Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Christians claim slaves built the pyramids, these military quarters claimed they built the pyramids.

So what do u say?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The Bible does not tell us that Israelites in Egypt built the pyramids. If Christians say that slaves built the pyramids then that probably comes from the ignorance of those Christians.
History and the Bible do tell us of the existence of slavery in Egypt however and that Israelites in Egypt were made into slaves by the Government and forced to do hard labour.

I think neither history nor bible says they were made slaves.

 

[Brian2]

There is no slavery here. In fact, these verses tell of the pharaoh being afraid of the Jews. Taskmasters cannot be extended to slavery. It only indicates reduction of wages.

You are quibbling over the exact meaning of a Hebrew word when the exact meaning does not make any difference to what was happening.
The King was scared because of the increase in numbers of the Israelites and wanted to make sure they did not increase in number any more and so oppressed them with harsh labour to somehow slow down the birthrate. That did not work and so Pharaoh turned to killing the male new born babies. You can read all of this in Exodus 1.
And this harsh labour was not just servanthood with reduced wages. If it was, then the Israelites would have been able to just quit their jobs and left Egypt, but Pharaoh would not allow that to happen.

 

[Brian2]

Why start from a contradiction between theology and archaeology? Let us look at other interpretations as well as locations for exodus.

I look at other interpretations of the Bible (that the exodus and conquest stories are lies and the Exodus was at about 1250 BC) and also I look at various interpretations of the archaeological material and for me, since I am a Christian, the best approach is to go with the Biblical interpretation (the Exodus and Conquest stories are true and Exodus happened at around 1450BC) that allows the archaeological interpretation of the data to line up with the Bible.
With an 1450 BC Exodus the conquest archaeology of Canaan matches the conquest story in Joshua.
Why would I want to agree with anything else unless I did not like the supernatural elements in the story and wanted to say the Exodus did not happen or unless I was worried by what is called a consensus of archaeologists agreeing that the Exodus is a myth, as if a vote amongst archaeologist determined the truth.
So imo I have to start with a seeming contradiction between theology and archaeology but actually end up with no contradiction between them.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Christians claim slaves built the pyramids, these military quarters claimed they built the pyramids.

You may have to consider that you may have to decide, with something like this, who would have the most accurate information about such an event. For example, who understands most if not all of the languages of the region being discussed. Who can actually show you in said languages what is written and explain historically what it means. Also, who ancestors actually are the people in question. That could help you determine a lot of things for such a question.

 

[joelr]

The very fact that there is admittedly no direct evidence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence leads us to examine other interpretations as well as locations for the exodus narrative.

Yes and the other interpretation is that it's a mythology like all other religious stories.
Not only that but we have direct evidence that other books from that period in the OT are definitely re-workings of Mesopotamian and other mythologies. So the idea that this one is historical is unlikely.

Also archaeologists now know that the Israelites came from Canaan. The early proto-Israelite villages are on Canaan soil with no sign of armed conflict (another story in the OT that isn't true, armed conquest).
So why would an unlikely story in the middle of other fiction need to be true?



The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.



Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.
Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yes and the other interpretation is that it's a mythology like all other religious stories.
Not only that but we have direct evidence that other books from that period in the OT are definitely re-workings of Mesopotamian and other mythologies. So the idea that this one is historical is unlikely.

Also archaeologists now know that the Israelites came from Canaan. The early proto-Israelite villages are on Canaan soil with no sign of armed conflict (another story in the OT that isn't true, armed conquest).
So why would an unlikely story in the middle of other fiction need to be true?



The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.



Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.
Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

Enuma elish throws no light whatsoever on the exodus.

 

[Sheldon]

Fiction is far better at revealing the truth than the facts will ever be.

Do you ever consult a dictionary?

fiction
noun

1. literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people.
2. something that is invented or untrue.

Fact
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You may have to consider that you may have to decide, with something like this, who would have the most accurate information about such an event. For example, who understands most if not all of the languages of the region being discussed. Who can actually show you in said languages what is written and explain historically what it means. Also, who ancestors actually are the people in question. That could help you determine a lot of things for such a question.

Science is never complete. We must try to examine on the basis of what we know.

 

[joelr]

Enuma elish throws no light whatsoever on the exodus.

Yes it does. It demonstrates they were writing their myths based on older stories. Meaning they were writing fiction. So Exodus is a fictitious tale of their origins.

The archaeology that shows they came from Canaan shows the Exodus story isn't literal. It's a national foundation myth.

Archaeologist William Dever:

Q: Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?

Dever: We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."

Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Q: Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?

Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.

 

[Brian2]

Yes it does. It demonstrates they were writing their myths based on older stories. Meaning they were writing fiction. So Exodus is a fictitious tale of their origins.

The archaeology that shows they came from Canaan shows the Exodus story isn't literal. It's a national foundation myth.

Archaeologist William Dever:

Q: Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?

Dever: We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."

Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Q: Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?

Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.

The Epic of Gilgamesh provides evidence for the flood of Genesis unless you hold the view that the Jewish scriptures cannot be a record the truth so must have been made up or copied from other religions.
The Enuma Elish creation myth has some similarities to the Genesis account but also major differences. There probably is no reason to say Genesis was copied from Enuma Elish unless that is part of your philosophy about religions and so any perceived similarity has to mean the later one is copied from the earlier one.

Dever is one of the archaeologists who have accepted the misinterpretations of the book of Joshua and the misinterpretations of the archaeological evidence to come up with theories that completely deny the Biblical narrative.
If you are interested in a bit of a history of this comedy of errors and misinterpretations here is a site which can help you understand them:

Joshua's Lost Conquest - Associates for Biblical Research

Here is another site with more evidence of the truth of the conquest story:

Top Ten Discoveries Related to Joshua and the Conquest

So the conquest story is correct and began around 1400 BC.
There is also evidence for Israel having been in Egypt and for the 12 tribes and Joseph there.
I know you don't like David Rohl but these finds in the short videos below have nothing to do with his ideas on the Chronology of Egypt, it is pure archaeological evidence.
Interestingly there is evidence for the plagues of Egypt also but I have not the time to search for a site about this and if you take in all the evidence I have provided it is enough.

 

[Brian2]

Science is never complete. We must try to examine on the basis of what we know.

If you want some information about Israel having been in Egypt and about the truth of the conquest narrative in the book of Joshua please see post 51

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

If you want some information about Israel having been in Egypt and about the truth of the conquest narrative in the book of Joshua please see post 51

I have no questions about Joshua. Gilgamesh went to dilmun where he was told about the flood by utnapishtim. So the flood took place in dilmun which is identified with indus valley by Kramer. I agree with u that bible was not copied from enigma elish. It is not a question of looking or not looking rohl. His thesis of eden at lake can is not supported by archaeological evidence. The area was fragile and not a garden. It is a dead saline lake that has no connection with rivers. He is high on tenuous similarities of names. I believe bible is correct. Only we have been looking at the wrong place.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yes it does. It demonstrates they were writing their myths based on older stories. Meaning they were writing fiction. So Exodus is a fictitious tale of their origins.

The archaeology that shows they came from Canaan shows the Exodus story isn't literal. It's a national foundation myth.

Archaeologist William Dever:

Q: Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?

Dever: We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."

Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Q: Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?

Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.

The similarities with enuma elish can also mean that enuma copied from biblical oral traditions. Further, even if it is held that enuma was fiction it does not mean that exodus was fiction. Pl give me 3 fictional statements from exodus and I will show u how they match with the indus valley.
The fact that they did not come from Canaan also supports that they came from the indus valley.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You may have to consider that you may have to decide, with something like this, who would have the most accurate information about such an event. For example, who understands most if not all of the languages of the region being discussed. Who can actually show you in said languages what is written and explain historically what it means. Also, who ancestors actually are the people in question. That could help you determine a lot of things for such a question.

T
It would help if you would write what such study may show. There are always differences among experts. We need to discuss instead of bouncing. Please n thx.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I look at other interpretations of the Bible (that the exodus and conquest stories are lies and the Exodus was at about 1250 BC) and also I look at various interpretations of the archaeological material and for me, since I am a Christian, the best approach is to go with the Biblical interpretation (the Exodus and Conquest stories are true and Exodus happened at around 1450BC) that allows the archaeological interpretation of the data to line up with the Bible.
With an 1450 BC Exodus the conquest archaeology of Canaan matches the conquest story in Joshua.
Why would I want to agree with anything else unless I did not like the supernatural elements in the story and wanted to say the Exodus did not happen or unless I was worried by what is called a consensus of archaeologists agreeing that the Exodus is a myth, as if a vote amongst archaeologist determined the truth.
So imo I have to start with a seeming contradiction between theology and archaeology but actually end up with no contradiction between them.

I like yr post. There is no contradiction between theology and archaeology if we look at the indus valley archaeology for the period before the exodus.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

T
It would help if you would write what such study may show. There are always differences among experts. We need to discuss instead of bouncing. Please n thx.

What it means that @Riders would need to determine what method of historical analysis she would use to determine if an event happened historically or not. I gave her a few sources from Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish communites, Samaritans, and Karaite view points that she can review.

If there is some other valid source or method that can be provided by those who possess them and she can weigh it all and decide what makes sense.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Science is never complete. We must try to examine on the basis of what we know.

Of course it is not. I never stated it was.

The question that Riders asked though is more in the realm of convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence when establishing historical facts. In order for a person to do that they have to know what they are even looking for in the first place to deal with such.

BTW - For thousands of years Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews been examining what we know. It is literally an every day thing for us [Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews].

 

[joelr]

The Epic of Gilgamesh provides evidence for the flood of Genesis unless you hold the view that the Jewish scriptures cannot be a record the truth so must have been made up or copied from other religions.
The Enuma Elish creation myth has some similarities to the Genesis account but also major differences. There probably is no reason to say Genesis was copied from Enuma Elish unless that is part of your philosophy about religions and so any perceived similarity has to mean the later one is copied from the earlier one.

No reason???? Besides the fact that it's clearly been used as the inspiration for Genesis. All historical scholarship recognizes this? Yes religions copy other religions? You have to have actual evidence to think that this one time a deity actually exists and then talks to people (but acts suspiciously/exactly like all the other Gods since Sumer and the people write all the same things about this God as all others so that would be already weird) and there isn't evidence. Yahweh is a fictional deity. His consort Ashera is also fictional.

"The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.



Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

1 He fashioned heavenly stations for the great gods,

2 And set up constellations, the patterns of the stars.

3 He appointed the year, marked off divisions,

4 And set up three stars each for the twelve months.

5 After he had organized the year,

6 He established the heavenly station of Ne-beru to fix the stars' intervals.

7 That none should transgress or be slothful

8 He fixed the heavenly stations of Enlil and Ea with it.

9 Gates he opened on both sides,

10 And put strong bolts at the left and the right.

11 He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,

12 He created Nannar, entrusting to him the night.

13 He appointed him as the jewel of the night to fix the days,

14 And month by month without ceasing he elevated him with a crown,

15 (Saying,) "Shine over the land at the beginning of the month,

16 Resplendent with horns to fix six days.

17 On the seventh day the crown will be half size,

18 On the fifteenth day, halfway through each month, stand in opposition.

19 When Šamaš [sees] you on the horizon,

20 Diminish in the proper stages and shine backwards.

21 On the 29th day, draw near to the path of Šamaš,

22 . [ . . ] the 30th day, stand in conjunction and rival Šamaš.

Dever is one of the archaeologists who have accepted the misinterpretations of the book of Joshua and the misinterpretations of the archaeological evidence to come up with theories that completely deny the Biblical narrative.
If you are interested in a bit of a history of this comedy of errors and misinterpretations here is a site which can help you understand them:

If you think there are misinterpretations in Joshua then please link to a peer-reviewed paper explaining the mistakes and the scholarship behind it. I am not interested in conspiracy theories.
The Gospel coalition is even moving to a position where Joshua is more of a mythology than history.
Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture

Dever accepts what evidence presents. He doesn't hear about a conspiracy theory that was made up to make an ancient story true and support it. Like all his peers he is interested in doing actual archaeology. Not apologetics and fundamentalism.

Joshua's Lost Conquest - Associates for Biblical Research

Here is another site with more evidence of the truth of the conquest story:

Top Ten Discoveries Related to Joshua and the Conquest

" Christian Apologetics Ministry Dedicated to Demonstrating the Historical Reliability of the Bible through Archaeological and Biblical Research."

is their tag line. That is ridiculous. Right up front they are telling you they are not doing research or archaeology but looking only for confirmation of what they believe is true.

Please link to something peer-reviewed. Not fundamentalism nonsense. Islamic fundamentlism also says the Quran is the only true word of God. Cool, not interested. If you have left the truth behind to pretend at finding things that support what you want to be true then good for you, have fun. I'm interested in things that are true.

Archaeology is completely in consensus on this, it has not supported Biblical narratives.
"William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
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."

That is an honest assessment of what is going on. People telling you otherwise are lying to you.

So the conquest story is correct and began around 1400 BC.
There is also evidence for Israel having been in Egypt and for the 12 tribes and Joseph there.
I know you don't like David Rohl but these finds in the short videos below have nothing to do with his ideas on the Chronology of Egypt, it is pure archaeological evidence.
Interestingly there is evidence for the plagues of Egypt also but I have not the time to search for a site about this and if you take in all the evidence I have provided it is enough.

No, we are done with this. I don't "not like" Rohl, his work has been debunked. By a Harvard professor, by radiometric dating, by no actual support from any scholar, or by the fact that he is a SALESMAN????????
He's selling over a dozen books including -
Gateway to Atlantis: The Search for the Source of a Lost Civilization
and
'
The Lords of Avaris: Uncovering the Legendary Origins of Western Civilisation

if you haven't figured out that he is the Stanton Friedman of OT fundamentalists than maybe someday that will happen.

Guess what, there are tons of books that show Jesus was a creation of the Roman Empire or a copy of Horus and astrological cults were the basis for Christianity. Heavily researched as well. And total crank. Historians read this stuff and laugh. Peer-review exists for a reason.
If fake history is fun for you then do what you must I guess.
[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

The similarities with enuma elish can also mean that enuma copied from biblical oral traditions.

The Israelites emerged from the Canaanites after 1200 B.C.
William Dever, Biblical archaeologist -
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.


The Mesopotamian myths are 1 thousand years older. There were no Israelites. You understand that every civilization made up a mythology that started with the creation and put their people back at the beginning being the first created by their deity. This is fiction. The OT is no exception.

Further, even if it is held that enuma was fiction it does not mean that exodus was fiction. Pl give me 3 fictional statements from exodus and I will show u how they match with the indus valley.
.

It doesn't take 40 days. The writers were familiar with the Indus Valley. That isn't how the Israelites even came to be, they are displaced Canaanites.
You understand the story can be fiction while the writers can have knowledge of an actual place from their travels or from other stories that were similar?

Anyway, 3 statements?

And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.
And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.


- In religio-mythology, baby in basket on river is a reoccurring aspect of Osiris legend (see: Osiris rescripts), wherein a new god as baby is said to have been “exposed in his infancy upon the Nile”, generally placed there in a “reed basket”, “ark”, or “chest”, and set afloat, the most famous retelling of which being the birth of Moses.

Like Moses, Krishna was placed by his mother in a reed boat and set adrift in a river to be discovered by another woman. The Akkadian Sargon also was placed in a reed basket and set adrift to save his life. In fact, "The name Moses is Egyptian and comes from mo, the Egyptian word for water, and uses, meaning saved from water, in this case, primordial." Thus, this title Moses could be applied to any of these various heroes saved from the water.




- And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.

-
Furthermore, Moses's rod is a magical, astrology stick used by a number of other mythical characters. Of Moses's miraculous exploits, Walker also relates:

"Moses's flowering rod, river of blood, and tablets of the law were all symbols of the ancient Goddess. His miracle of drawing water from a rock was first performed by Mother Rhea after she gave birth to Zeus, and by Atalanta with the help of Artemis. His miracle of drying up the waters to travel dry-shod was earlier performed by Isis, or Hathor, on her way to Byblos."


-And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying,

-
Moreover, the famed Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Hindu Vedas, among others. As Churchward says:

"The 'Law of Moses' were the old Egyptian Laws . . . ; this the stele or 'Code of Hammurabi' conclusively proves. Moses lived 1,000 years after this stone was engraved."

Walker relates that the "stone tablets of law supposedly given to Moses were copied from the Canaanite god Baal-Berith, 'God of the Covenant.' Their Ten Commandments were similar to the commandments of the Buddhist Decalogue. In the ancient world, laws generally came from a deity on a mountaintop. Zoroaster received the tablets of law from Ahura Mazda on a mountaintop."

Offline Illumination
Acharya S
Archaeologist, Historian, Linguist, Mythologist
Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece

The fact that they did not come from Canaan also supports that they came from the indus valley

That isn't what archaeology shows?

Again -
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.




It also the vast consensus that Genesis was written not as history but using older myths for theology


Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

"As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into later Israelite history.
cAlmost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast."



Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel