Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WILLOWTREE · 12-02-2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

Excellent, just as I suspected. You prefer Hydarnes quote because it suits your position and for no other reason.

Everyone prefers quotes which suits their position.

Quote:

In endorsing Hydarnes' claims I assume that you have checked to see how sound they are, which is what any semi-intelligent person would do.

Given this, can you tell me why you agree that Tell- el Maskhouta is biblical Succoth?

I did not specifically check BECAUSE of Hydarnes reputation and knowledge.

AND BECAUSE:

Site misidentification is common.

Hydarnes point in context was non-Biblical text being given truthful status without archaeology confirmation unlike Biblical claims = no surprise !

Hydarnes point is also the generic truth that ANY textual claim (Biblical or non-Biblical) does not mean the text is error just because archaeology has not confirmed.

Foundational Point:

Archaeology is not the supreme arbiter of truth. It is an inferior avenue.

Literary/Bible is.

Of course the above foundational point is a matter of opinion/philosophy/worldview.

Quote:

Why do you agree that Succoth should be located at Tell - el Maskhouta?

Because my trusted source (Hydarnes said so).

And because:

Quote:

http://myisrael.lugovsa.net/supplements/bimson.htm

To begin by grasping the nettle offered by the second half of our title, it has to be said that archaeology cannot usually tell us whether biblical traditions are historical or mythological.

Archaeology is not, strictly speaking, a science (although it employs scientific tools). One can rarely set up controlled experiments to test whether particular events (biblical or otherwise) actually happened.

Rather, the archaeologist is at the mercy of the surviving evidence, and this imposes quite severe limits on what can be deduced with certainty. In the case of the cities of the Ancient Near East, limited time and resources mean that the archaeologist can only excavate a relatively small proportion of a tell (the Arabic term for a ruin-mound, in Hebrew spelt tel).

For example, Yigael Yadin estimated that to excavate every level of the tell of Hazor (in northern Galilee) in its entirety would take eight hundred years!

Yet you have asserted with "don't challenge me authority" that Yadin's declaration of Joshua destroying Hazor for the final time to be immutable.

Quote:

http://myisrael.lugovsa.net/supplements/bimson.htm

Dr Bimson's own research concludes that a date for these events in the late 15th century would bring the narrative into accord with the archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age and the traditional biblical date for the Exodus of c. 1450 BC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bimson

Exodus 1:11 tells us that the enslaved Hebrews 'built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses'. It has been recognized by the majority of scholars that the name Raamses is an appropriate rendering in Hebrew of the Egyptian Pi-Ramesse (= abode, or estate, of Ramesses), the name of the Delta-residence developed by and named after Ramesses II [Kitchen 1987]. The occurrence of this name in Exodus 1:11 has therefore been taken as an indicator that the enslaved Hebrews actually laboured for Ramesses II (1279-1213 BC). [1] If this reasoning is sound, the Exodus cannot have happened before the 13th century BC.

Why would the Bible state the geographic place but not mention that Ramesses II was Pharoah ?

This omission logically rules out Ramesses II to have been Pharoah of the Oppression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bimson

The first thing to note is that the Hebrew Bible does not use the name Raamses with chronological rigour. It uses it in Genesis 47:11 (actually in the form Rameses; the variation is not significant) to indicate the area where the ancestors of the Hebrew tribes first settled in the time of Jacob.

By anyone's reckoning this must have been before any king called Ramesses ruled Egypt, [2] so the name is clearly being used retrospectively here (just as a modern historian might speak to Julius Caesar crossing the English Channel, or the Romans building York, neither name having been in use at the time referred to).

We have a very clear biblical example of such retrospective usage in Genesis 14:14, where the city of Dan is mentioned in a narrative concerning Abraham; the city was actually called Laish in Abraham's day, and was not called Dan until much later, when the tribe of Dan conquered it and gave its own name to it, as narrated in Judges 18.

Now, if the toponym Rameses/Raamses is being used retrospectively in Genesis 47:11, why not also in Exodus 1:11? In short, the name itself does not provide the date of the building activity in which the Hebrews were engaged, only the date when the narrative was last worked over by an editorial hand.

The above argument is also endorsed by Rutherford in addition to his Lods citation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bimson

This apparent gap in occupation would seem to seriously damage the case for a 15th-century Exodus. However, it would be unwise to assume the abandonment of the site on the basis of present evidence. We need to recall the limitations of archaeology, as outlined in our Introduction. In the present case those limitations are well summed up in the dictum that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

It is a salutary fact that at another Eastern Delta site, Tell el-Maskhouta (the site of ancient Tjeku, = Succoth in Exodus 12:37), no trace has yet been found of a military base from the reign of Thutmose IV, nor of forts and other buildings from the 19th Dynasty, although the existence of such is attested in Egyptian texts.

This is an important reminder that archaeological evidence can be extremely elusive at sites in the Eastern Delta. This is widely acknowledged, but is sometimes conveniently forgotten when the lack of evidence can be used to bolster a favourite theory.

WT

BrianJ · 12-02-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

I did not specifically check BECAUSE of Hydarnes reputation and knowledge.

So, I know nothing at all WT?

Hydarnes is as capable of making a mistake as anyone else is, you really should check everything.

Quote:

Site misidentification is common.

You are contradicting yourself. Tel- el-Maskhouta is Succoth, but misidentification is common.

Quote:

Because my trusted source (Hydarnes said so).

Thus admitting that your personal enquiry skills are zero.

Why don't you ever research anythign for yourself, you always present other people's work and then get upset when faults are pointed out.

I honestly do not know how you can be happy making quotes that you have no idea if they are correct or not.

I certainly couldn't live that way.

Brian.

PS, my predicted result of my experiment was spot on.

WILLOWTREE · 12-02-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

So, I know nothing at all WT?

Please cut and paste where I said that or even implied that ?

Quote:

Hydarnes is as capable of making a mistake as anyone else is

Yes of course.

But his generic point is invulnerable, that Egyptian text unsupported by archaeology doesn't harm the veracity of the said text unlike Biblical text.

Quote:

Why don't you ever research anything for yourself, you always present other people's work and then get upset when faults are pointed out.

Are you saying that having sources is error ?

I like anyone else including yourself defend my positions. I could reverse this silly criticism on you but it still would be silly.

Quote:

I honestly do not know how you can be happy making quotes that you have no idea if they are correct or not.

I repeatedly explained how this comment is inaccurate and each and every time you have evaded.

What difference does it make seeing how you agree with Hydarnes ?

I virtually spend all my free time reading arguments and reviewing evidence.

Your underlying point is anger about how a person could endorse another human being the way I do with Dr. Scott.

While Dr. Scott is certainly capable of error he never speaks out until he has mastered all of the relevant evidence available.

In this context, I say I have NEVER discovered Dr. Scott to be in error. You have no idea about Dr. Scott - just unfounded hate fueling your comments.

WT

Gullwind · 12-02-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

But his generic point is invulnerable, that Egyptian text unsupported by archaeology doesn't harm the veracity of the said text unlike Biblical text.

That is very true. A lack of archeological evidence does not disprove any historical text, whether it be from the bible or egyptian in origin.

Of course, it doesn't prove it, either. And if the Egyptian text makes the kinds of claims that the bible does, a rational person would not assume it is true by default without some supporting evidence.

There are a number of lines of reasoning that could also support the Exodus, none of which have any supporting evidence. The Plagues would have had a huge impact on the Egyptian society, no matter which century it took place in. The death of every domesticated animal in the country would have devestated their economy. Yet there is no mention of this event in any of their existing records. Does this prove it didn't happen? No, but it certainly doesn't help support it.

How about the lack of any evidence of three million people camping out for forty years? Most of them died during that time, so there should be a lot of graves/bones/bodies around. Several expeditions have been made specifically for the purpose of finding evidence of this aspect of the Exodus. Results? Not a single campfire. Does that prove it didn't happen? No, but again, it doesn't support it.

There are lots of ways the Exodus "could" be supported by evidence. So far, none has come to light, and your examples simply provide support for how the legend may have arisen.

Sven · 12-03-2004, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

Thus admitting that your personal enquiry skills are zero.

Why don't you ever research anythign for yourself, you always present other people's work and then get upset when faults are pointed out.

I honestly do not know how you can be happy making quotes that you have no idea if they are correct or not.

You don't understand, Brian. Every quote which agrees with the bible/Dr. Scott is true by default and thus doesn't have to be researched.
On the other hand, every source/quote you bring up is false by default since it doesn't agree with the bible/Dr. Scott and thus also has not to be researched since there's always a quote from Dr. Scott (or someone else who agrees with biblical inerrancy) which contradicts your quote.

That's how Willowtree is playing.

BrianJ · 12-03-2004, 04:15 AM

Quote:

But his generic point is invulnerable, that Egyptian text unsupported by archaeology doesn't harm the veracity of the said text unlike Biblical text.

But, you haven't given an example of this at all. Can you give one example where an Egyptian text's contents are taken as accurate despite there being no supporting archaeological evidence?

Quote:

Are you saying that having sources is error ?

I am saying that failing to critically analyse your sources is a huge error. Are you not in the least bit interested in why Hydarnes belives that Succoth is to be located at el-Maskhouta?

Quote:

I like anyone else including yourself defend my positions. I could reverse this silly criticism on you but it still would be silly.

But you haven't defended that contents of Hydarnes quote, Your defence is 'I trust hydarnes so therefore his quotes are correct'.

You do know that Hydarnes is an avid Ron Wyatt supporter, is Hydarnes still reliable?

Quote:

What difference does it make seeing how you agree with Hydarnes ?

I dont agree with Hydarnes at all. Tel el-Maskhouta is most likely to be biblical Pithom, so I agree with Holladay et al.

Biblical Succoth is based on the hope that it is linguistically similar to 'Tjeku', but the link has never been proven.

Also, if the link is certain, then there is no concrete evidence if Tjeku was a town, city, or a region. If it was a region, in the Wadi Tumilat, then there is ample archaeological evidence for the 18th and 19th Dynasties.

Quote:

I virtually spend all my free time reading arguments and reviewing evidence.

But you do not criticise your sources!

This is evident when you quote from the Cambridge Ancient History that Debs and Barak destroyed Hazor in 1220-ish, yet, the 1975 edition of the Cambridge states that the period of the Judges was 1200-1000 BCE, and that the chronology given the Book of Judges cannot be relied upon.

I posted all this info at EvC, and you keep ignoring it.

From the Cambridge Ancient History 1975, Third Edition, Volume II Part 2 ‘History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-100 BCE, edited by I. E. S. Edwards,

Page 553:

The time of the judges was the two centuries between the concluding stages of the land settlement and the rise fo the kingdom, that is about 1200-1000 B.C.

And page 555

The total number of years for the whole period is in round figures 400 years, but no credit should be given to this figure. It can safely be assumed that the authority of these heroes was in each case restricted to a section of the Israelite tribes; they were not successors but partial contemporaries

Your very own source undermines your argument that Debs and Barak destroyed Hazor.

Do you even see a problem at all with the conflicting information between two different editions of the Cambridge?

This problem won't go away WT.

Brian.

WILLOWTREE · 12-03-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

A lack of archeological evidence does not disprove any historical text, whether it be from the bible or egyptian in origin.

This is self-evidently true.

However the quote in question makes the invulnerable point that:

There is no archeological evidence for the Egyptian text yet its veracity is not questioned unlike Biblical text which is.

We are pounded with the assertions that there is no evidence of ancient Israel in Egypt, therefore on this basis the narratives are at best traditions if not myths.

Brian J. wants his view accepted and not Hydarnes. I provided link support for Hydarnes.

The point is that this issue IS NOT settled fact as Brian J. would have us believe.

Quote:

Of course, it doesn't prove it, either. And if the Egyptian text makes the kinds of claims that the bible does, a rational person would not assume it is true by default without some supporting evidence.

Now you are endorsing what you just argued against.

I was right, the Bible is being held to a different rigged standard.

You are also elevating archaeology to be the supreme arbiter of whats true.

You are canonizing archaeology and asserting that literary text must bow at its throne.

IOW, the unpredictible mercy of time and environment decides everything.

The rejection of literary text as truth is because it proves what it claims.

Most text of antiquity assume the existence of the universal God.

Now it is no surprise as to why you embrace archaeology as God.

The amount of evidence supporting human evolution (billions of people) could fit into a small box yet this paucity doesn't affect your belief in this neccessity, yet the alleged paucity of the same type of evidence for ancient Israel doesn't warrant the same treatment = inconsistent double standard.

Quote:

The Plagues would have had a huge impact on the Egyptian society, no matter which century it took place in. The death of every domesticated animal in the country would have devestated their economy. Yet there is no mention of this event in any of their existing records.

"Ages in Chaos"/Velikovsky has blown this stale nonsense into oblivion a long time ago.

Your refusal to embrace this research proves you are **ing when you claim evidence controls your view.

Velikovsky was at best agnostic and had zero belief in the supernatural.

Most Splendid temple, pictured on the walls and murals show us "ancient Hebrews". (page 118 ISBN 0 349 13575 4)

Of course the Queen Hatshepsut and Sheba are the same. This person was contemporary of Solomon who reigned circa 970's BC.

Reject the dating ?

Then conventional chronology plus Velikovsky's irrefutable evidence disproves every claim that there is no "evidence of Israel/Hebrews in Egypt."

Quote:

How about the lack of any evidence of three million people camping out for forty years? Most of them died during that time, so there should be a lot of graves/bones/bodies around. Several expeditions have been made specifically for the purpose of finding evidence of this aspect of the Exodus. Results? Not a single campfire.

How much evidence by any volume exists to prove the existence of the Seventh to the Tenth Dynasties ?

You obviously have no idea how vast a region the Sinai Peninsula is.

To quote you, "several expeditions" LOL !

IOW, a handful of persons playing pin the tail on the donkey = definitive conclusions.

Thousands of years and you assert that a "camp fire" should be found. The Bible says their shoes and clothes never wore out. They were nomadic wanderers/Hebrews, they built no cities nor made heathen style inscriptions. They erected small hand made altars of stones piled on top of one another.

Numbers said concerning the Wilderness generation that the wrath of God manifested at Kadesh Barnea would "strewn their bones across the wilderness"

Scattered bones across this barren desert times thousands of years ?

Human evolution = small box.

The Bible was written to preserve knowledge that time and environment have no conscience about.

Rejection of the Bible is only done because it proves the claims.

I have posted archaeology evidence which disproves your claim.

Velikovsky evidence proves minimalists have an agenda contrary to their claim of being loyal to evidence where ever it may lead.

WT

BrianJ · 12-03-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

You obviously have no idea how vast a region the Sinai Peninsula is.

To quote you, "several expeditions" LOL !

IOW, a handful of persons playing pin the tail on the donkey = definitive conclusions.

Thousands of years and you assert that a "camp fire" should be found. The Bible says their shoes and clothes never wore out. They were nomadic wanderers/Hebrews, they built no cities nor made heathen style inscriptions. They erected small hand made altars of stones piled on top of one another.

Numbers said concerning the Wilderness generation that the wrath of God manifested at Kadesh Barnea would "strewn their bones across the wilderness"

Scattered bones across this barren desert times thousands of years ?

The Bible states that the Israelites camped at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years, and yes is states that their shoes and clothes did not wear out. However, it also states that everyone that left Egypt, except for Joshua and Caleb, would die before the Israelites entered Palestine.

We would expect to find some trace of Israelite material culture at Kadesh-Barnea, maybe a grave or two of the almst three million that died would not be a surprise.

However, Cohen has excavated Kadesh-barnea to virgin soil and found no occupation at all there before the 10th century BCE.

Also, why would the Bible have to say that the pharaoh of the Exodus was called rameses when they mention the building of the city of Rameses, who else would have built the city?

Bimson, the ultra fundy, would have Thutmosis III build a city and call it Rameses, this is ludicrous.

Why does the Bible fail to mention the name of the pharoah, simple, it is a fairy tale.

Brian.

Gullwind · 12-03-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

You obviously have no idea how vast a region the Sinai Peninsula is.

Vast? A hundred and fifty miles wide by two hundred or so miles long? That's about half the size of Colorado. It's big, but I certainly wouldn't call it vast.

I'm willing to bet that three million people living in an area that size for forty years are going to leave something behind.

Even if their shoes didn't wear out.

rlogan · 12-04-2004, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

You are canonizing archaeology and asserting that literary text must bow at its throne.

Silly rhetorical blustering.

It's data. And yes, it should be given more weight than suspect texts.

Quote:

Thousands of years and you assert that a "camp fire" should be found.

Wellmwe do find them up here in Alaska. From over 10,000 years ago with only a handful of hunters. So yes. Fires from over a million people in less than half that time ought to be a cinch.

Quote:

The Bible says their shoes and clothes never wore out.

Then we know the Bible is offering up rubbish there.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.