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

[AV1611VET]

This thread is about the evidence of the Moses exodus,

Let's see it then.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And that's completely up to you.

God Bless.

And my main point wasn't about the religious claims you make that are meaningless to me, but rather to fact that it is off topic. Stick to the exodus. It is perfectly normal to be a believing Christian or Jew and not accept every detail of the exodus story. (I never put much weight into it. The truth of the story was not part of my reason to believe.)

 

[Neogaia777]

And my main point wasn't about the religious claims you make that are meaningless to me, but rather to fact that it is off topic. Stick to the exodus. It is perfectly normal to be a believing Christian or Jew and not accept every detail of the exodus story. (I never put much weight into it. The truth of the story was not part of my reason to believe.)

K, but I'm pretty much done with that topic for now, so I'll just troll for a while and see what the rest of you have to say until I feel like posting again, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

K, but I'm pretty much done with that topic for now, so I'll just troll for a while and see what the rest of you have to say until I feel like posting again, ok.

God Bless.

I think you mean "lurk". Trolling is a different activity on message boards.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think you mean "lurk". Trolling is a different activity on message boards.

Yeah, ok, lurk/observe then.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, ok, lurk/observe then.

I'd say there's nothing to see.

Literally.

 

[Halbhh]

In that time they have found Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites but no Late Bronze Age sites attributed to the Israelites in the period 1550-1200 BC.

Yes, I was explaining a new detail of why I expect that no evidence should ever be found in post #45 above. Was it too long to read though? Sometimes I write too long a post I think.

If you are like me, sometimes a topic can get tedious and it seems pointless to read even another 10 sentences finally, especially if you think you already know what a person will say.

That's just a normal tragedy of discussions like this.

I can try to write it into just 2 or 3 sentences if you ask me.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, I was explaining a new detail of why I expect that no evidence should ever be found in post #45 above. Was it too long to read though? Sometimes I write too long a post I think.

If you are like me, sometimes a topic can get tedious and it seems pointless to read even another 10 sentences finally, especially if you think you already know what a person will say.

That's just a normal tragedy of discussions like this.

I can try to write it into just 2 or 3 sentences if you ask me.

I have read a sufficient number of your sentences to understand you believe Exodus is true and is engaging in this rather futile exercise of explaining away the lack of archaeological evidence.

Can the lack of evidence explain away other problems with Exodus such as the Sinai’s arid environment making it impossible to support 2M or 100K people and a greater number of herd animals for a forty year occupation, or how Egypt continued to prosper in the early New Kingdom when most of the 2M or 100K people served as slaves?

Here is something else to consider, one reason why the Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years was that its western and eastern flanks were protected by desert.
Egypt’s southern flank with Nubia was vulnerable which is why the Egyptians built extensive fortifications along the Nile to protect this flank.
Before the domesticated horse was introduced to the Middle East circa 2300 BC, a military invasion from the east could be only accomplished by foot soldiers, the absence of horses not only reduced mobility but also the capability of logistic supply lines for an advancing army in the desert.
An army of foot soldiers would have perished long before it reached the Nile.
The gradual incursion of Egypt from the east were from the Hyksos who also introduced the horse to Egypt starting from around 1800 BC.

In Exodus the 2M or 100K also served as a fighting force but according to Deuteronomy 17:16, God did not permit the accumulation of horses least the Israelites were tempted to return to Egypt.
If you now look at Exodus purely as a military campaign how were the Israelites able to fight their way out of Egypt and successfully battle through the Sinai and Negev deserts to the promised land without horses in supply chains and on the battlefields?
Once again the simplest explanation is that all these problems disappear if Exodus never happened.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have read a sufficient number of your sentences to understand you believe Exodus is true and is engaging in this rather futile exercise of explaining away the lack of archaeological evidence.

Can the lack of evidence explain away other problems with Exodus such as the Sinai’s arid environment making it impossible to support 2M or 100K people and a greater number of herd animals for a forty year occupation, or how Egypt continued to prosper in the early New Kingdom when most of the 2M or 100K people served as slaves?

Here is something else to consider, one reason why the Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years was that its western and eastern flanks were protected by desert.
Egypt’s southern flank with Nubia was vulnerable which is why the Egyptians built extensive fortifications along the Nile to protect this flank.
Before the domesticated horse was introduced to the Middle East circa 2300 BC, a military invasion from the east could be only accomplished by foot soldiers, the absence of horses not only reduced mobility but also the capability of logistic supply lines for an advancing army in the desert.
An army of foot soldiers would have perished long before it reached the Nile.
The gradual incursion of Egypt from the east were from the Hyksos who also introduced the horse to Egypt starting from around 1800 BC.

In Exodus the 2M or 100K also served as a fighting force but according to Deuteronomy 17:16, God did not permit the accumulation of horses least the Israelites were tempted to return to Egypt.
If you now look at Exodus purely as a military campaign how were the Israelites able to fight their way out of Egypt and successfully battle through the Sinai and Negev deserts to the promised land without horses in supply chains and on the battlefields?
Once again the simplest explanation is that all these problems disappear if Exodus never happened.

Seeing as you don't accept the numbers that it was around 20K or so, and don't accept that God was with them and was supplying them/supporting them supernaturally, or other naturally, then I can see why or how you would conclude that the exodus never happened.

But if you do include these things, and accept the reduced numbers, then it is way more than totally possible that it did actually happen, etc.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

Seeing as you don't accept the numbers that it was around 20K or so, and don't accept that God was with them and was supplying them/supporting them supernaturally, or other naturally, then I can see why or how you would conclude that the exodus never happened.

But if you do include these things, and accept the reduced numbers, then it is way more than totally possible that it did actually happen, etc.

God Bless.

We started off with 2M total which is a consistent number based on the 600K men as mentioned in both Exodus and Numbers without including women and children, down to 100K and now further reduced to 20K.
Even 20K doesn't explain away the problems, they were still in the wilderness for forty years and the archaeological evidence for the Neolithic nomadic groups which predate the Exodus indicated they existed in small groups like the modern Bedouin which made them mobile and the Sinai was a transit region.

Since this thread is in a science forum the emphasis is on providing the evidence and not relying on the supernatural.

 

[Halbhh]

futile exercise of explaining away the lack of archaeological evidence.

Yes -- that's what I said above -- there cannot be evidence in this instance because the nomadic group was under rules that would not allow them to bury bodies, so therefore:

A body wrapped in linen and left behind overnight will of course then be visited by the local scavengers. Here's one kind:

And then the bones will be investigated and normally broken for the marrow. The animal has strong jaw strength and can break bones.

Maybe this is more clear now?


Now, we'd have been talking of a different group not under the rules Israel is under in the text, then it would have been quite different, where some people just settle somewhere and bury bodies in a secure way, etc. That's what we know didn't happen, according to the text.

So, see, you were talking past me, and actually agreeing with my point in a way....

 

[Halbhh]

If you now look at Exodus purely as a military campaign how were the Israelites able to fight their way out of Egypt and successfully battle through the Sinai and Negev deserts to the promised land without horses in supply chains and on the battlefields?
Once again the simplest explanation is that all these problems disappear if Exodus never happened.

Ah! Or that they literally they had food given to them as the text claims....
heh heh.....this is somewhat amusing here. (I don't feel I'm involved in that debate, but I'm merely mentioning what's clear in the text)

You know that this kind of thing indeed isn't at all verifiable by evidence, not even in principle.... (e.g. food left behind on the surface of the desert won't last that long)

You know that sometimes I point out that miracles by definition aren't easily observable to people later in time? I can explain that more, but perhaps it's obvious to someone like you if you just consider it a minute?

I suppose a much more interesting question is whether miracles could ever happen, yes? It seems if God exists, then by definition they can, right?

Now as you might know, I seem to have to explain over and over to various fundamentalists that their notions are just wrong....

But that doesn't at all mean I think God doesn't exist or that all miracles are ruled out. Just the wrong ideas of certain fundamentalists are what I'd rule out.... The ones that do indeed have evidence against them -- actual physical evidence. Notice that a lack of evidence proves nothing much (something might be found later, etc.), but a presence of evidence can prove some certain limited things.

 

[sjastro]

Yes -- that's what I said above -- there cannot be evidence in this instance because the nomadic group was under rules that would not allow them to bury bodies, so therefore:

A body wrapped in linen and left behind overnight will of course then be visited by the local scavengers. Here's one kind:

View attachment 343259

And then the bones will be investigated and normally broken for the marrow. The animal has strong jaw strength and can break bones.

View attachment 343260

Maybe this is more clear now?


Now, we'd have been talking of a different group not under the rules Israel is under in the text, then it would have been quite different, where some people just settle somewhere and bury bodies in a secure way, etc. That's what we know didn't happen, according to the text.

So, see, you were talking past me, and actually agreeing with my point in a way....

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.

From 1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284 sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the group. They found that the larger center sites were "base sites" where central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said "In most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos."

So why do most archaeologists say the Exodus never happened? Because the pottery they've found in the Sinai is from about 4,500 years ago, while the traditional date for the Exodus is only about 3,500 years ago.

 

[Neogaia777]

We started off with 2M total which is a consistent number based on the 600K men as mentioned in both Exodus and Numbers without including women and children, down to 100K and now further reduced to 20K.
Even 20K doesn't explain away the problems, they were still in the wilderness for forty years and the archaeological evidence for the Neolithic nomadic groups which predate the Exodus indicated they existed in small groups like the modern Bedouin which made them mobile and the Sinai was a transit region.

Since this thread is in a science forum the emphasis is on providing the evidence and not relying on the supernatural.

You never even bothered to look at the paper/article.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

Ah! Or that they literally they had food given to them as the text claims....
heh heh.....this is somewhat amusing here. (I don't feel I'm involved in that debate, but I'm merely mentioning what's clear in the text)

You know that this kind of thing indeed isn't at all verifiable by evidence, not even in principle.... (e.g. food left behind on the surface of the desert won't last that long)

You know that sometimes I point out that miracles by definition aren't easily observable to people later in time? I can explain that more, but perhaps it's obvious to someone like you if you just consider it a minute?

I suppose a much more interesting question is whether miracles could ever happen, yes? It seems if God exists, then by definition they can, right?

Now as you might know, I seem to have to explain over and over to various fundamentalists that their notions are just wrong....

But that doesn't at all mean I think God doesn't exist or that all miracles are ruled out. Just the wrong ideas of certain fundamentalists are what I'd rule out.... The ones that do indeed have evidence against them -- actual physical evidence. Notice that a lack of evidence proves nothing much (something might be found later, etc.), but a presence of evidence can prove some certain limited things.

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

 

[sjastro]

You never even bothered to look at paper/article.

God Bless.

You keep on trotting out this remark on a regular basis, show us how the article also refutes Exodus which states 600K men where involved in the Exodus.

 

[Neogaia777]

You keep on trotting out this remark on a regular basis, show us how the article also refutes Exodus which states 600K men where involved in the Exodus.

It does, if you'd look at it.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

It does, if you'd look at it.

God Bless.

You made the statement which puts the burden of proof on you to support it, I am not going to do your homework.

 

[Neogaia777]

You made the statement which puts the burden of proof on you to support it, I am not going to do your homework.

Whatever man.

If you won't even give the paper a once over, then there is really no point.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever man.

If you won't even give the paper a once over, then there is really no point.

God Bless.

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.