Steven Avery

And I have been simply interested in the information in the paper, since Whitaker went into many of these issues in more depth than any other available source. Nowhere did I reference Whittaker as a PhD.

We are still waiting for the materials from professional archaeologists who have done studies in Saudi Arabia looking for the OP question :

"evidence of wildernerness trek"

RedDave indicates he knows of none.
Zero.
In round numbers, how many can you give us ?

If none, what does that do to the dozens of posts
that talk of "no archaeological evidence" ?

And there probably is an IIDB thread on the Hittite issue,
if that is a major concern for you.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

RED DAVE

Sorry, praxeus, that I missed the page numbers and the excerpt. I was working off your post on this page.

My bad.

As to the rest, you still have not come up with a legitimate, peer-reviewed source. I haven't got a copy of Möller and Whittaker is worthless as a source.

You've got nothing but the speculations of nonarchaeological scientist and a PhD thesis from a nonaccredited diploma mill. Both of them are apparently concerned with shifting the route of the Exodus to deal with the problem of no evidence for 2.5 million people,

The only thing you have that approaches evidence is a reference by Whittaker to "hundreds and hundreds of camp-circles." No strata dating. No C14 dating.

From praxeus:
Sorry, dude, but he's your source. It's up to you to justify using him.

From praxeus:
Why should they? Since the Exodus never took place at all, why should they be looking in Saudi Arabia? My point about Manhattan and Brooklyn is that there isn't any reason to dig there, or anywhere, for something that never happened.

So what it comes down to is: you've still got nothing. When one of your sources comes up with camp sites or kitchen middens for 2.5 million people, let us know.

Just like you have nothing on the Flood dating.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Dear 3DJay. Please note Kenyon's exact words in the above quote: "Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating..."

THAT is Kenyon's opinion as to when the "period of ATTACK by the Israelites" occurs. That is, she is excluding any other dating theory for the Israelites. Further she specifically says that this dating for the LBIIA destruction of the city by the Israelites specifically does not fit two popular schools of thought that the Israelites came either c. 1400 BCE or during the time of Rameses. She is thus dating the fall of Jericho by Joshua, without or without remaining town walls to this last inhabitation in the LBIIA Period. The reference to the walls, is thus superfluous to the DATING.

Furthermore, Kenyon is no "believer" in the Bible per se. She thinks the precise stories were made up but that major events that spawn these stories are to be considered as actual events. In other words, the idea of the walls falling down might be the fluff added to their conquering this city. She thinks that if the walls had fallen down it was likely due to the coincidence of an earthquake. She in no way believes in any miraculous falling down of the walls. So she's only taking the very fundamental and basic reference to this event and not the details. So basically, it could be said that she believes the city, as it was, was conquered by the Israelites at this time, whether or not there were major town walls around the city. Thus within that context, she believes the Jews did conquer the city in the MBIIA period, but the story around the walls and the trumpets she considers an embellishment. So the "walls" especially being associated with a "miracle" are not a key issue for her in dating the Israelite destruction to the LBIIA period.

The WALLS are a big deal for you and others say for dismissing the truthfulness and detail of what happened, but that is an issue beyond WHEN it happened. So while you are using the WALLS as a key point in dating this event, she isn't. She's just focussing on that he city was conquered by them at some point and that point she believes is the last occupation Bronze Age occupation. Therefore, you have misrepresented her position, not me.

Kenyon: "At just that stage when archaeology should have linked with the written record, archaeology fails us. This is regrettable. There is no question of the archaeology being needed to prove that the Bible is true but it is needed as a help in interpretation to those older parts of the Old Testament which from the nature of their sources . . . cannot be read as a straight-forward record." = there is no archaeological support for the late bronze age Biblical Jericho.

You again misstate her specific position here.

Here is a more pertinent quote from her:

"It is not therefore necessary to believe that allthe tribes of Isrel took part in the entry into the Promised Land with Joshua. But all the canons of historical criticism demand that we accept the main facts of the story of the conquest of Jericho as AUTHENTIC, for it was obviously an event of great importance in the ultimate dominance of the Israelites in Palestine, and the wealth of detail makes it clear that it was a faithful verbal record handed down for generations until it was incorporated in a written record." = Meaning she believes at some point the Jews destroyed Jericho, though the details of that destruction were latter additions. But for her that POINT at which this historical event happened was the LBIIA level, and specifically not the Middle Bronze destruction.

Thomas A. Holland, editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows: "Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the LB [Late Bronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I [ca. 1400 B.C.]."

So. That didn't stop her from DATING that destruction to the LBII Period. Here is her quote regarding the specifics on page 261. You are again making the walls a key issue, whereas she is not:

"We have also seen how the process of erosion was washing away the Middle Bronze Age houses on the east slope, during an interval of perhaps 180 years. This process was arrested when the town of 1400 B.C. was BUILT ON TOP OF THE WASH, but this in turn was abandoned, and erosion has almost removed it. It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace reamins. The erosion which has destroyed much of the defences has already been described. It will be remembered that the summit of the Middle Bronze Age rampart only survives in one place. The Late Bronze Age town must either have re-sued this, or a NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT, so nothing remians of it."

So Kenyon isn't ruling out any new wall, just that by it's position it would have been completely eroded away and that's why there is no evidence of the wall. When she says "not a trace REMAINS" she is implying it once existed. So you are misquoting her position about a completely eroded wall that was once there versus no wall ever being there.

Kenyon: "Jericho, therefore was destroyed in the Late Bronze Age II. It is very possible that this destruction is truly remembered in the Book of Joshua, although archaeology cannot provide the proof. The subsequent break in occupation that is proved by archaeology is, however, in accord with the biblical story. There was a period of abandonment, during which erosion removed most of the remains of the Late Bronze Age town and much of the earlier ones, and rainwater gulleys cutting deeply into the underlying levels have been found."

Kenyon: "The destruction of this last wall marks a great catastrophe for Bronze Age Jericho, as indeed it must have for the whole of Palestine. Its predecessor had collapsed, possibly because of an earthquake. While still in ruins there was an urgent threat, for the last wall was hurriedly built of rough and broken materials. Before it was finished, disaster overtook Jericho." = last wall...no evidence of any other bronze age Jericho walls, after it

Wrong, see my quote above where she says specifically: "OR A NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT, SO NOTHING REMAINS OF IT."

Here's her visualization of what happens, this is what SHE thinks actually happened, page 262: "One can visualise the Children of Israel marching around the eight acres of the town and striking terror into the heart of the inhabitants, until all will to fight deserted them when on the seventh day the blast of the trumpets smote their ears. But as to what caused the WALLS TO FALL FLAT, we have no factual evidence. We can guess that it was an earthquake, which the excavations have shown to have destroyed a number of the earlier walls, but this is only conjecture."

Thus Kenyon clearly is presuming a LBII Age wall did actually protect this LBIIA town, obviously, but that of that wall nothing remains. She's not saying as you want her to say, that there never was any walls around the LBIIA city. You're saying these people occupied this city that had a wall around it for all the previous occupations but for some reason they didn't bother building a wall around this last town. That's NOT what Kenyon is saying. She is presuming there was a wall around the LBIIA city.

Kenyon: "Where ever we dug, Late Bronze Age levels had disappeared. This is due partly to abandonment of the town for long periods, when the topsoil levels tended to wash away during successive rainy seasons. We know from the Bible that Jericho lay unoccupied for several hundred years after Joshua's conquest. Partly, too, soil had been stripped from the mound for brickmaking and gardens until all the later areas were removed. Perhaps before the end of the dig, we shall discover an answer to our questions about Jericho's most famous destruction." = Kenyon had her beliefs, and her beliefs led her to dating Joshua between the two standard Biblical dates, for the fall of Jericho, she was working with...15th century and 13th century. But, at least, SHE was HONEST, when it came to representing her work.

Right. She is saying that a 1400 BCE date and a 1260 BCE date don't fit the evidence! The evidenc points to the "destruction of Jericho by the Israelites...in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C." (i.e. 1350-1325BCE) That is when it happened per her, with or without any surviving wall evidence.

Again, you're deluded here because she clearly says the destruction by the Israelites is not in 1400 BCE or 1260BCE, two popular theories, but between 1350-1325BCE. That fits my dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites since I date that event per my chronology to 1346 BCE. OHHHHH, I see what you mean!!! When I say 1350-1325BCE you think EITHER 1350 or eitehr 1325BCE!!! and thus my 1345BCE date isn't supported by her! Ohhhhh. Nooooo. When I say 1350-1325BCE I means any dates from 1350BCE to 1325BCE. It's a RANGE, I don't mean specifically one of two dates 1325 or 1350BCE. So 1346BCE is considered consistent with Kenyon's dating because 1356 falls BETWEEN 1350-1325BCE. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. I can see now that's where you got confused.

So all is well now, finally. Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho by the Israelites, without or without walls between 1350 and 1325BCE, my dating of 1346 BCE agrees with this range of dates, so Kenyon and I are supportive of each other, unlike your claim to the contrary.

I can't figure out why you're not grasping this any quicker. ??? Maybe we have to quote the whole chapter from her book on "JERICHO AND COMING OF THE ISRAELITES". :redface:

Peace, LG47

Steven Avery

"shifting" to a region indicated by Paul, Josephus and other sources (Philo, Eusebius, Jerome). As well as matching well in other ways, such as the Nuweiba crossing site fitting the Biblical account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE The only thing you have that approaches evidence is a reference by Whittaker to "hundreds and hundreds of camp-circles." No strata dating. No C14 dating.

So the main evidence (strata dating) the OP is looking for is evidence that is apparently impossible to get under the current political situation.

Aren't you involved in a C22 here ?

And what strata would you date, precisely, if you had your archaeological druthers? And for what material are you asking C14 dating?

What is your threshold of acceptable evidence and what is your threshhold of non-evidence vis-a-vis these sites in Saudi Arabia.

And do you still offer the view that looking for archaeological evidence in Arabia is analogous to looking in Manhattan ?

May I suggest that it would be a good idea to make that comment inoperative.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Lugubert

This post uses information on a website from the Swedish Sceptics, titled Nya lågvattenmärken (New low-water marks), where examples of pseudoscience in Swedish academia are lambasted.

I find it close to dishonest that the creationist Lennart Möller refers to his academic titles in environmental medicine when dabbling in archaeology. A real archaeology Ph.D., Martin Rundkvist, compares Möller’s methods to those of Erich von Däniken. When for example Möller finds an object which he can interpret in line with his theories, he doesn’t even bother to fond the age of the object. Among Möller’s finds is the altar of Moses. He also has found guilded wagon wheels on the Red Sea bottom. A Wyatt borrowing?

RED DAVE

From praxeus:
Find some legitimate archaeological sources for these, other than by a Swedish professor of medicine and a PhD from an uncredited source, and I'll be glad to read it.

And, by the way, Ron Wyatt does not count as a legitimate source.

From praxeus:
Cute and dishonest to turn the tables. You're conveniently using the poitical situation for avoiding providing evidence. That's your problem, not mine.

From praxeus:
You get some dates, and people around here will evaluate them. The responsibility for providing evidence in on you, not me.

You're claiming 2.5 million people wandered around the Middle East somewhere. Get some proof other than a few hundred undated campsites, etc.

From praxeus:
I suggest that you find some good, solid archaeological evidence, and I'll be glad to.

From anders:
Now that we've established that Möller and Whittaker, your two alleged sources, are pretty much useless:

RED DAVE

spin

They're Wyatt photos of Wyatt planted "chariot" wheels, but Moeller doesn't acknowledge the source. Wise move.


spin

Steven Avery

Dave, it is obvious that you are playing a transparent Catch-22 game involving evidences and the genealogical fallacy.

You already indicated that you have no sources one way or another that you accept on Arabian archaeology of the Exodus.

So the best you could do is simply be quiet on the whole issue of archaeological evidences, the OP question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders I find it close to dishonest that the creationist Lennart Möller refers to his academic titles in environmental medicine when dabbling in archaeology.

Please, folks with a Doctorate title have the liberty to use Dr. as a general appellation before their names. And even more so on a multiple-discipline work such as "The Exodus Case". Anders, I find your "close to dishonest" comment "close to dishonest".

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders A real archaeology Ph.D., Martin Rundkvist, compares Möller’s methods to those of Erich von Däniken. When for example Möller finds an object which he can interpret in line with his theories, he doesn’t even bother to fond the age of the object. Among Möller’s finds is the altar of Moses. He also has found guilded wagon wheels on the Red Sea bottom. A Wyatt borrowing?

Lot's of folks have followed up on the Ron Wyatt material on the Exodus. The Ron Wyatt Exodus material dates mostly to the 1970's and 1980's, and he was following up on some excellent references that had been largely overlooked in the Sinai Peninsula fascination of the earlier 1900's.

The above critique on ages is a bit general. eg. There are major legal and political and scientific problems involved in dating some of the materials (putting aside variant and interpretative dating considerations). That does not mean that folks might not have suggestions and improvements to the Dr. Lennart Möller material. At least the academic mentioned above likely examined his book, while posters here just copy any critique they can without examining at all for themselves the Lennart Möller book.

Shalom,
Steven

Sven

Speaking about evidence - where's your evidence that this change in religion happened during a time when the Hebrews were in Egypt?

As far as I understand you, your argument is:
Both the Hebrews and the Egypt changed from polytheistic to monotheistic at one time. Therefore, the Hebrews were in Egypt when this happened to them.

Are you serious?

Again, evidence?

[snip]

So? How does this in any way show more than cultural influence because of interaction?

[snip more unrelated blather]

"seems"? According to which evidence?

Where's the - guess what - evidence?

[snip]

RED DAVE

From Amadeo:
As far as I know, there has never been a belief in resurrection in the mainstream Jewish religion at any time. There may have been sects but not in the mainstream.

RED DAVE