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

[sjastro]

While science is my main interest and I post a lot of real science, here I'm trying to help those that don't realize what this OP topic really is about.

Blind Freddy can even see you are trying to turn this into a Christian Apologetics thread.

Plz try (and I get it you find this topic frustrating) to avoid even indirect ad hominem (and help me if I fail to do that also by pointing it out).

I contradict all sorts of people a lot. Even you, who would probably be a good friend if you had been in one of my classes or I'd met you at a lab or such.

I think they aren't really reading enough of the new testament (some may have never) to realize that evidence of miraculous things (such as 30,000 or a lot more people not starving to death in the desert) ought never be found according to the new testament wordings about what faith is that God wants us to come to....

It's not an ad hom attack as you are blissfully unaware, in this case making ignorant comments about Biblical archaeologists not reading enough of the NT when many are clergy in their respective churches.

Here are some examples.

Dr. James K. Hoffmeier: A respected biblical archaeologist, Dr. Hoffmeier is also an ordained minister.
Dr. Clyde Billington: As an archaeologist and professor, Dr. Billington is also a pastor.
Dr. Gordon Franz: Dr. Franz combines his role as a pastor with his passion for biblical archaeology.
Dr. Scott Stripling: Dr. Stripling, a pastor, has led archaeological excavations at Shiloh in Israel.

But I don't want to offend. I can be sharp to shoot down a flawed theory regarding what evidence the exodus could leave like you were using, but I don't mean to offend you by that. I think of you as being rather smarter than just say one of incorrect hypothesis or theories of very many you might have where most will be far better fitting a situation and more plausible to a question.

As has been pointed out your arguments are fallacious as you start off with the conclusion Exodus is true and then work backwards by trying to prove a negative that the absence of evidence is due to miraculous events which are unfalsifiable.
With regards to making ad hom attacks your backhander is well and truly noted.

 

[AV1611VET]

The issue I've seen running throughout this thread is the absolute refusal to acknowledge that having 'Faith' to accept some story as being 'true history', comes with it, absolute the demand of denying evidence from objective reality.
If that's the case, I'll go with objective reality and the method which distinguishes it every single time and 'Faith can take a hike!'

Do you incorporate the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence maxim into your mindset?

 

[SelfSim]

Do you incorporate the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence maxim into your mindset?

At some point of evidence piled on top of yet more evidence, the path that leads to more understanding, is preferred.
Your question is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

At some point of evidence piled on top of yet more evidence, the path that leads to more understanding, is preferred.
Your question is irrelevant.

Um ... okie doke.

 

[Ophiolite]

As has been pointed out your arguments are fallacious as you start off with the conclusion Exodus is true and then work backwards by trying to prove a negative that the absence of evidence is due to miraculous events which are unfalsifiable.

We have a quite different interpretation of @Halbhh's position. I read it as "The Exodus story is not an accounting of real events, but a parable explaining important developments in the spiritual life of the Hebrews." We cannot both be correct (perhaps neither of us are). I hope @Halbhh will let us know. (My money is on you, and yet . . . . )

 

[Niels]

Although I'm admittedly not an Old Testament historian, I am intrigued by the idea that Akhenaten might have been Pharaoh at the time. Maybe Joseph and the Israelites inspired Akhenaten's radical change to espouse a form of monotheism as the official religion of Egypt. Likewise, the extent to which later Egyptians went to destroying his legacy. Who knows what other historical records were lost in the process.

Granted, I think ancient people saw time differently than we do, so I'm open to departures from the standard narrative of when these things happened according to our calendar, but monotheism in ancient Egypt catches my attention in ways that "but what about the other bajillion gods?" simply doesn't do. Monotheism, a prime mover, or even the the God of Aristotle is closer to the Christian concept of God than say, a Zeus or a Thor type character (which are regarded as idols by monotheists). Not that Aten is the same as the Christian God or other monotheistic God concepts, but it is much closer and I wonder who might have inspired Amanhotep IV to do what he did.

 

[Halbhh]

Did the story in Exodus and Numbers and some in Deuteronomy, etc. happen in the way described in the text concretely?
(A large group of semitic people (even if only 100,000 or less) wanders the desert for 40 years)

Reading Exodus, Numbers, the text is in many parts just a lengthy string of miraculous or impossible seeming events -- many unnatural events -- only interrupted at times by the giving of law and rules and new religious practices.


But even so, won't there be physical evidence?


Let's look at something that can survive very well in the desert indefinitely (so, not human remains, but something more durable) -- pottery.

Pottery (broken pottery that could be found later in archaeological finds)

Contrast the normal way pottery will break and get discarded to what's actually in the Exodus story:

5 ... “During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet."

Of course, that's not normally physically possible -- if you wear a pair of even leather shoes for years of walking (as in the text they are generally on the move) then parts of the shoes will begin wearing out.

But the text says these items were supernaturally maintained.

Their clothes don't wear out (which is physically impossible), and so on.

In the Exodus story that is actually in the text things don't break and fall apart.

Also, in the text, there is no lengthy camping of a kind where they would build up permanent structures and so on, according to the text, but instead the picture is they are usually on the move, not staying all that long anywhere. They can't work on the one time they can stay put reliably -- the weekly Sabbath -- they can't even gather sticks. The Sabbath ends, and the next morning they move out following a column of smoke and fire....

In general, according to the amazing details in the text -- the actual story of Exodus in the text -- no evidence should be found if the text is accurate and actually happened as actual events.

--------------

While this post might possibly (as did some of my previous posts above) make someone angry, I suggest don't be angry, be glad to find out when an old idea/argument/approach in thinking is invalid.

Don't you sometimes actually feel a sense of delight, actually, when an old idea you had is shown invalid? -- it's a good moment to be able to discard a bad idea so that we are freed of it. I often feel a thrill of delight when I can toss an idea I had been talking about already, because it's freeing to toss a bad idea, and get to explore for a better one.

We aren't our ideas. You are vastly more valuable than your ideas/views/theories.

 

[SelfSim]

Did the story in Exodus and Numbers and some in Deuteronomy, etc. happen in the way described in the text concretely?
(A large group of semitic people (even if only 100,000 or less) wanders the desert for 40 years)

Reading Exodus, Numbers, the text is in many parts just a lengthy string of miraculous or impossible seeming events -- many unnatural events -- only interrupted at times by the giving of law and rules and new religious practices.


But even so, won't there be physical evidence?


Let's look at something that can survive very well in the desert indefinitely (so, not human remains, but something more durable) -- pottery.

Pottery (broken pottery that could be found later in archaeological finds)

Contrast the normal way pottery will break and get discarded to what's actually in the Exodus story:



Of course, that's not normally physically possible -- if you wear a pair of even leather shoes for years of walking (as in the text they are generally on the move) then parts of the shoes will begin wearing out.

But the text says these items were supernaturally maintained.

Their clothes don't wear out (which is physically impossible), and so on.

In the Exodus story that is actually in the text things don't break and fall apart.

Also, in the text, there is no lengthy camping of a kind where they would build up permanent structures and so on, according to the text, but instead the picture is they are usually on the move, not staying all that long anywhere. They can't work on the one time they can stay put reliably -- the weekly Sabbath -- they can't even gather sticks. The Sabbath ends, and the next morning they move out following a column of smoke and fire....

In general, according to the amazing details in the text -- the actual story of Exodus in the text -- no evidence should be found if the text is accurate and actually happened as actual events.

--------------

While this post might possibly (as did some of my previous posts above) make someone angry, I suggest don't be angry, be glad to find out when an old idea/argument/approach in thinking is invalid.

Don't you sometimes actually feel a sense of delight, actually, when an old idea you had is shown invalid? -- it's a good moment to be able to discard a bad idea so that we are freed of it. I often feel a thrill of delight when I can toss an idea I had been talking about already, because it's freeing to toss a bad idea, and get to explore for a better one.

We aren't our ideas. You are vastly more valuable than your ideas/views/theories.

The problem arising is when:
Bible says x, Science says y, never under any circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted .. so go with x.

 

[sjastro]

We have a quite different interpretation of @Halbhh's position. I read it as "The Exodus story is not an accounting of real events, but a parable explaining important developments in the spiritual life of the Hebrews." We cannot both be correct (perhaps neither of us are). I hope @Halbhh will let us know. (My money is on you, and yet . . . . )

What is puzzling is how he tried to initially explain the lack of evidence through natural means.

 

[sjastro]

Did the story in Exodus and Numbers and some in Deuteronomy, etc. happen in the way described in the text concretely?
(A large group of semitic people (even if only 100,000 or less) wanders the desert for 40 years)

Reading Exodus, Numbers, the text is in many parts just a lengthy string of miraculous or impossible seeming events -- many unnatural events -- only interrupted at times by the giving of law and rules and new religious practices.


But even so, won't there be physical evidence?


Let's look at something that can survive very well in the desert indefinitely (so, not human remains, but something more durable) -- pottery.

Pottery (broken pottery that could be found later in archaeological finds)

Contrast the normal way pottery will break and get discarded to what's actually in the Exodus story:



Of course, that's not normally physically possible -- if you wear a pair of even leather shoes for years of walking (as in the text they are generally on the move) then parts of the shoes will begin wearing out.

But the text says these items were supernaturally maintained.

Their clothes don't wear out (which is physically impossible), and so on.

In the Exodus story that is actually in the text things don't break and fall apart.

Also, in the text, there is no lengthy camping of a kind where they would build up permanent structures and so on, according to the text, but instead the picture is they are usually on the move, not staying all that long anywhere. They can't work on the one time they can stay put reliably -- the weekly Sabbath -- they can't even gather sticks. The Sabbath ends, and the next morning they move out following a column of smoke and fire....

In general, according to the amazing details in the text -- the actual story of Exodus in the text -- no evidence should be found if the text is accurate and actually happened as actual events.

Here are the faults in this post.

Now that it is unashamedly a Christian Apologetic post relying on miracles as a support for Exodus, why did you even bother to try to explain the lack of physical evidence on natural causes ranging from birds and wild dogs pecking away at Israelite remains to not being in the Sinai long enough to leave an archaeological record?
The biggest contradiction as shown in the opening paragraph of your post is the suggestion the Israelites numbered 100K or less, when Exodus (and Numbers) explicitly states there were 600K without counting women and children.
Now why would you accept what is basically a literal account of Exodus where miracles account for the lack of evidence but dispute the number of Israelites as stated in Exodus and Numbers?

It doesn’t make any sense.

--------------

While this post might possibly (as did some of my previous posts above) make someone angry, I suggest don't be angry, be glad to find out when an old idea/argument/approach in thinking is invalid.

Don't you sometimes actually feel a sense of delight, actually, when an old idea you had is shown invalid? -- it's a good moment to be able to discard a bad idea so that we are freed of it. I often feel a thrill of delight when I can toss an idea I had been talking about already, because it's freeing to toss a bad idea, and get to explore for a better one.

We aren't our ideas. You are vastly more valuable than your ideas/views/theories.

Relying on strawman attacks that I am an angry person and not intelligent as implied in a previous post along with the condescending and patronizing nature exhibited here is not terribly edifying and is a form of goading.

There are two schools of thought on the Bible the maximalist and minimalist approach.
The maximalist assumes the Bible story is more or less correct, unless archaeologists prove that it is not; minimalists assume the Bible is fiction, unless it can be confirmed archaeologically.

Note the role of archaeology for both approaches particularly when the evidence is found to support the Biblical account, your approach is a cop out and makes as much sense as suggesting there is no evidence of the global flood as God removed the evidence as we have heard so many times from a particular poster.

The maximalists in the form of Biblical archaeologists are still looking for the evidence to support Exodus such as the location of Mt Sinai.

Searching for Biblical Mt. Sinai

Biblical Mt. Sinai has never been identified archaeologically with any scholarly consensus, though several sites have been considered.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

 

[Halbhh]

Now that it is unashamedly a Christian Apologetic post relying on miracles as a support for Exodus, why did you even bother to try to explain the lack of physical evidence on natural causes ranging from birds and wild dogs pecking away at Israelite remains to not being in the Sinai long enough to leave an archaeological record?

Here I realized I'm unclear what you mean -- do you mean I should have posted about those natural causes (as I fact I did), or instead that I should not have?

But perhaps the later makes more sense since I did post about those natural reasons that no human remains would be found.

But that raises a different question in my mind. Why would pointing out some miraculous things in the text then indicate I should not also consider natural causes for remains being erased over time? Let me illustrate.

Example: in the texts of the New Testament, Christ was crucified on a cross. What if someone then demands: "Ok, if that's really so, where are remains of that cross, or the nails?" If we then answer they would naturally be reprocessed by decay, termites, rusting, and so on -- natural causes -- then that doesn't mean we cannot also think the cross was a real event, and believe the miracle of Christ raising from the dead. I.e. -- belief that a miracle could happen doesn't cause me to never consider any physical natural questions around it.

 

[SelfSim]

Here I realized I'm unclear what you mean -- do you mean I should have posted about those natural causes (as I fact I did), or instead that I should not have?

But perhaps the later makes more sense since I did post about those natural reasons that no human remains would be found.

But that raises a different question in my mind. Why would pointing out some miraculous things in the text then indicate I should not also consider natural causes for remains being erased over time?

Because it serves to perpetuate what is clearly a tall story, when that story is clearly contradicted by extensive, controlled site exploration which produced objective evidence admitting a contrary inference.

PS: It comes across as a false equivalency fallacious defense you're advocating .. (in a Physical Sciences forum).

 

[Halbhh]

when that story is clearly contradicted by extensive, controlled site exploration which produced objective evidence admitting a contrary inference.

Ah, I see the part you've not yet included. Let me say it again another way: The text itself indicates that the things one might normally expect to find for a group traversing the desert so many years (40) would not happen according to the actual text specifics(1).....

Example from the text: the text literally says things were prevented from wearing out. Ergo, things you'd then have normally expected to find in the case of a literal wandering in the desert 40 years like discarded worn out shoes are literally explained in the text to not have been discarded.

 

[SelfSim]

Ah, I see the part you've not yet included. Let me say it again another way: The text itself indicates that the things one might normally expect to find for a group traversing the desert so many years (40) would not happen according to the actual text specifics(1).....

The 'text itself' is meaningless from a scientific viewpoint .. so it doesn't matter what explanations it cites, given that none of it is objectively testable .. its just noise in a physical sciences forum.

Example from the text: the text literally says things were prevented from wearing out. Ergo, things you'd then have normally expected to find in the case of a literal wandering in the desert 40 years like discarded worn out shoes are literally explained in the text to not have been discarded.

I understand what you're saying .. but what you're saying is irrelevant because it counts for nothing when it comes to the objective method .. so why keep repeating it?

 

[sjastro]

Here I realized I'm unclear what you mean -- do you mean I should have posted about those natural causes (as I fact I did), or instead that I should not have?

But perhaps the later makes more sense since I did post about those natural reasons that no human remains would be found.

But that raises a different question in my mind. Why would pointing out some miraculous things in the text then indicate I should not also consider natural causes for remains being erased over time? Let me illustrate.

Example: in the texts of the New Testament, Christ was crucified on a cross. What if someone then demands: "Ok, if that's really so, where are remains of that cross, or the nails?" If we then answer they would naturally be reprocessed by decay, termites, rusting, and so on -- natural causes -- then that doesn't mean we cannot also think the cross was a real event, and believe the miracle of Christ raising from the dead. I.e. -- belief that a miracle could happen doesn't cause me to never consider any physical natural questions around it.

Do you realize the natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive; if a process or event can be described naturally then there is no need invoke the supernatural.
This is how naturalism and its evolutionary descendant science works.

In your example the issue is whether the lack of evidence of the cross can be explained naturally or not; it is not about Christ rising from the dead or even he was a historical person.
The lack of evidence of the cross was explained via natural causes, the supernatural was not required.

Regarding the lack of evidence of the Exodus, you have tried to take a bet each way.
For all the reasons given in this thread your attempts to provide natural causes for the lack of evidence have failed and has resulted in this fallback position of God providing for the Israelites means without relying on material possessions such as pottery and being able survive in a hostile environment for a generation.

Parts of the Bible have been historically attested via archaeology from ancient Egypt, Persian empire, Assyrian empire and from Israel and its surroundings; Exodus is not one of them.

 

[sjastro]

Do you realize the natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive; if a process or event can be described naturally then there is no need invoke the supernatural.
This is how naturalism and its evolutionary descendant science works.

In your example the issue is whether the lack of evidence of the cross can be explained naturally or not; it is not about Christ rising from the dead or even he was a historical person.
The lack of evidence of the cross was explained via natural causes, the supernatural was not required.

Regarding the lack of evidence of the Exodus, you have tried to take a bet each way.
For all the reasons given in this thread your attempts to provide natural causes for the lack of evidence have failed and has resulted in this fallback position of God providing for the Israelites means without relying on material possessions such as pottery and being able survive in a hostile environment for a generation.

Parts of the Bible have been historically attested via archaeology from ancient Egypt, Persian empire, Assyrian empire and from Israel and its surroundings; Exodus is not one of them.

Here is some evidence from ancient Egypt regarding Israel; it is the first time the name Israel is mentioned by a foreign power and comes from the Merneptah Stele named after a 19th dynasty pharaoh who crushed the rebellion there.

Another example which is not as definitive, a long line of pharaohs ranging from the 18th to 20th dynasties mention a town in Canaan known as Yenoam which was "made into non existence" according to the Stele but hardly rates a mention in the Bible, it is tentatively associated with the town Janoah mentioned in 2 Kings 15:29 being conquered by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC.

​

Is Janoah in 2 Kings 15:29 Yenoam/Yanoam?

Janoah was a city taken by Tiglath-Pileser III in 733 BC. The other cities he took, Ijon (Khiam), Abel Beth-Maacah (Abil al-Qamh), Kedesh(-Naphtali, 33° 6’48″N, 35°32’1″E), …

againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com

There is considerable archaeological activity in finding the town which would historically attest the Bible.

 

[Neogaia777]

Here is some evidence from ancient Egypt regarding Israel; it is the first time the name Israel is mentioned by a foreign power and comes from the Merneptah Stele named after a 19th dynasty pharaoh who crushed the rebellion there.

View attachment 343644​

Another example which is not as definitive, a long line of pharaohs ranging from the 18th to 20th dynasties mention a town in Canaan known as Yenoam which was "made into non existence" according to the Stele but hardly rates a mention in the Bible, it is tentatively associated with the town Janoah mentioned in 2 Kings 15:29 being conquered by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC.

View attachment 343647
​

Is Janoah in 2 Kings 15:29 Yenoam/Yanoam?

Janoah was a city taken by Tiglath-Pileser III in 733 BC. The other cities he took, Ijon (Khiam), Abel Beth-Maacah (Abil al-Qamh), Kedesh(-Naphtali, 33° 6’48″N, 35°32’1″E), …

againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com

There is considerable archaeological activity in finding the town which would historically attest the Bible.

You are aware of how very powerful Pharoahs or Kings with a huge ego problem wishing to assert themselves or their nations greatness usually record their own history, right?

Let's just say I trust the Bibles story or rendition a whole heck of a lot more than theirs, etc, as the others would never record such an embarrassing fact or truth or event such as this ever accurately into their recorded nations history, etc.

I'm very, very surprised they even made mention of the Israelites actually, etc.

But because they did, do you really think we can fully trust how they wrote down their own history, etc? Especially in this case, etc?

Very, very humiliating and very, very embarrassing, etc.

And I really don't think they would want a record of that, etc.

They would want to say that they drove them out, or crushed them with their own power and might, which is why the Israelites never returned to attack them again, or "something to that effect", etc.

Bottom line, I don't trust men who thought themselves to be God, or a God, to ever accurately write their own history, etc, especially not when it's as humiliating as this, etc.

The Israelites left and never came back, leaving the Egyptians free to write their own history, or what they wanted history to remember as to what they were going to say actually happened, or actually took place, etc, but it's a big fat lie most of the time, and in most cases, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

You are aware of how very powerful Pharoahs or Kings with a huge ego problem wishing to assert themselves or their nations greatness usually record their own history, right?

Let's just say I trust the Bibles story or rendition a whole heck of a lot more than theirs, etc, as the others would never record such an embarrassing fact or truth or event such as this ever accurately into their recorded nations history, etc.

I'm very, very surprised they even made mention of the Israelites actually, etc.

But because they did, do you really think we can fully trust how they wrote down their own history, etc? Especially in this case, etc?

Very, very humiliating and very, very embarrassing, etc.

And I really don't think they would want a record of that, etc.

They would want to say that they drove them out, or crushed them with their own power and might, which is why the Israelites never returned to attack them again, or "something to that effect", etc.

Bottom line, I don't trust men who thought themselves to be God, or a God, to ever accurately write their own history, etc, especially not when it's as humiliating as this, etc.

The Israelites left and never came back, leaving the Egyptians free to write their own history, or what they wanted history to remember as to what they were going to say actually happened, or actually took place, etc, but it's a big fat lie most of the time, and in most cases, etc.

God Bless.

God chose Moses to write the beginnings of Israelite laws and history for one very, very specific reason, etc. And that was because he was called the "most humble man/human being on the planet at that time historically", etc, and that's why God chose him for all of this, etc, because God needed somebody He could trust, and who's ego wasn't at stake here, in order to do this right and properly, and Moses was probably the only person on the whole entire planet who's ego wasn't at stake at this time in question here, etc, which is way, way opposite from any Pharoahs, or Kings, or any of the others around or living/ruling at that time in question here, etc, and since I have learned just how very, very important that is, especially in the areas of being "honest" now, etc, let's just say I trust the Bible's rendition a whole, whole heck of a lot more than anyone else's, etc.

I like how we just so easily accept everyone else's as just solid historical fact though, etc. Except for the Bible that is, etc.

Which is 100% laughable to me, knowing proud men and proud rulers/nations the way I do historically, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

I like how we just so easily accept everyone else's (renditions) as just solid historical fact though, etc.

I don't know of any serious student of history who "easily accepts" any rendition, interpretation, observation, or whatever as "solid historical fact". Rather they will critically evaluate such renditions on the basis of evidence and argument, as it should be. It's mildly offensive that you make a cavalier dismissal of the positions that others may have arrived at through careful consideration. Ultimately though, this reflects much more upon you than upon them, doing no favours for your argument or your supposed objectivity.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't know of any serious student of history who "easily accepts" any rendition, interpretation, observation, or whatever as "solid historical fact". Rather they will critically evaluate such renditions on the basis of evidence and argument, as it should be. It's mildly offensive that you make a cavalier dismissal of the positions that others may have arrived at through careful consideration. Ultimately though, this reflects much more upon you than upon them, doing no favours for your argument or your supposed objectivity.

I get a little "whatever you want to call it", worked up I guess, etc, whenever I even start thinking about the arrogance of certain kinds of people, or certain kinds of men, and for I apologize, or am sorry, etc. I just don't like even thinking about it I guess, and it gets me every time, etc. Not any of you on here's arrogance of course, but other people in the past, or throughout history, and that is still sometimes even in this modern day, etc. So I am sorry, ok.

So to get off of that for a minute, and maybe get into some of what you and I are talking about right now maybe, etc, no, nothing should be accepted as just well established/known fact very easily, etc.

Now if this Egyptian evidence can be corroborated by several other pieces of evidence, and then if any of that has anything to say about the exodus, etc, then I would consider that, etc. But I'm not just going to take what only Egypt records as it's own history at face value only, etc. In my opinion that can't be trusted, for reasons I already said, or already tried to explain, etc.

God Bless.