Continuing research into the possibility of the reality of the Exodus, and current data/conclusions.

[Neogaia777]

Not everyone has access to JSTOR, Neogaia. I used to long ago when I was studying at the university. Now, I have to take what journal articles I can get for free.

You have create a free account to read it unfortunately, but it is free though. And to download it costs money.

It's difficult to summarize here, etc.

But all of the numbers are essentially wrong though, and are a lot less.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have create a free account to read it unfortunately, but it is free though. And to download it costs money.

It's difficult to summarize here, etc.

God Bless.

Oh my! It's been so long, I hadn't realized they transitioned to a 'free account for reading' status. I don't remember it being that way over a decade ago. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Valletta]

My religious beliefs are a private matter.
I don’t give much away as far as personal detail is concerned except to identify as a Christian which I feel obliged to do on this site.

What I will state which is not a secret I was a member of the RCC and came from a family excommunicated for not attending church on Sundays.
What I found strange even as a ten year old at the time we were excommunicated by the parish priest, I thought a higher authority such as an archbishop only possessed these powers.

Here's a short overview on excommunication:

Why and How One Is Excommunicated

Excommunication is a medicinal penalty of the Church. Its purpose is not necessarily to obtain justice or satisfaction but is meant to awaken an individual&#821...

www.catholic.com

 

[SelfSim]

Here's a short overview on excommunication:

Why and How One Is Excommunicated

Excommunication is a medicinal penalty of the Church. Its purpose is not necessarily to obtain justice or satisfaction but is meant to awaken an individual&#821...

www.catholic.com

I'm reminded of Perkins' draconian fate in John Wick #1 .. and then John Wick, himself, was rendered excommunicado at the end of JW#2.

I could get angry about the lack of due process in all of it .. but it ends up only being about exclusion from the 'club' at the end of the day .. which isn't really that important for someone with truly deeply religious beliefs, eh(?)

 

[Halbhh]

You have missed the elephant in the room, eagles and wild dogs don't dispose of pottery shards and toolkits, archaeology is not simply about finding human remains.
Pottery shards found in the Sinai have been dated to 4500 years ago, 1000 years before the Exodus.

Didn't I write to you already that Israel would not settle down and make pottery? I wrote that above, but perhaps to someone else.

I thought I wrote that to you. Sorry! I must have written it to someone else.

Ok, listen: there won't be any such evidence, because they did not settle down and make pottery, tools, etc.

According to the text, they didn't need to do that -- and the text lays out why in detail. They literally leave Egypt the text claims with lots of goods, including vessels, even of silver etc. -- so, that will include metal vessels. Those would not normally break and would not need to be discarded.

And we can expect they would use the various vessels/containers they took with them from Egypt in a practical way: to gather the food that the text says was given to them every day.

So, at least according to the text, which is what we are discussing in the first place -- this whole discussion is about that very text -- they won't have potter to discard, won't bury bodies, and so on....

Is my view starting to make more sense finally? It's the view I began with before seeing this thread.

I'm just really poor at getting all needed details into one post I guess.

It might help that I've been in the desert hiking and camping. I know how a group can camp in a place, and then later walk by that place and you can't even find it, and that vultures appear out of nowhere seemingly even when you never see anything for them to eat (they already found it the days before, or they know that humans drop stuff, etc. or there is a carcass nearby, etc., which we usually won't even see before they clean it, and the coyotes take it away, etc.). Etc. So, I began with some background experience so that I sorta started with this view in part, no theorizing needed.

 

[Halbhh]

This is not right forum to discuss these issues, and your affirmation of Exodus is based on faith and not science.

Right!

The OP/thread is in the wrong forum. It belongs in theology or such.

The whole point of the thread is about whether what is in the text could happen, and that......

...that makes the text central subject matter....

(i.e., if we discuss whether phenomena X or event Y can happen, that requires knowing what X and Y are in precision, not just vaguely, as sometimes the details are key. i.e.--so the details in the text are central subject matter to the OP....)

So, really the discussion is mostly about the details in the text in large part, not about science topics or evidence even, and what is missing at times in the discussion is some relevant detail from the text, since the text itself is what is being discussed. Of course.

So, I'd agree if you just say this thread didn't belong in physical sciences at all.

 

[SelfSim]

.. They literally leave Egypt the text claims with lots of goods, including vessels, even of silver etc. -- so, that will include metal vessels. Those would not normally break and would not need to be discarded.
And we can expect they would use the various vessels/containers they took with them from Egypt in a practical way: to gather the food that the text says was given to them every day.

.. so what about the vessels which weren't composed of solid silver? We're talking about a lot of ancilliary items here (due to the large population on the move)?

Seems like the text is grasping at straws by stretching its credibility .. (yet again) .. the plausibility of the story told in text, is grossly at odds with the present day lack of non-decomposing, discardable expendibles, which always accompanies large populations of humans on the move.

So, at least according to the text, which is what we are discussing in the first place -- this whole discussion is about that very text -- they won't have potter to discard, won't bury bodies, and so on....

Does the text say they didn't have any pottery to discard? Or, are you saying that?
After all, we're discussing the text, no?

Is my view starting to make more sense finally? It's the view I began with before seeing this thread.

I'm just really poor at getting all needed details into one post I guess.

Either that, or the story just doesn't stand up in the light of the lack of search evidence.

It might help that I've been in the desert hiking and camping. I know how a group can camp in a place, and then later walk by that place and you can't even find it, and that vultures appear out of nowhere seemingly even when you never see anything for them to eat (they already found it the days before, or they know that humans drop stuff, etc. or there is a carcass nearby, etc., which we usually won't even see before they clean it, and the coyotes take it away, etc.). Etc. So, I began with some background experience so that I sorta started with this view in part, no theorizing needed.

The bone formations either complete, destroyed (at least in their original form), or scattered fragments, remain over the long periods of time in question. That they may have moved from their interim resting places, isn't the issue really, is it?

 

[SelfSim]

... (i.e., i[/I]f we discuss whether phenomena X or event Y can happen, that requires knowing what X and Y are in precision, not just vaguely, as sometimes the details are key. i.e.--so the details in the text are central subject matter to the OP....)

Oh .. you mean like knowing precisely the processes which result in things like 'mana from heaven'?

So, really the discussion is mostly about the details in the text in large part, not about science topics or evidence even, and what is missing at times in the discussion is some relevant detail from the text, since the text itself is what is being discussed. Of course.

So, I'd agree if you just say this thread didn't belong in physical sciences at all.

From my perspective, I'd agree that the context in which the story is embedded .. (ie: the existence of religiously held as 'true miracles'), is all important in informing a subjective meaning of a supposed 'truth', and then, a suppposed 'reality.

But that's not the reality we speak of when we're talking about science's objective (or 'physical') reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It does, if you'd look at it.

God Bless.

Neogaia, in academic terms, it's sort of incumbent upon you to cite, quote and reference--and briefly explain--the reasoning you find in the article.

You can't simply throw the journal article at folks and tell them to go read it. However, you can impress upon them to consider what it is you think is important in the article and as to why you also think it should be given scientific credence.

The problem here, though, is that Archaeology has limits inherent within its field where the fragmentary evidences found are then open to interpretation, and very often, their interpretation is then given over to Historians (of A.N.E.) to evaluate. So, being that this is the case, that is why this thread more or less doesn't really belong in the "physics and life sciences" section.

 

[sjastro]

Didn't I write to you already that Israel would not settle down and make pottery? I wrote that above, but perhaps to someone else.

I thought I wrote that to you. Sorry! I must have written it to someone else.

Ok, listen: there won't be any such evidence, because they did not settle down and make pottery, tools, etc.

According to the text, they didn't need to do that -- and the text lays out why in detail. They literally leave Egypt the text claims with lots of goods, including vessels, even of silver etc. -- so, that will include metal vessels. Those would not normally break and would not need to be discarded.

And we can expect they would use the various vessels/containers they took with them from Egypt in a practical way: to gather the food that the text says was given to them every day.

So, at least according to the text, which is what we are discussing in the first place -- this whole discussion is about that very text -- they won't have potter to discard, won't bury bodies, and so on....

Is my view starting to make more sense finally? It's the view I began with before seeing this thread.

I'm just really poor at getting all needed details into one post I guess.

It might help that I've been in the desert hiking and camping. I know how a group can camp in a place, and then later walk by that place and you can't even find it, and that vultures appear out of nowhere seemingly even when you never see anything for them to eat (they already found it the days before, or they know that humans drop stuff, etc. or there is a carcass nearby, etc., which we usually won't even see before they clean it, and the coyotes take it away, etc.). Etc. So, I began with some background experience so that I sorta started with this view in part, no theorizing needed.

The earliest known non figurine examples of pottery come from Mesolithic times when populations were still exclusively hunter gatherers and hence by definition never settled down.

The Israelites didn’t make pottery because they didn’t settle down, are you serious?????
Before entering the Sinai they would have had access to Nile clay particularly in the delta region.
The Israelites would have used pottery to transport water, store food grains, cook food to name a few and is the most common archaeological artefact because unlike human remains it is insensitive to degradation such as soil pH and being disturbed by wildlife.

The absence of pottery, toolkits and human remains is a strong argument that Exodus did not occur; you have turned it around into an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Halbhh]

The Israelites didn’t make pottery because they didn’t settle down, are you serious?????

Yes -- that's a central aspect of the story in the text -- it's called the "wandering" in the desert.

In the story, they are literally lead by a column of divine smoke (and fire at night), and the only day they normally stop for a whole day is only on the Sabbath (where they are literally not even allowed to even gather firewood, nor any other work of any types.... no burying bodies, etc.) Neither leaders nor anyone in the camp picks when to move. They get led by divine direction, all the time, even if they don't want to move, and it's apparently most every day but the Sabbath.

Quite a routine! Get up before dawn, gather the provided food, eat, pack up, and move out and follow the column or otherwise die alone.

That's what we are discussing, the story of the wandering in the desert for 40 years in Exodus and Numbers, the particulars in the text.

So, it's my fault I above used the word 'nomadic' earlier.

It's not at all even slightly like a normal nomadic group in those ways (normally nomads would move from camp to camp, staying a season or 2 in a camp, etc.).

Ok? My fault that I used the word 'nomadic' earlier, as that's not really fitting this picture.

Not only is the story completely unlike normal nomadic behavior, but additionally there are many smaller stories in it about dramatic events so that over all full of the unexpected really.

As I said in another post, because of that factor, the OP is fundamentally more like a religious discussion really.... not a physical science discussion. So, the story didn't really belong in this forum in my view.

 

[sjastro]

Yes -- that's a central aspect of the story in the text -- it's called the "wandering" in the desert.

In the story, they are literally lead by a column of divine smoke (and fire at night), and the only day they normally stop for a whole day is only on the Sabbath (where they are literally not even allowed to even gather firewood, nor any other work of any types.... no burying bodies, etc.) Neither leaders nor anyone in the camp picks when to move. They get led by divine direction, all the time, even if they don't want to move, and it's apparently most every day but the Sabbath.

Quite a routine! Get up before dawn, gather the provided food, eat, pack up, and move out and follow the column or otherwise die alone.

That's what we are discussing, the story of the wandering in the desert for 40 years in Exodus and Numbers, the particulars in the text.

So, it's my fault I above used the word 'nomadic' earlier.

It's not at all even slightly like a normal nomadic group in those ways (normally nomads would move from camp to camp, staying a season or 2 in a camp, etc.).

Ok? My fault that I used the word 'nomadic' earlier, as that's not really fitting this picture.

Not only is the story completely unlike normal nomadic behavior, but additionally there are many smaller stories in it about dramatic events so that over all full of the unexpected really.

As I said in another post, because of that factor, the OP is fundamentally more like a religious discussion really.... not a physical science discussion. So, the story didn't really belong in this forum in my view.

You still don’t get it, the story you have been conveying in this thread is providing a physical explanation as to why there is no evidence for the Exodus.

If you had used the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence argument, or in other words the evidence is out there waiting to be discovered, while not terribly convincing at least is not a fallacious argument.
By coming up with what amounts to excuses for not a shred of evidence being found, is consistent with your faith based acceptance of Exodus, but turns into a fallacious argument in a science forum as the lack of evidence despite a concerted effort by archaeologists in the last fifty years is strong support for the Exodus being a story and not a historical event.

 

[Halbhh]

You still don’t get it, the story you have been conveying in this thread is providing a physical explanation as to why there is no evidence for the Exodus.

If you had used the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence argument, or in other words the evidence is out there waiting to be discovered, while not terribly convincing at least is not a fallacious argument.
By coming up with what amounts to excuses for not a shred of evidence being found, is consistent with your faith based acceptance of Exodus, but turns into a fallacious argument in a science forum as the lack of evidence despite a concerted effort by archaeologists in the last fifty years is strong support for the Exodus being a story and not a historical event.

Well, lol, it would be a very obvious mistake to think that a lack of evidence is a proof of anything. (that made me laugh)

I've been in deserts a lot. One doesn't see a lot of bones everywhere. Even though it's dry.... When you are hiking in a semi-arid or desert area, you might only come upon only a relatively small amount of bones, and a group stops when they do find any, because it's remarkable and interesting. Why aren't bones everywhere since it's dry? In most deserts or semi-arid areas, one sees plenty of vultures and the equivalent of large coyotes or small wolves, etc. at times, and you get it.

But it doesn't prove anything happened in particular re the Exodus story. It just helps eliminate only one flawed theory: that there would have to be a lot of bones from an Israelite exodus -- that would only be the case if they were carefully sealing the bones somehow.... And then if one has read the text account, it's clear in the text they are not generally burying bodies anywhere in the text, but constantly on the move (but for Sabbaths).

So, this idea that such a movement of tens of thousands would have to leave bones was just a weak theory, but shooting down that weak theory didn't prove anything except only that that one theory wasn't holding water. ;-) (get it, dry, desert, not holding water.... we should not take these discussions too seriously! These discussions ought to be only friendly and humorous or such)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, lol, it would be a very obvious mistake to think that a lack of evidence is a proof of anything. (that made me laugh)

I've been in deserts a lot. One doesn't see a lot of bones everywhere. Even though it's dry.... When you are hiking in a semi-arid or desert area, you might only come upon only a relatively small amount of bones, and a group stops when they do find any, because it's remarkable and interesting. Why aren't bones everywhere since it's dry? In most deserts or semi-arid areas, one sees plenty of vultures and the equivalent of large coyotes or small wolves, etc. at times, and you get it.

Because most animals don't dispose of their dead, the dead lie where they fall (or are killed). Human cultures dispose of the dead. Most do so by removing the dead from the machinations of scavengers (at least surface scavengers). The Jews/Israelites do not seem like the kind that would leave their dead to the scavengers.

But it doesn't prove anything happened in particular re the Exodus story. It just helps eliminate only one flawed theory: that there would have to be a lot of bones from an Israelite exodus -- that would only be the case if they were carefully sealing the bones somehow.... And then if one has read the text account, it's pretty obvious that's not so likely they would....

So, this idea that such a movement of tens of thousands would have to leave bones was just a weak theory, but shooting down that weak theory didn't prove anything except only that that one theory wasn't holding water. ;-) (get it, dry, desert, not holding water.... we should not take these discussions too seriously!)

It's not millions of bones, but millions of disposals (burials, cremations, etc.) that are missing.

 

[Halbhh]

Because most animals don't dispose of their dead, the dead lie where they fall (or are killed). Human cultures dispose of the dead. Most do so by removing the dead from the machinations of scavengers (at least surface scavengers). The Jews/Israelites do not seem like the kind that would leave their dead to the scavengers.

It's not millions of bones, but millions of disposals (burials, cremations, etc.) that are missing.

From context here, the OP raised the discussion that that the text itself probably meant there were only a few tens of thousands (though I offered a different link -- how the source text seems likely as not to have meant something closer to tens of thousands instead of hundreds: How many Israelites left Egypt in the exodus? | GotQuestions.org), so we weren't even talking about 'millions', but a few tens of thousands here in this thread (though that is also what I think is more likely too).

But in the text account itself -- which is what the thead is about: that text account -- we see that burials aren't mentioned, but also seem unlikely under the routine conditions that are given, as I explained further above. Ergo, so it's likely the bodies are not carefully buried but perhaps left on the surface even, so then scavengers then come in as the group moves on every day (except the Sabbath).

So, of course, how could anyone prove anything about that text? -- that's my point: we can't. The last post to me above was ironic in that way: it's pointing out to me what I was pointing out to others. heh heh

 

[SelfSim]

From context here, the OP raised the discussion that that the text itself probably meant there were only a few tens of thousands (though I offered a different link -- how the source text seems likely as not to have meant something closer to tens of thousands instead of hundreds: How many Israelites left Egypt in the exodus? | GotQuestions.org), so we weren't even talking about 'millions', but a few tens of thousands here in this thread (though that is also what I think is more likely too).

But in the text account itself -- which is what the thead is about: that text account -- we see that burials aren't mentioned, but also seem unlikely under the routine conditions that are given, as I explained further above. Ergo, so it's likely the bodies are not carefully buried but perhaps left on the surface even, so then scavengers then come in as the group moves on every day (except the Sabbath).

So, of course, how could anyone prove anything about that text? -- that's my point: we can't. The last post to me above was ironic in that way: it's pointing out to me what I was pointing out to others. heh heh

Whenever terms like those emoboldened/underlined above, are used in any argument, Occam's Razor becomes admissable in any debate .. (as was pointed out several posts ago now).

As such, in this case, the best option leading to an understanding, is that the Exodus never happened and that the text was attempting to produce some other effect, other than an accurate account of physical events. Is it difficult for you to see that? .. (Not making any personal accusations here .. I'm just curious about what your viewpoint actually is).

 

[Halbhh]

Whenever terms like those emoboldened/underlined above, are used in any argument, Occam's Razor becomes admissable in any debate .. (as was pointed out several posts ago now).

As such, in this case, the best option leading to an understanding, is that the Exodus never happened and that the text was attempting to produce some other effect, other than an accurate account of physical events.

So, of course, how could anyone prove anything about that text? -- that's my point: we can't.

As such, in this case, the best option leading to an understanding, is that the Exodus never happened and that the text was attempting to produce some other effect, other than a recount of physical events.

I underlined a bit you might have missed, or perhaps didn't consider fully.

We can't make conclusions about this kind of thing (a situation where by the text there ought not be any remains and then we don't find remains) based on a lack of evidence.

Ergo, as I said then, " how could anyone prove anything [of that kind] about that text? -- that's my point: we can't."

That there is a lack of remains perfectly fitting to the text account itself isn't any conclusive proof.
It's not a proof or support for either view from merely a lack of human bones/remains in that time period -- neither of the the 2 views are supported: neither the view of the text being about some related (even if imprecise) actual events vs the view of the events being entirely only parable story alone. Neither view gets proven or disproven or even supported much by a lack of remains.

 

[SelfSim]

I underlined a bit you might have missed, or perhaps didn't consider fully.

We can't make conclusions about this kind of thing (a situation where by the text there ought not be any remains and then we don't find remains) based on a lack of evidence.

Ergo, as I said then, " how could anyone prove anything [of that kind] about that text? -- that's my point: we can't."

That there is a lack of remains perfectly fitting to the text account itself isn't any conclusive proof.
It's not a proof or support for either view from merely a lack of human bones/remains in that time period -- neither of the the 2 views are supported: neither the view of the text being about some related (even if imprecise) actual events vs the view of the events being entirely only parable story alone. Neither view gets proven or disproven or even supported much by a lack of remains.

Who said the exercise is about proving/disproving something?

 

[AV1611VET]

As such, in this case, the best option leading to an understanding, is that the Exodus never happened and that the text was attempting to produce some other effect, other than an accurate account of physical events.

Either that, or God wasn't kidding when He said ...

Numbers 14:33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.

 

[SelfSim]

Either that, or God wasn't kidding when He said ...

Numbers 14:33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.

Looks just like some kind of threat to me.
Given there's no physical evidence of any carcases, I'd say that's exactly what it was.