago: in populated areas, maybe ten per square mile... Where were these populated areas?


spin

Kosh

You mean like all these non-existent bison bones?

Bison Skull Mountain

Must be one big footlocker...

Celsus

Correction, you mean: "The only 'evidence' against the mid-15th century Exodus is the deliberated conclusions of all professional archaeologists working in the Levant."
Say, I recognise this. Don't you owe us a complete table of numbers?

Joel

chapka

I really don't care how you characterize the evidence against your idea. Where's your positive evidence for it? So far all I've seen in this thread are secondhand Bible quotes, which doesn't really constitute reliable evidence of anything--especially as you've failed to establish that your Bible version is more reliable than anyone else's.

Lafcadio

However these arguments refute a historical perspective that is claimed accurate from the Bible, which it's not always the case.

• No one can't say there was no pack of slaves that run from Egypt (as they wouldn't leave any trace, nor substiantially modify a population or a language) and this was "caught" in a legend and identified with the fate of the entire hebrew population.
  
  
  Quote:

  They refuse to wonder why there are no traces of the sort of conquest narrated in Joshua, that Jericho had no walls at the time of the supposed conquest, that Ai (="ruin") was a ruin for many centuries through the later Bronze Ages.

  Given the above, to weave a story near a ruin (which they saw or maybe they witnessed in their earlier past, as I know Jericho walls fell somewhere in 2nd millienium BCE) is rather a likely thing to happen. But also if the number of slaves is untraceable in time, it may even happen that those slaves arrival in Canaan happened when Jericho's walls were still up.
  Not to tell, that Joshua's story could fairly tell about previous sieges on Jericho and Ai done by somebody and only the contextualization and timing to be mixed up.
  
  
  Quote:

  They refuse to acknowlege the anachronisms in the hexateuch accounts, that Philistines didn't arrive until the 12th c. BCE when Abraham had known them centuries earlier, that Ur was not Chaldean at Abraham's time.

To invert historical events or to consider them contemporary is also a feature of the mythologization, and also to apply contemporary description/classification to ancient events/cities/people.

From all the above, I can't reject:
- Egypt having hebrew slaves and/or slaves escaping Egypt to run for Canaan
- somebody (hebrews, the above slaves hebrew or not) witnessing the fell of Jericho's walls or noticing their ruins
- hebrews witnessing Philistines, knowing of Ur, Abraham living in Ur around 2000 BCE or chaldeans dominating Ur much later