Exodus evidence

[BCP1928]

Yes, you're right. But I was intending, and apparently not clearly, to convey the idea that the complementary idea is relevant too: that human writing being what it is throughout history doesn't imply in some absolute way that the Biblical account of the Exodus is in all respects "false." Yet, all too often, that is what is stated, that a lack of evidence 'means' a lack of possible reality.

Granted. What is often forgotten (or ignored in the heat of discussion) is what is really being argued about is not a real historical Exodus itself (if any) but about the biblical narrative of the Exodus.

Then, too, if we go more steps forward in our Historiography as well as with our Critical, Literary appraisals of the Old Testament, we can bring in the Documentary Hypothesis and cause all sorts of inferential damage.

But the Documentary Hypothesis itself does not pose a threat to the divine inspiration of scripture, only to those who claim that if scripture is divinely inspired it must be thus-and-so.

But in that process, I often wonder if applying it doesn't also leave some smaller, however seemingly insignificant, implications open for the possibility of the life of Moses and the Exodus account.

It certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility.

 

[Astrid]

There's more discoveries. Yes, far more.
Behold, Ron Wyatt;

 

[AV1611VET]

There's more discoveries. Yes, far more.
Behold, Ron Wyatt;

Looks like he was a busy man.

Did you read the first comment under the video?

I believe Ron Wyatt told the truth. I have studied body language as well as statement analysis. I do not see any deception. Why so many people are willing to discredit this man, is beyond me. No other person in my lifetime that I have found or have ever seen, discovered and committed their life to the hard work of simply following the leading of the Holy Ghost in searching prayerfully for Biblical evidence of the Bible. That was Ron's passion. I have read every thing he has ever written seen every bit of footage ever filmed. He was a genuine Christian, a imperfect humble man. A dedicated believer. He used his own money, spent countless hours in very physical and exhausting work, put his health and well being on the line, and was literally 'spent' for the witness of the truth of the Bible for the salvation of souls. He did not do this to get attention for himself. He simply wanted to be a vessel to help others see that God is real! The Word of God completely trustworthy. I look forward to meeting this brother in heaven one day!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ya -- like how did the Israelites get into the desert if the Exodus didn't happen?

Does your philosophy handle that?

YES. "My philosophy".....................of History, along with other fields of Philosophy and Historiography, does address it. Just not in the literal, simple way that your church does.

 

[Astrid]

"a lot of it is literally not true?" is probably a stretch. Much depends on how one interprets a passage or section, the Bible can be inerrant and contain passages that are intended to be taken allegorically or instructive and not as history, but some people choose to view it as literal, compromising its integrity.

Of course much rests on what is meant by
" true', and, every other sort of interpretation.
Like how much is " a lot"!

It sure was not written by lawyers!

To me, there are truths all through the bible, truths
about human nature, how we should live.
Much like in our ( Chinese) traditions. The old
Chinese stories don't tend to be " true" either, being
that the described events didn't actually happen.

Other stories are of things that did happen- tho accounts
are incomolete, one sided and contain factual errors.
Like what is in newspapers!

To me, that generally doesn't really matter.

There's no " proof" of God. That is for Faith.

I like your use of the word " integrity", though I'm not sure anyone can compromise the integrity of the bible.


I've not made myself popular by saying so, but it's the
those with their sketchy interpretation whose integrity
is compromised.

As in my comment that one can be a yec by faith,
but it's impossible for an educated yec to be intellectualy honest.

But anyway, to your questioning my " a lot of it is not
literally true" i take that back. It's too broad- brush,
and it's not even to the point.


Thanks for getting me thinking about that.

( even if it is the middle of the night)

 

[Astrid]

You should be very careful before you thank anybody. If indeed there is evidence of an "exodus" at anything like the right time, the Children of Abraham worldwide would rejoice at the discovery. You, however, might be in big trouble. If the Exodus discovered differed in the least particular from the account in the Bible then your interpretation of Scripture and the doctrines which require it are done for. It would be a disaster for you. You might even have to become a Methodist.

Just not a Hunter Biden type methodist

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Granted. What is often forgotten (or ignored in the heat of discussion) is what is really being argued about is not a real historical Exodus itself (if any) but about the biblical narrative of the Exodus.

Sure, but even I'd stall at the insistence of inferring that the "real historical Exodus" can only be seen as a mere mass migration of this people group or that one. If that's all it was, then not only am I a dime's width away from ditching the Bible, but also much of what passes as ancient narrative or even history. Fortunately for me, I'm not all that open to the whims of mere suggestions of interpretation of evidences.

But the Documentary Hypothesis itself does not pose a threat to the divine inspiration of scripture, only to those who claim that if scripture is divinely inspired it must be thus-and-so.

If it's not handled carefully and allowed to be open to the same sauce of scrutiny that any other interpretive method of texts should be open to, the Bible does run a serious chance of being flung directly into the oncoming freight train of irrelevancy by the Documentary Hypothesis, especially in conjunction with the findings--or failed findings--in Archaeology. It'd be a sad thing for me if the Bible was somehow shown in absolute terms to be irrelevant for the purposes for which its various books were written.

It certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility.

Along with someone like Pascal and his outlook, I'd certainly hope that it doesn't.

 

[Bobber]

None of the supernatural events have left
any material sign detectable to anyone
but Ron Wyatt.

Are you talking about things of the Exodus? If so that is just not true. Other teams of individuals have been to the suspected sites of miracle events that took place and have discovered the same things. Like suba divers going to the suspected crossing in the Red Sea or the extension of it called a Peninsula and have found under water the same thing.....And Wyatt wasn't there with them at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you talking about things of the Exodus? If so that is just not true.

That's the thing about educatees.

They won't go there themselves and check it out.

They'll just mimic what they've heard others say.

And even if you show them pictures and videos, they'll just poo-poo them.

Then they'll show US pictures of their beliefs and expect us to believe it right away.

I think they call it the "scientific method."

 

[Astrid]

Are you talking about things of the Exodus? If so that is just not true. Other teams of individuals have been to the suspected sites of miracle events that took place and have discovered the same things. Like suba divers going to the suspected crossing in the Red Sea or the extension of it called a Peninsula and have found under water the same thing.....And Wyatt wasn't there with them at all.

I'm talking about all of the supernatural
events.

Lack of any remains shouldn't discourage you. God, if he exists, clesrly does not
skatter proof about- which is fair, for lo, with proof of God, o what use is Faith?

This Wyatt guy is simply a fraud, a con man.

Nobody in the archaeological community has a trace of respect for him.

Ftm, his " Noah's ark" is a common geological formation,
an eroded anticline. In aerial photo you can see another
like it, a bit smaller, quite nearby.
Sheep mountain in Wyoming state USA is a nice big one.

His Sodom and Gomorrah are ordinary badlands.

The windmills Don Quixote said were dragons at least move and could kill you.


" Other teams". No names or dates of course.

Zero real archaeology.


Don't be so easy to fool.

Google Image Result for https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6dbbb7478d91375c1ed5c064aa10e7e

 

[AV1611VET]

This Wyatt guy is simply a fraud, a con man.

"Is"?

Maybe you don't know him as well as you think you do?

 

[Mrpp]

I will give you credit in attempting to use archaeology to identify the Habiru as the Israelites in the Exodus instead of relying on miraculous events found in the Bible which archaeology and science in general cannot account for.
The Armana letters were written in Akkadian rather than Egyptian and dated from the reigns of the pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaton in the 18th dynasty and covers the period from c. 1360–1332 BC.

If we map the regions and towns where the Habiru are mentioned in all the Armana letters we come up with the following.

View attachment 349316​

If the Habiru are identified as being the Israelites we have a problem, in Joshua 19:47 the northern most limit of the Israelites conquest of the region is the town Leshem near Mt Hermon which became the boundary.
Mt Hermon however is just south of Damascus, yet Habiru activity extends north to Kadesh which some 60-70 years later was the site of the first recorded pitched battle in history and resultant peace treaty between the Egyptian and Hittite empires.

Then there are the references to the Habiru in far off places such as modern Turkey, Cyprus and Iraq which strongly supports the original meaning of Habiru as a generic term describing the social status of people such as rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, bowmen, servants, slaves, and laborers.

It is the chronology however which completely destroys the idea of the Habiru being Israelites, they are also mentioned in texts centuries older than the Armana letters by the Sumerians who referred to the Habiru as trespassers.

I was actually aware of it long before I made that post and it is not problem. I never claimed that all habiru were Israelits but I said Israelits under Joshua were habiru and that is diffrence and I knew it was social term. From later Egyptians conquest we know Israelits were not the only one attacking caanan but also Hitties were involved so some of habiru were Hitties and some habiru were also others. We know it was Joshua cause one of letters says that Habiru attacking were slaves and that is heavily implied those were Joshua. Also timing with Egyptian conversion and around that period when Bible says it happenes strongly prooves that at least some of Habiru were Joshua Israelits/

 

[Astrid]

I was actually aware of it long before I made that post and it is not problem. I never claimed that all habiru were Israelits but I said Israelits under Joshua were habiru and that is diffrence and I knew it was social term. From later Egyptians conquest we know Israelits were not the only one attacking caanan but also Hitties were involved so some of habiru were Hitties and some habiru were also others. We know it was Joshua cause one of letters says that Habiru attacking were slaves and that is heavily implied those were Joshua. Also timing with Egyptian conversion and around that period when Bible says it happenes strongly prooves that at least some of Habiru were Joshua Israelits/

Of what value are such calculations in
support of a non- historical event?

 

[Mrpp]

Of what value are such calculations in
support of a non- historical event?

Based on sum of all evidence presented.

 

[Neogaia777]

Of what value are such calculations in
support of a non- historical event?

Based on sum of all evidence presented.

And based on the evidence, I don't think we can call the exodus, or even a somewhat literal Genesis, non-historical just yet.

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

Based on sum of all evidence presented.

Rephrased as you must not have understood...

Since Exodus, or flood, say, did not actually happen,
what good does it do to study supposed detaild?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since Exodus, or flood, say, did not actually happen, what good does it do to study supposed details?

Good question.

Looks like science can't help you out of this one.

What evidence is there that Jesus was laid in a tomb?

None.

All evidence is gone.

Yet it is one of the fundamental Christian beliefs.

 

[sjastro]

I was actually aware of it long before I made that post and it is not problem. I never claimed that all habiru were Israelits but I said Israelits under Joshua were habiru and that is diffrence and I knew it was social term. From later Egyptians conquest we know Israelits were not the only one attacking caanan but also Hitties were involved so some of habiru were Hitties and some habiru were also others. We know it was Joshua cause one of letters says that Habiru attacking were slaves and that is heavily implied those were Joshua. Also timing with Egyptian conversion and around that period when Bible says it happenes strongly prooves that at least some of Habiru were Joshua Israelits/

Even if not all Habirus were Israelites the problem is with the chronology, if Joshua is contemporary with the pharaoh Akhenaton and the Exodus occurred 40 years beforehand this takes us to the early part of Amenhotep III's reign.
According to Egyptologists Amenhotep's reign was extremely prosperous as evidenced by the high level of building activity which occurred during his reign.
If we accept Exodus and Numbers, the number of Israelites that fled Egypt was around 600,000 men which would mean a total of around 2 million including women and children.
Not only would this represent a sizeable reduction in ancient Egypt's workforce but also a significant decrease in its population.
It would have been impossible for Amenhotep III's reign to be prosperous let alone accelerate the building activity during this period.

 

[Mrpp]

Even if not all Habirus were Israelites the problem is with the chronology, if Joshua is contemporary with the pharaoh Akhenaton and the Exodus occurred 40 years beforehand this takes us to the early part of Amenhotep III's reign.
According to Egyptologists Amenhotep's reign was extremely prosperous as evidenced by the high level of building activity which occurred during his reign.
If we accept Exodus and Numbers, the number of Israelites that fled Egypt was around 600,000 men which would mean a total of around 2 million including women and children.
Not only would this represent a sizeable reduction in ancient Egypt's workforce but also a significant decrease in its population.
It would have been impossible for Amenhotep III's reign to be prosperous let alone accelerate the building activity during this period.

Egyptologist Arielle Kozloff reports growing evidence of a surprising and prolonged pause in the otherwise heavy documentation of Amenhotep III’s reign. She writes that the gap almost certainly signifies a national crisis, adding that evidence is mounting of massive deaths from epidemics, reminiscent of the biblical tenth plague. She cites documentary evidence that important officials died and had to be replaced when the crisis drew to a close. She suspects that this pharaoh’s first-born son died during this period, as did his inlaws, Thuya and Yuya, both of whom died of malaria. Amenhotep III ordered hundreds of statues of war and plague goddess Sekhmet to be made and prayed to; Kozloff believes this was in response to the epidemics. His Sekhmet worship may have biblical significance. The first biblical plague may have led the Egyptians to focus their prayers for relief from the biblical plagues by replicating an Egyptian myth in which Sekhmet turned the Nile’s waters red with blood. Furthermore we have descriptions from of heavy building by Israelits so we can assume most of those buildings were started to be built before exodus or even before Amenhotep 3.

 

[Astrid]

Egyptologist Arielle Kozloff reports growing evidence of a surprising and prolonged pause in the otherwise heavy documentation of Amenhotep III’s reign. She writes that the gap almost certainly signifies a national crisis, adding that evidence is mounting of massive deaths from epidemics, reminiscent of the biblical tenth plague. She cites documentary evidence that important officials died and had to be replaced when the crisis drew to a close. She suspects that this pharaoh’s first-born son died during this period, as did his inlaws, Thuya and Yuya, both of whom died of malaria. Amenhotep III ordered hundreds of statues of war and plague goddess Sekhmet to be made and prayed to; Kozloff believes this was in response to the epidemics. His Sekhmet worship may have biblical significance. The first biblical plague may have led the Egyptians to focus their prayers for relief from the biblical plagues by replicating an Egyptian myth in which Sekhmet turned the Nile’s waters red with blood. Furthermore we have descriptions from of heavy building by Israelits so we can assume most of those buildings were started to be built before exodus or even before Amenhotep 3.

Does your egyptologist connect evidence of
a crisis to the exodus story, or is that your
interpretation?