Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Brian2]

This stuff is candy for people who like to believe in wu.

Yes it is, it's great stuff that is clear evidence of the truth of the conquest and Joshua's reading of the curses. The writing is dated to very early. There is no problem with the Mt Ebal site being a cultic site and with an earlier altar being possibly below that site. But also it could be the very altar that Joshua used.
But of course it is the more recent curse tablet found there which adds to the evidence of the truth of the Biblical account,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, doesn't it? To deny the site after that find sounds extremely odd. No, what am I saying, it sounds just what Biblical minimalists would do.

 

[Brian2]

We have for too long tended to view the cultures of Midian, Moab, Phonecia, etc., through the lens of the Torah. So too Northern Israel.


What evidence did you have in mind?


And when it comes to tornados in Kansas the evidence is abundant. Furthermore, human history is laced with plagues and "plagues similar to those iin the Exodus story" is a laughably wishy-washy category whose worth is limited to that of serving as fodder for confirmation bias.

As for the Ipuwer Papyrus ...

The Ipuwer Papyrus has been dated no earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty, around 1250 BCE[1][5] but it is now agreed that the text itself is much older, and dated back to the Middle Kingdom, though no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty.[2] The Admonitions is considered the world's earliest known treatise on political ethics, suggesting that a good king is one who controls unjust officials, thus carrying out the will of the gods.[6] It is a textual lamentation, close to Sumerian City Laments and to Egyptian laments for the dead, using the past (the destruction of Memphis at the end of the Old Kingdom) as a gloomy backdrop to an ideal future.[7]

... Ipuwer has often been put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the biblical account of the Exodus, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" and its frequent references to servants running away. This assertion has not gained acceptance among scholars. There are disparities between Ipuwer and the narrative in the Book of Exodus, such as that the papyrus describes the Asiatics as arriving in Egypt rather than leaving. The papyrus' statement that the "river is blood" phrase may refer to the red sediment colouring the Nile during disastrous floods, or simply be a poetic image of turmoil.[10]​

In other words:

1. The lament genre was relatively common.
2. The circa 1250 BCE consensus date for the papyrus itself comes after the date championed by you for the Exodus.
3. The Middle Kingdom consensus date for composition is significantly earlier than the date championed by you for the Exodus.
4. The so-called parallels that inspire you are minimal, ambiguous, or wrong.

The Ipuwer Papyrus is noteworthy only because you very much want it to be so.



From Wikipedia: New Chronology (Rohl) # Reception By Evangelicals ...

In December 1999, the Dutch language internet journal Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie (Bible, History and Archaeology) devoted space to a debate about Rohl's New Chronology. According to evangelical scholar, J.G. van der Land, editor of the journal, Rohl's time-line resolves some archaeological anomalies surrounding ancient Egypt, but creates conflicts with other areas that make it untenable.[45] His arguments were then countered by Peter van der Veen and Robert Porter.[46][47] In the final article in the issue, van der Land identified some new issues for Rohl's chronology arising from recent finds in Assyrian letters.[48]​

Following link-48 one arrives here. It begins ...

On top of the evidence already given in our previous articles 'Pharaohs and the Bible', and 'Rohl's new chronology does not accommodate the Philistines', we here present new proof that Rohl's chronology is really untenable.​

It summarizes ...

In David Rohl's proposed new chronology Adad-nirari I, Salmanassar I and Tukulti-ninurta I of Assyria, together with the Hittite kings Hattusilis III and Tuthalyas IV, would have lived between about 950 and 850 B.C. This cannot be correct, however, since Assyria was ruled by other kings during that period. Letters from Babu-ahu-iddina, a chancellor under the above named three Assyrian kings, and drafts of letters written to him by the above Hittite kings prove this. Therefore, Rohl's proposed chronology cannot possibly be correct.​

...


...

It's an academic dispute and of course there are disagreements and arguments from both sides. Rohl might be right and the old chronology people has just worked out all this stuff with the idea that the old chronology is right, and how could it be understood any differently.
Rohl might be wrong and that would mean for me that I would probably go back to the old understanding of who the pharaoh of the Exodus in the 15th cent could have been that sort of fits with the Bible anyway. (I think it was Amenhotep 11)
But of course if Rohl's chronology is wrong that does not mean that all the other archaeological evidence which Rohl and others present for Israel being in Egypt and for the plagues and for the conquest having been around 1400 BC is wrong.
It's easy to be overwhelmed by the "consensus" as if that is what has to be the whole truth.
For me, it is the Bible which is true and a historical document and archaeologists etc have just made mistakes in understanding when and where it was referring to and understanding just what was meant.
As a Christian who believes in an evil Satan I also would add that the whole attack on the Pentateuch has been orchestrated. Documentary hypothesis, naturalistic methodology in the study of the Bible, Archaeological errors in the archaeology of Jericho, misinterpretations of dating and meaning of Biblical passages. It's a comedy of errors but it is interesting that the alternative evidence for the truth of the Torah has not been destroyed, just hidden so that it is harder for people to see it.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

To deny the site after that find sounds extremely odd

I agree entirely. The scripture should be taken to be true unless proven otherwise. Archaeology can only provide the nessessary evidences. It cannot provide sufficient evidence. Thus, in case of uncertainty we must accept scripture over archaeology.

 

[Brian2]

I agree entirely. The scripture should be taken to be true unless proven otherwise. Archaeology can only provide the nessessary evidences. It cannot provide sufficient evidence. Thus, in case of uncertainty we must accept scripture over archaeology.

That is what I tend to do with the Bible, or at least try to harmonize the 2 somehow.
It would be more complicated for you if you want to harmonize more than one set of scriptures and archaeology.

 

[joelr]

Yes it is, it's great stuff that is clear evidence of the truth of the conquest and Joshua's reading of the curses.

No it's not "clear" at all? I don't understand why you are making things up?
Aharon Kempinski claimed the site was an Iron Age I watchtower

3 more scholars who disagreed????
Israel Finkelstein claimed that "it is clear that the description of the construction of the Mount Ebal altar by Joshua reflects a later reality - and historically it is difficult to accept that there was a central worship site of the early Israelites at such an early date as Zertal suggested."[23] To strengthen his claim, Finkelstein added that the identification is uncertain because "there are considerable difficulties in identifying the main structure as an altar: the difference between this structure and other Israelite altars"; However, Finkelstein believes that this is indeed a ritual site.[24] Benjamin Mazar was also of the opinion that this was a ritual site.[25] Nadav Ne'eman suggested identifying the site with the ritual site of Shechem during the early Iron Age.[25]

Then the critique wasn't even valid, it was just crank apologetics??
"Finkelstein's critique, arguing that it stemmed from his preconceived rejection of the historicity of the Bible"

Uh, no, how about they are trained archaeologists and don't thing the time period or the structures match?? No that isn't it, it's only because he doesn't believe the same theology as Finkelstein? So Finkelstein then wants to take away all of the actual motives and reasons for these professionals making their statements and claim it's not that but rather it's because of their belief systems. So he doesn't get his way and becomes a disrespectful manipulator? Gross.

It's like if I found an old toaster in a field and a UFO nut was like "it might be alien tech?" and I said "I think it's an old toaster from 1960" and the UFO nut said "you just think that because of your preconceived rejection of UFO's"
That is literally how crazy apologetics gets.

Then that fundamentalist website goes and has a party and a press conference? (hint - money is involved here somewhere)

The writing is dated to very early. There is no problem with the Mt Ebal site being a cultic site and with an earlier altar being possibly below that site. But also it could be the very altar that Joshua used.
But of course it is the more recent curse tablet found there which adds to the evidence of the truth of the Biblical account,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, doesn't it? To deny the site after that find sounds extremely odd. No, what am I saying, it sounds just what Biblical minimalists would do.

There are no Bible minimalists and maximalists. If it doesn't look like an alter or is dated to a different time than that's what it is. You don't force history into boxes you want them to be in if you care about what is true.

It's proto-Canaanite (why do you keep ignoring this?) which confirms the Israelites came from Canaan which is NOT IN THE BIBLE.
It isn't a question that Israelites existed and made a language. That isn't surprising. Of course they had a language and built temples? Curses are not surprising. They were done for good weather, sickness, many reasons. It also shows that just like the Egyptians and Mesopotamians the Israelites believed in curse stones. Funny no one today in the religion uses curse stones? Hmmm, is that because it's witchcraft voodoo nonsense and this is excellent proof that there was no actual God telling people what was what but rather Israelites were just copying what they saw other nations doing? Why yes it is.

A curse stone is not a remnant of a battle? The conquest stories are not found to be real. Peacefully emerging from Canaan is what archaeology shows and this proto language backs that up. Not Biblical but that's because those are just stories.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's an academic dispute and of course there are disagreements and arguments from both sides. Rohl might be right and the old chronology people has just worked out all this stuff with the idea that the old chronology is right, and how could it be understood any differently.
Rohl might be wrong and that would mean for me that I would probably go back to the old understanding of who the pharaoh of the Exodus in the 15th cent could have been that sort of fits with the Bible anyway. (I think it was Amenhotep 11)
But of course if Rohl's chronology is wrong that does not mean that all the other archaeological evidence which Rohl and others present for Israel being in Egypt and for the plagues and for the conquest having been around 1400 BC is wrong.
It's easy to be overwhelmed by the "consensus" as if that is what has to be the whole truth.
For me, it is the Bible which is true and a historical document and archaeologists etc have just made mistakes in understanding when and where it was referring to and understanding just what was meant.
As a Christian who believes in an evil Satan I also would add that the whole attack on the Pentateuch has been orchestrated. Documentary hypothesis, naturalistic methodology in the study of the Bible, Archaeological errors in the archaeology of Jericho, misinterpretations of dating and meaning of Biblical passages. It's a comedy of errors but it is interesting that the alternative evidence for the truth of the Torah has not been destroyed, just hidden so that it is harder for people to see it.

Thanks. I appreciate your clarity and transparency.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yes. Hindu krishna was born in distress. Infant taken across the river. Killed kansa.mitsrite. went to study with sandipani.jethro. came back. Led the yadavas to an unknown country. Fight of brothers killing brothers took place. There is more please.

Not only was I thinking of Krishna but the guy who played Bishma in the 80’s reminds me of Charlton Heston’s portrayal of Moses.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This video is from the same website? An organization that believes in creationism. A fundamentalist group. All non-fundamentalists are asking for a peer-reviewed paper. Where is that?
The non-fundamental archaeologists didn't think it was an alter. Wow, what a surprise. The "evidence" is not he Joshua altar at all? That's what they want you to believe for donations and rallying fundamentalists.

"Many archaeologists did not accept the identification of the site as an altar or its identification with Joshua's altar."

"Israel Finkelstein claimed that "it is clear that the description of the construction of the Mount Ebal altar by Joshua reflects a later reality - and historically it is difficult to accept that there was a central worship site of the early Israelites at such an early date as Zertal suggested."[23] To strengthen his claim, Finkelstein added that the identification is uncertain because "there are considerable difficulties in identifying the main structure as an altar: the difference between this structure and other Israelite altars"; However, Finkelstein believes that this is indeed a ritual site.[24] Benjamin Mazar was also of the opinion that this was a ritual site.[25] Nadav Ne'eman suggested identifying the site with the ritual site of Shechem during the early Iron Age."

And then we get the typical fundamentalist apologist complaint "oh you are not a believer so you must be wrong" as if that makes any sense? If it doesn't look like an altar it might not be? He's basically saying oh you don't have the cognative bias we all have so you can't be correct??

"Zertal attacked Finkelstein's critique, arguing that it stemmed from his preconceived rejection of the historicity of the Bible, "

Right because it's always that you reject the Bible and not because you simply don't believe the findings are of a temple? It can't be that simple? No, it's always a weird attack on non-belief? Ridiculous. Get me out of here.

"Precautionary archaeological indicators suggest that a peer-reviewed academic process of publishing is required before ascertaining how old and how valid this find is. Certain academics suggest that this makes this find a “bit off” or symptomatic of an overdeveloped imagination."

Yes, highly likely considering the source.
One guy asked if the stone "burned" people because of the curse??
Great. I'm sure Islam has lots of finds that prove Gabrielle visited Muhammad or some sort of supernatural artifact. This stuff is candy for people who like to believe in wu.

@Jayhawker Soule @joelr I have been following parts of the long discussion between you and [USER=68079]@Brian2. I am putting forth my understanding of this discussion to check whether I have understood correctly.
Joelr-Jayhawker's view is that the Israelites evolved from the local proto-Canaanites and the Exodus never happened. He relies mainly on the lack of archaeological evidence of a military conquest in Israel.
Brian's view is that such evidence actually exists but Joelr-Jayhawker refuses to accept it.

I request both of you to confirm my understanding is correct. Then I will try to respond to both. Thanks.[/USER]

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Not only was I thinking of Krishna but the guy who played Bishma in the 80’s reminds me of Charlton Heston’s portrayal of Moses.

There are many important differences between Bhishma and Moses. Most notably, he was not born in distress, he had no brother like Aaron, and never left his homeland (as Krishna did).

 

[joelr]

@Jayhawker Soule @joelr I have been following parts of the long discussion between you and [USER=68079]@Brian2. I am putting forth my understanding of this discussion to check whether I have understood correctly.
Joelr-Jayhawker's view is that the Israelites evolved from the local proto-Canaanites and the Exodus never happened. He relies mainly on the lack of archaeological evidence of a military conquest in Israel.
Brian's view is that such evidence actually exists but Joelr-Jayhawker refuses to accept it.

I request both of you to confirm my understanding is correct. Then I will try to respond to both. Thanks.[/USER]

Well I'm going with archaeologists who work on it for one -
Remembering the Exodus - Carol Meyers
So even though most of the early Israelites had not themselves made the exodus from Egypt, they adopt this story as part of their heritage.
Yes. While very few Israelites may have actually made the trek across Sinai, it becomes the national story of all Israelites and is celebrated in all kinds of ways. Their agricultural festivals become celebrations of freedom, for instance. Many aspects of a new culture emerge and are linked with the "memories" of exodus.

The people who made the exodus from Egypt remember the experience, relive it, recreate it in rituals. They pass their rituals on to others, to future generations and to other people. We do this in our own American lives: Very few of us have ancestors who came over on the Mayflower, and yet that story has become part of our national story.

And scholars like - Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a British biblical scholar and broadcaster. She is currently Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion.

Who demonstrates the Bible is very similar to Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Sumerian and so on, in it's theology, the way the Gods are spoken about and their character, the stories. One Proverbs book is literally an Egyptian book copied verbatim. It's believed hte creation tale is a re-working of Mesopotamian creation/flood, Garden of Eden, Job and other stories are not original....
Cultures had myths. The Israelites were no different. We don't study American Indian myths for actual events. We do it for Biblical events because Rome made the religion law and evangelical groups spread it around the world and some people still think it's a history book.
It's religious mythology and it's not supposed to be history.

Dever: We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yes. While very few Israelites may have actually made the trek across Sinai, it becomes the national story of all Israelites and is celebrated in all kinds of ways.

Thx. The idea of an adopted national story seems to have two anchors.1. no evidence for exodus from egypt. 2. No evidence for violent capture of israel. The first is well taken. The second seems to be based on the absence of archaeological evidence for large.scale violence. Is there NO evidence or LESS evidence of such violence? Your discussion seemed to say there is limited evidence.
Evidence for the first point is available plenty from Indus valley. That would make the national story real.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

There is no need to posit acontradiction between history and beyond. There may have been lapses of memory but to say that all history is made up is not correct because we do not look for the evidence at the right place. It is like denying ww2 because there is no evidence of war in South America

 

[Brian2]

There is no need to posit acontradiction between history and beyond. There may have been lapses of memory but to say that all history is made up is not correct because we do not look for the evidence at the right place. It is like denying ww2 because there is no evidence of war in South America

It's a case of looking for evidence in the wrong time slot, 200 years after the evidence for the conquest exists in Canaan.

 

[River Sea]

@Ehav4Ever

The Letter H in your original manual looks Modern Hebrew H. Can you help me with this?

How do you find these manuals that you show?

Modern Hebrew H

Hebrew word for hit מכה
Look how modern that is. How does original manual have modern Hebrew letters?


H Letter

Paleo-Hebrew Dictionary that's the old H correct, how come I don't see that in your original manual, can you help me with this? Thank you

Your thoughts about this?

Oh what does the word Exodus look like in original manual. Shəmot (שְׁמוֹת, literally "Names")— Exodus, from Ἔξοδος (Éxodos, "Exit") What is the Oral Torah what does the letters look like? Is it Shemot but there's no vowels? What is Shemot without vowels?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It's a case of looking for evidence in the wrong time slot, 200 years after the evidence for the conquest exists in Canaan

Am I right that evidence for conquest is available at 1400.1500 bce?

 

[Brian2]

Am I right that evidence for conquest is available at 1400.1500 bce?

There is evidence that the conquest began at around 1400BC.
The dating of the Jericho destruction has been messed up over the years and the majority do not want to accept the dating of around 1400.
The interpretation of Joshua has been messed up also and only a few cities were actually destroyed to the ground, burned. The rest were left for Israel to inhabit.
Most of the Canaanites were not conquered and so there ended up being a mix of Canaanite and Israelite in Canaan for a long time and most of the architecture etc would have been Canaanite even if the Israelites were using the buildings etc. This has contributed to Archaeological and historical inaccuracies also.
BUT the evidence is there if you have eyes to see.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

There is evidence that the conquest began at around 1400BC.

I like this. Around 1400 bce is before 1400 or after 1400? The conventional date for birth of Moses isc1525 bce. At 80 years exodus would have started at 1445 bce. 40 years of wilderness would reach them at 1405 bce. Is that your understanding also?

 

[Brian2]

I like this. Around 1400 bce is before 1400 or after 1400? The conventional date for birth of Moses isc1525 bce. At 80 years exodus would have started at 1445 bce. 40 years of wilderness would reach them at 1405 bce. Is that your understanding also?

Yes that is my understanding also.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The Letter H in your original manual looks Modern Hebrew H. Can you help me with this?

Modern Hebrew is derived from ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew two distinct scripts were used for different types of texts.

The following video may help about the two scripts that were used in ancient Israeli/Jewish writings.

How do you find these manuals that you show?

If you are asking about Torah Scrolls, they are not called manuals, the following video may help.

Hebrew word for hit מכה
Look how modern that is. How does original manual have modern Hebrew letters?

Because Torath Mosheh Jews are responsible for influencing modern Hebrew. When Modern State of Israel Hebrew was being developed about 90% of it came from ancient Hebrew that already existed for thousands of years. I.e. they didn't invent a new language they simply modernized what already existed for thousands of years.

For example, below is a copy of a Dead Scroll from more than 2,200 years ago. I think we can agree that 2,200 years ago is ancient so as you can Hebrew from 2,200 years ago and modern Hebrew script look similar.

H Letter View attachment 67000 Paleo-Hebrew Dictionary that's the old H correct, how come I don't see that in your original manual, can you help me with this? Thank you

Paleo-Hebrew, as a script, was used for certain types of documents in Ancient Israel but it was not the only script used. In fact, if you look through History you will see that different fragments of texts found from about 3,000 years have different methods of writing the letter you are referencing. My above videos discuss this.

Oh what does the word Exodus look like in original manual. Shəmot (שְׁמוֹת, literally "Names")— Exodus,

The below is how the name of the part of the Torah you are asking about.

The text, for Torath Mosheh Jews, has always been called Shemoth. It is named after the first few words that start off this part of the Torah. The name "exodus" did not come from Torath Mosheh Jews. It came later Hellonized translators into Greek, and not from Hebrew.

from Ἔξοδος (Éxodos, "Exit") What is the Oral Torah what does the letters look like? Is it Shemot but there's no vowels? What is Shemot without vowels?

See my above response.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yes that is my understanding also.

May it be possible for u to provide links to the evidence at 1400 bce?I would be thankful.