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 does this have to do with the non-historical nature of the Exodus story and first seven books of the Bible?
The quote you used in post #13 mentioned the temple. It was that to which I replied.
From post #13
"Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed."
In 2010 (at least that's when the news stories came out about it) an archaeological excavation discovered what may well be King Solomon's wall which is spoken of in 1 Kings 3:1. It dates to the 10th century B.C.
1 Kings 3:1 Then Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter and brought her to the city of David until he had finished building his own house and the house of the LORD (the temple) and the wall around Jerusalem.
Dr. Eilat Mazar, the lead archeologist in charge of the project of the excavation of this ancient site speaks about this historic find in this interview.
A 3,000-year-old defensive wall might be unprecedented archaeological support for a Bible passage on King Solomon.
Pictured on February 22, a newly excavated Jerusalem site includes a wall claimed to have been built by the biblical King Solomon.
A 3,000-year-old defensive wall possibly built by King Solomon has been unearthed in Jerusalem, according to the Israeli archaeologist who led the excavation. The discovery appears to validate a Bible passage, she says.
Dr. Finkelstein by the way, and who was not involved in the excavation, agrees that it's possible King Solomon constructed the wall.
1 Kings 3:1 refers to both the temple and the wall. If the wall which was uncovered in the excavation is the wall referred to in 1 Kings 3:1, then by association, if the verse is accurate about the existence of the wall then that implies accuracy concerning the existence of the temple.
Well, there's the West Wall in the background and the Dome of the Rock peeking above it.
Looks to me like all that excavated land is in Israeli-held territory. They have no reason not to start building the Third Temple. They don't need the land where the Dome of the Rock is, so why not just start building the Third temple now?
Just a quick search brought this up from Ancient Egypt: Slavery, its causes and practice :
"The successful defence against the Sea Peoples resulted in large numbers of slaves as well, when whole wandering peoples were defeated and captured. The following, somewhat generalizing and possibly exaggerated report describes the exploits of Ramses III "
I think there is good reason to think that ancestors of the Hebrews were captured and enslaved in Egypt. Numbers and circumstances of their release certainly have legendary elements.
RESPONSE:
So does the legend of Paul Bunyan. What is necessary to establish history is evidence, not merely an old popular story. In the case of the 2 million Hebrews in Egypt and the 40 year wandering in the desert , there is absolutly no evidence.
So does the legend of Paul Bunyan. What is necessary to establish history is evidence, not merely an old popular story. In the case of the 2 million Hebrews in Egypt and the 40 year wandering in the desert , there is absolutly no evidence.
The legend itself is evidence (there is a world of difference between "evidence" and "proof"). Take your Paul Bunyan example: the legend is indicative that a profession existed in which cutting trees and preparing them for building materiels existed and that there was a lot of hard and dangerous work involved. On the question of the Hebrews in Egypt, we have an indication that at least some of the ancestors of the Hebrews were enslaved there and the indication that such things occurred among the base population from which the Hebrews came. The point is that it does not have to be a case of everything in the legend is true or nothing is.
The quote you used in post #13 mentioned the temple. It was that to which I replied.
From post #13
"Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed."
The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are circa 970 to 931 BC. He is described as the third king of the United Monarchy, and the final king before the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah split.
Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon
This was very long after the Exodus legend. The claimed dates for the Exodus vary widely since this wasn't a real event, but estimated to be about 1440 BC.
What the the Temple in Israel have to do with that, or are you off topic?
The legend itself is evidence (there is a world of difference between "evidence" and "proof"). Take your Paul Bunyan example: the legend is indicative that a profession existed in which cutting trees and preparing them for building materiels existed and that there was a lot of hard and dangerous work involved. On the question of the Hebrews in Egypt, we have an indication that at least some of the ancestors of the Hebrews were enslaved there and the indication that such things occurred among the base population from which the Hebrews came. The point is that it does not have to be a case of everything in the legend is true or nothing is.
What evidence precisely are you claiming to establish that the Hebrews were ever in Egypt?
Yes indeed. The Merneptah Stele is dated c. 1220 AD is written about an expedition into Canaan to defeat an invader there. It is the first writing to mention the Hebrews who are living in Canaan, not Egypt. Nor is there any mention of the Hebrews having ever been in Egypt.
A quick google search told me that William Foxwell Albright was "the father of biblical archaeology". Professor Albright spent decades on actual digs in the Holy Land. This Professor Finkelstein seems to be more noted for his doubts then his long standing research. The title of " father of biblical archaeology" also appears to be a new one bestowed upon him by the author of the article.
If you want a measure of the quality of Professor's Finkelstein's hypothesis you need to look no further than what he says about Solomon's temple. Finkelstein implies that Solomon's temple didn't exist because there is no evidence that it existed. The biblical narrative automatically is seen as false when it lacks an outside source to collaborate it. But it is common knowledge that the location of Solomon's temple has a Mosque built on it today and therefore can't be examined by archaeologists.
Of course Finkelstein's opinions carry a lot of political weight because they help the Palestinian claims for the Holy City and other lands. I'm sure many secular Jews who do believe that trading land for peace will work are eager to anoint Professor Finkelstein as the newly minted "Father of Archaeology". I am not.
Finkelstein believes what he hasn't seen yet isn't there. He also believes that the biblical narrative is wrong. These two base beliefs governs all his research. They cause him to make conclusions based on what isn't known.
The late Professor Albright on the other hand seen the biblical narrative as a useful tool in understanding the ancient world. He used it along side the archaeologist's spade to reconstruct ancient history.
My question to you Galileo2 is what is your motivation to post this stuff and defend it?
RESPONSE:
So does the Jerusalem Post and modern historians.
"Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Ha'aretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public" see Wikipedia article: The Bible Unearthed.
I'm a history buff who likes to separate fact from fiction.
[quote=expatCA;37378268]It is historically accurate. What proof do you have the Egyptians did not alter or erase their mistakes, etc?
The same proof I have that Jesus and Elvis aren't flying around the universe in a UFO. Common sense. In short, it's nonsense too, but can I demand that someone disprove it or do we all have to believe it if there is no contrary evidence?
By the way, the party making a assertion (ie., the Hebrews were in Egypt) has to prove it first, before it needs to be rebutted.
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.
