Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What evidence lol? A bunch of bibilical fanatic authors who claim stuff that no one else can ever study? The story has been disproven dozens and dozens of times. Even the most conservative jewish experts on the subject such as anmon ben-tor and amihai mazar say that the exodus most likely never happened. The fact is people here have given you proof, but you chose to ignore it. Many biblical items have been found by secular archaeologists...the tel dan stele for example was found found by gila cook a non believer i might add. Read some real books on the subject....and then get back to us .
The preachers attend a seminary and are educated with a very narrow view based on their belief in the bible. Then they take a church and on Sunday mornings for the mere sum of 10% of the congregation's earnings they pass along that very narrow view based on choice selections from the bible. None of it can be proven by other sources. Most of it never happened. I believe most of them know it never happened.
I dont get where people get this belief about the hittites, considering we have egypian documentation about the empire. And no king david was not proven to exsist, the tel dan stele only mentions the house of david....we don't know if this is the same david....a different david....or the david they refer to is mythical. Also for every piece of evidence that might slightly prove biblical tales 10 pieces of evidence disprove things. Those links are cute....but if you want us to take your arguments serious then give us credible experts in the field.
Campbell does not understand the concept of skeptical enquiry or checking facts. He understands only 'This is the conclusion - what evidence can we find to support it?'
If one does not accept the claims and evidence (no matter how questionable) as Gospel Truth then, to him, we are all blinkered and in denial. Science, including the disciplines of history and archaeology, works by considering and evaluating all claims. Quite apart from the doubts about the academic input into this (C34 pasted a list of Authority figures who turned out to be amateurs, scholars in the relatively unrelated fields of scripture and a genuine Egyptologist who nevertheless attracted criticism for his fiddling with the facts to make it fit his Bible - belief), there are serious questions about the landmarks presented as evidence.
The mere questioning of this is enough to elicit a torrent of abuse. In fact that excellent vid...hell I'll give the link yet again....
"You've got the evidence in front of you, don't be so closed minded!"
In fact it is the believer who is closed -minded, because he is unwilling to look at other possibilities. Unfortunately I can't check up on Mt Al Lawz or the Solomon inscription as it is not available, either the original, a photo or a pencil copy. I have grave doubts about what I have seen.
As I told C34, I had never seen the non - existence of the Hittites trumpeted by Atheist professors and I suspect that the theists seized on the remark that there was nothing known of the Hittites outside the bible until Hattusas was found that led them to tweak this into 'Atheists said the Biblical Hittites never existed until their own science vindicated faith!"
One rule to keep in mind (apart from the rules of logic so as to pick up on the fallacious arguments) is the infinite extent to which the 'factual ' claims of theist apologists can never be trusted.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2010 at 05:50 AM..
Campbell does not understand the concept of skeptical enquiry or checking facts. He understands only 'This is the conclusion - what evidence can we find to support it?'
If one does not accept the claims and evidence (no matter how questionable) as Gospel Truth then, to him, we are all blinkered and in denial. Science, including the disciplines of history and archaeology, works by considering and evaluating all claims. Quite apart from the doubts about the academic input into this (C34 pasted a list of Authority figures who turned out to be amateurs, scholars in the relatively unrelated fields of scripture and a genuine Egyptologist who nevertheless attracted criticism for his fiddling with the facts to make it fit his Bible - belief), there are serious questions about the landmarks presented as evidence.
The mere questioning of this is enough to elicit a torrent of abuse. In fact that excellent vid...hell I'll give the link yet again....
"You've got the evidence in front of you, don't be so closed minded!"
In fact it is the believer who is closed -minded, because he is unwilling to look at other possibilities. Unfortunately I can't check up on Mt Al Lawz or the Solomon inscription as it is not available, either the original, a photo or a pencil copy. I have grave doubts about what I have seen.
As I told C34, I had never seen the non - existence of the Hittites trumpeted by Atheist professors and I suspect that the theists seized on the remark that there was nothing known of the Hittites outside the bible until Hattusas was found that led them to tweak this into 'Atheists said the Biblical Hittites never existed until their own science vindicated faith!"
One rule to keep in mind (apart from the rules of logic so as to pick up on the fallacious arguments) is the infinite extent to which the 'factual ' claims of theist apologists can never be trusted.
Oh i am aware of his kind . The amusing thing is unlike him i actually have read the fer experts he quoted and have slogged through the authors he says so much prove his theories. What we need to do to really rock his world, is post lists of discoveries that disprove things and see what he says then .
Well the problem is, we can't get any of those professionals to even look at such findings. What professional would be willing to put his career on the line? What professional would be willing to go back to his peers and tell them. "Well, looks like the Bible is true, and you guys have been all wrong." I can tell you, not to many. They would be branded as a quack, and from that day forward they would need to look for another line of work. Many of these sites have been known for years. Yet why don't we see any of these professionals?
Really? You don't know much about the history of Syria Palestinian archeology then do you? Who was the father of it all might i ask? Even today people still adhere to a lot of his methods, and as i said many finds have been found by the experts you so claim would never ever take them serious. There will always be disagreements between maximlists and minimalists, but that doesn't mean neither group find things proving the bible. Eilat mazar has found a few stone walls and structures that she dates and says proves a thriving kingdom of david. Now while not everyone agrees with her dating. The fact is she is someone that believes and works in the field. What you want is people to take amateurs with no training in a field, but the bible in one hand serious. Ones who claim they find stuff.....but mysteriously never can show it to you.
I am still looking into this and I came across this snippit.
May not Miriam be one of the many Egyptian names beginning with Meri? Rameses II bore the well-known title of Meriamen, and so did one of his daughters, while the princess Merris (Meri, one of the younger daughters of Rameses) is said to have been the protector of Moses.
This is not only an example of speculation (The Bible does not name Pharaoh's daughter) but Ramesses cannot of course, be the pharoah when moses was a child unless all the kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties are ruled out as living at the time of the exodus.
However, suppose we bite the bullet and place the exodus later, when the Gaza area was occupied by the Philistines and we have later pharaohs (1) of the weaker and often foreign, dynasties? But then, we have the Mereneptah stele shich shows the conquests of the son of Ramesses including Israel which is apparently an established state by that date. So the exodus can't be that late.
This is a good example of how those who try to fit the Exodus story into history come a cropper every time.
(1) In fact this is a Biblical error. Pharaoh is a hebrication of Par-o 'great house' effectively palace as a place of government. The term king is more accurate but Pharaoh is handy as it indicates that we are talking of egyptian rulers.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2010 at 07:45 AM..
I am still looking into this and i came across this snippit.
May not Miriam be one of the many Egyptian names beginning with Meri? Rameses II bore the well-known title of Meriamen, and so did one of his daughters, while the princess Merris (Meri, one of the younger
daughters of Rameses) is said to have been the protector of Moses.
This is not only an example of speculation (The Bible does not name Pharaoh's daughter) but Ramesses cannot of course, be the pharoah when moses was a child unless all the kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties are ruled out as living at the time of the exodus.
However, suppose we bite the bullet and place the exodus later, when the Gaza area was occupied by the Philistines and we have later pharaohs (1) of the weaker and often foreign, dynasties? But then, we have the Mereneptah stele shich shows the conquests of the son of Ramasses including Israel which is apparently an established state by that date. So the exodus can't be that late.
This is a good example of how those who try to fit the Exodus story into history come a cropper every time.
In fact this is a Biblical error. Pharaoh is a hebrication of Par-o 'great house' effectively palace as a place of government. The term king is more accurate but pharaho is handy as it indicates that we are talking of egyptian rulers.
Actually no....the the stele shows Israel was a tribe of people at that time and not a state. A population estimate based on pottery puts the number of people there at between 5000-10000. Quite the empire they had huh? . Lets not also forget tha the ammonites the moabites and the edomites didn't even exist as people at this time.
Actually no....the the stele shows Israel was a tribe of people at that time and not a state. A population estimate based on pottery puts the number of people there at between 5000-10000. Quite the empire they had huh? . Lets not also forget tha the ammonites the moabites and the edomites didn't even exist as people at this time.
Well done. The stele says
"..Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat
The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat,..."
It could be argued that they were a tribe - even a wandering tribe - who have been given a beating. However, I don't think one should ignore that a foe had to be worth beating to write an inscription about.
However:
"Michael G. Hasel, director of the Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University argues that Israel was already a well established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE:
"Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE, one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with."[wiki]
I had a note on Moab. The first signs of a state were 14th c BCE which is well before Mereneptah but the main kindom was 11th c. Thus I don't think one could say it wasn't around at the time. The pottery argument depends rather upon who and where we are talking about. If we are talking about pottery speads in Caanan, then no matter how many or how few, we are talking about Israel where they had their state. Which means that they they were already there (to be laid waste by Mereneptah) before the Philistine settlement and thus before the Exodus date implied by Ex. 13.17.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-17-2010 at 07:48 AM..
Reason: a bit of clumsy typing.
Yes. If. You talked of a semi -circle, yet I see on the rough map of the area they are supposed to be in a straight line. I have been trying to get a look at these stones to check whether they really do look like they are placed as markers or whether there has been a bit of selectivity about what is a boundary marker and what isn't.
You always pull this 'let the skeptics prove us wrong' trick. But there's a point. I can see why this stuff looks absolutely amazing proof to you and the other believers. And I don't like to be in the position of 'explaining away' evidence, which is where I am on this one.
This thread is really about documentary evidence for the Exodus, though it has become an evidence from artefacts thread. But there is no documentary evidence for the exodus. None. Not a shred. The point about Pharonic lists is to try to find some feasible placing for the event. The problem is that if we put it earlier than the 20th dynaty (Amenhotep III is 18th dynasty) then the Bible reference to Moses avoiding the Philistines can't be right as Philistia had not yet been occupied by the sea - peoples.
Josephus is very useful for contemporary events but of little use for ancient history. Manetho mentions the Hyksos and Josephus jumped to the conclusion that they were the exodus. But Ahmose ruled after the expulsion of the Hyksos and the Amenhoteps after him so none of it really works and a reference to Josephus and a random date won't get you over it.
Now, this is important because I must conclude that the exodus is mythical though there may be some truth in it. The Vision of Mt Sinai looks like a volcano. The law giving and tabernacle - stuff looks retrospective. And I don't buy miracles. So I look at that split rock and see that it can't produce water except by a miracle. It's just a split rock. But I can see how Moller saw that and was absolutely convinced that was The rock. I can also see why he saw that heap of boulders with the cattle and goat drawings and immediately assumed that was the Calf altar. That said, casting around for the other features, he would find them. A cave of sorts, a selection of scattered scree presented as boundary stones. But a believer will see any such suggestion of denial of evidence and throw a wobbly. Which you do very nicely.
That 'boundary stone' is indeed a scatter of stones. That is what the photo shows. To call it a boundary marker is 'overdrawn'. I admit that I cannot say (yet) that it is just picking outsome of a lot of scatter in roughly the right place, because the report idoes not give the information needed to check.
Now these markers are based on 'set bounds about' Sinai. (19.23). Semicircle as claimed or a line as shown on the diagram? Even that isn't clear.
The calf altar is overdrawn. The talk of egyptian work and heiroglyphs is certainly way off, but that may be just you. It doesn't look at all like an altar but, I can see how, in that place, it was assumed that it MUST be. Just as the bitter and sweet wells (15.23) at marah before they they crossed the wilderness of sin and arrived at Rephidim/Siniai. Some wells have good water and some don't. Moller tries to make his (sweetened whn Moses threw a tree into it) miraculously sweet to HIS taste. Thus proving it must be the Biblical one.
The mention of sinai looks like a vision of volcano. Neither Musa or Laws are volcanoes. That won't impress the believers who insist is was miracle - type event. What about the blackening? Hard to believe it would survive all these centuries, but is the peak black? That ref. said it was normal blackening. If so, why aren't the other peaks black? Perhaps they are, but I am not able to find out. I wish I could go and look but I am unable to do so and it doesn't help in being in Saudi territory. I just have to keep looking for something that will let me check the claims. But all I get are the repeated claims.
Now, as to overdrawn, I can see obvious explanations for the Red sea land bridge.
One is that it is true, but, as I say, I cannot believe that Bible account and do not believe that a parting of the seas over a handly land - brige ever happened.
two - So if there are commemmorative pillars put up by Solomon at each end (you say 'same area' which, knowing you and your craftiness, could be miles away) well, he had a navy parked there, as you said yourself, so his navigators would know there was a shallow area there. Why would he not conclude (as Wyatt did) that it must be the crossing - place of this ancient tale of the exodus?
That is assuming Solomon put up anything. Let's consider another scenario.
three - Wyatt, looking for a route across the red sea, learns about the shallow. Off he goes to have a look and 'In the area' he finds a pillar. On the Egyptian side fallen columns are not uncommon. There's no inscription, but never mind. It must be a commemmoration put up by ..well, Solomon is the obvious king.
But what about the pillar on the other side? Where is it? It is conveniently removed, just as the inscription on the remaining pillar is conveniently eroded.
That said, the the supposed inscription is fishy, too. Why would a jewish king write and inscription in Phonecian. Wyatt's credentials in ancient languages was not too good. Who translated it? Where is a photo of the pillar, a photo or transcription of the words?
As I say, I don't like to be in the position of explaining away evidence, but I see a lot of questions to be asked about this 'evidence'.
Yes, it is overdrawn where I can check anything and the report is more claims than reporting so I can't check, and the track record of Wyatt is not good. So I'm sorry if you feel that you you are talking to an eight - year old (a pretty bright one as he made you look pretty ignorant over the east gate, nativity and Tempest stele) but I can't buy Bible truth on the basis of this 'evidence'.
I will keep looking and try to get some idea of how this material looks at the site. I know you won't because you never check anything to see whether it's true or not.
Well you know, if you really want to confirm the location of the Red Sea crossing. Then we really should start at the very beginning. I believe the Bible is 100% true. You, not so much. Yet if the Bible is true, then just locating the geography for such a crossing should not be that hard to do. And the reason I say that, is because the Bible gives us some real clues to consider. First, according to the Scriptures there would of been at least two million people gathered at the crossing site. Second, all avenues of escape were cut off. They could not flee to the South, or to the North. Nor could they return back to the West. Pharoah's army was waiting for them. So the only direction they could move to. Would be the East. Now, the first thing one would have to consider is. Where in the entire Gulf of Aqaba could one find a beach so large, that it would be able to support the assembly of two million people? And second, if such a beach was found. It would have to have all avenues of escape blocked. And this is where that geography comes into play. Through the process of elimination we can pretty much narrow down the search. If you consider the entire Gulf of Aqaba. You will discover there is only one place that would support two million people. And it is the only place that has both the North side, and the South side cut off by mountains. And naturally, that would prevent anyone from getting away. And that place would be the Beach at Nuweiba which also borders the Red Sea. Now of course, there are a number of requirements still necessary for this location to fulfill the Biblical account. Which I will adress next. Yet this entire account reads like a crime scene. And what is needed, is to connect the dots. So that is why I believe we first need to start at the very beginning.
Oh i am aware of his kind . The amusing thing is unlike him i actually have read the fer experts he quoted and have slogged through the authors he says so much prove his theories. What we need to do to really rock his world, is post lists of discoveries that disprove things and see what he says then .
Campell you wouldn't appreciate it and not believe any of it anyway .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
.
.
