Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Riders]

This is the saying that´s on it?Cursed, cursed, cursed—cursed by the God yhw
You will die cursed
Cursed you will surely die
Cursed by yhw—cursed, cursed, cursed.

Who are they cursing?

 

[joelr]

I will have to do research to provide evidence. I recall some member posting the limited evidence on this tread. That sais, before I do research, do you believe that Joshua's conflicts did not exist at all, or were they local?

Like Dever says it's probably a small amount of truth in there somewhere.

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

 

[Brian2]

This is the saying that´s on it?Cursed, cursed, cursed—cursed by the God yhw
You will die cursed
Cursed you will surely die
Cursed by yhw—cursed, cursed, cursed.

Who are they cursing?

God had told Joshua to go build an altar on Mt Ebal and to read the curses in the Law to the people. The curses would be enacted by God against the Jews if they refused to be faithful to YHWH in the land He had given them. The curses included exile from the land.
In the same way on Mt Gerizim, next to Mt Ebal, the blessings in the Law were read. The blessings would be done by God to the people if they were faithful and kept His law.

We can see these things happening in the history of Israel in the promised land. They were disobedient and God allowed them to be attacked and defeated by the enemies around them and then when they repented and cried out to God, God gave them victory over their enemies and peace and prosperity.
Eventually things got so bad that first the northern Kingdom was exiled by the Assyrians and the the southern Kingdom (Judah) by the Babylonians. This exiling was after God warning and sending prophets to tell them to come back to God.
The southern Kingdom was brought back to Israel after the exile to Babylon but 40 years after the rejection and crucifying of Jesus they were exiled again.

 

[Brian2]

Like Dever says it's probably a small amount of truth in there somewhere.

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

You refuse to accept and probably to even look at the evidence to the contrary. For you the stories in the Bible have to be false so you look to the archaeological evidence which has it all wrong in the timing of the conquest and so gets the rest of it's archaeology wrong.
I don't mind to admit that I am biased in my view but the truth also is that you are biased also and your bias is a sceptic bias that goes so far as to deny the existence of Jesus. If you deny such a plain historical truth,
is it any wonder that you do not want to acknowledge evidence for other things in the Bible.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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.

Thank u Bill for this info. I do not recall wether joshua merely conquered or also destroyed. Could it be that battles were flight outside the cities leaving little archaeological evidence? Has dever.s work been criticise? Pl provide links if u may. Also what is the evidence at 1400 bce? Thx.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You refuse to accept and probably to even look at the evidence to the contrary.

Can u pl provide links for evidence of battles at 1400 bce? I do accept the historicity of the bible. We need more evidence though.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This exiling was after God warning and sending prophets to tell them to come back to God.

But why have the Jews been persecuted even when in minority?

 

[joelr]

You refuse to accept and probably to even look at the evidence to the contrary. For you the stories in the Bible have to be false so you look to the archaeological evidence which has it all wrong in the timing of the conquest and so gets the rest of it's archaeology wrong.

First you have no evidence the archaeology is wrong. The crank archaeology you presented has been debunked in many ways.
Next you have to demonstrate that supernatural events happened. You don't just assume they did. Otherwise every story gets to do the same. That would mean that Christians and Jews are liars because Gabrielle said so. So your entire theology is completely wrong. You cannot just say " yeah but only my supernatural stories are the real ones, all the others you can assume they are false".
You are just using confirmation bias to keep yourself locked in a circular logic of false beliefs with no interest in what is actually true. You want to suspend rational thinking for your beliefs but employ them for all others.

You are completely wrong about "evidence to the contrary". I looked into that. It fails on every level . Even radiometric dating. What I actually am refusing is to use confirmation bias to force a myth to be true.

I looked at that evidence. When is the last time you listened to a historical scholar talk about the OT? Never. YOu just say they have a "bias". So you are the one who is refusing to look at evidence to the contrary. Why do so many religious people say that when they are the ones who NEVER explore different points of view?

I don't mind to admit that I am biased in my view but the truth also is that you are biased also and your bias is a sceptic bias that goes so far as to deny the existence of Jesus. If you deny such a plain historical truth,
is it any wonder that you do not want to acknowledge evidence for other things in the Bible.

I don't have to deny anything? I just follow the evidence. It is a demonstrated fact that the odds for Jesus being a historical person is about 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism. I don't deny there was a human Jesus who was mythicized into a Hellenistic savior demigod. It's possible. Either way, human man or myth, the Gospel narratives are myth.

Dr Carrier and Lataster have scholarly monographs detailing the evidence of why mythicism is slightly favored. Prove them wrong, I'm open. I would read any book that claims to debunk them.
So far the reviews by apologists are not even reviews and in every case they did not even read the book. Carrier writes posts on reviews looking for good criticism and it turns out they literally didn't read his book.
His debates with Trent Horn and other historians were good but there was no clear victor. This is besides the point but it shows you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Since his work was peer-reviewed and is being studied by other scholars many in the field have come to his camp. There are now 26 scholars who agree with his position

"There are legitimate reasons to doubt Jesus existed, even as a mundane man whose legend became exaggerated (which is, definitely, always plausible too). These reasons have survived peer review—twice. And yet a common fallacy deployed against this fact is that “no relevant experts take this seriously.” This is already a fallacy. Once there is a multiply-corroborated peer-reviewed challenge to a consensus, that means it’s substantial enough that the consensus needs to be re-examined on the new evidence and analysis presented. It might survive that examination. But you still have to do it. You can’t just say “no one takes it seriously” as an excuse to not even conduct that examination (see my remarks on this in What I Said at the Brea Conference).

Nevertheless, here I will dispatch the mere premise of this argument, the claim that “no one takes it seriously.” I will maintain here an ongoing list of all those bona fide exerts—scholars with actual and relevant PhDs (many of them even sitting or emeritus professors of the subject)—who do take it seriously. I previously had maintained this list in response to Bart Ehrman’s deployment of this fallacy. But the number of scholars who meet even his absurdly narrow criteria—and even more so any genuinely pertinent criteria—has grown so large it needs its own page now. So here it is.

In the following list I present in bold text those historians who either doubt the historicity of Jesus or have admitted to being agnostic about it (as in, they are unsure whether he existed or not). All the other scholars listed are convinced Jesus existed—they still don’t think “Mythicism” is probable (the idea that Jesus is entirely, and not just partially, mythical)—but they have gone on record admitting that at least some theories of the origin of Christianity without a real Jesus can be plausible enough that the debate is worth taking seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand as crackpot.

List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

Thank u Bill for this info. I do not recall wether joshua merely conquered or also destroyed. Could it be that battles were flight outside the cities leaving little archaeological evidence? Has dever.s work been criticise? Pl provide links if u may. Also what is the evidence at 1400 bce? Thx.

His book on this is - Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?

The general consensus is this:
"According to the Bible, the Israelites are the descendants of Jacob, who was later renamed Israel. Following a severe drought, Jacob and his twelve sons fled to Egypt, where they eventually formed the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The Israelites were later led out of slavery in Egypt and subsequently brought to Canaan by Moses; they eventually conquered Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Modern scholars agree that the Bible does not provide an authentic account of the Israelites' origins, and instead view it as constituting their national myth. However, it is accepted that this narrative does have a "historical core" to it.[11][12][13]"

1. ^ Faust 2015, p.476: "While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt..".
2. ^ Redmount 2001, p. 61: "A few authorities have concluded that the core events of the Exodus saga are entirely literary fabrications. But most biblical scholars still subscribe to some variation of the Documentary Hypothesis, and support the basic historicity of the biblical narrative."
3. ^ Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?. Eerdmans. pp. 98–99. ISBN 3-927120-37-5. After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible "historical figures" [...] archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit.

We will get an entirely different result if we examine the evidence from the indus valley.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Next you have to demonstrate that supernatural events happened.

What supernatural events are u speaking of? Jesus or Moses?

 

[Riders]

So are there other Exodus stories about other countries from different cultures that are similar to the old Testament?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

So are there other Exodus stories about other countries from different cultures that are similar to the old Testament?

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.

 

[joelr]

We will get an entirely different result if we examine the evidence from the indus valley.

There is a 700 year gap. Genesis was written in 6 BC around the Babylonian exile. Why does Exodus need to be anything but a national foundation myth?

 

[joelr]

What supernatural events are u speaking of? Jesus or Moses?

You mentioned events in the Bible. There are many stories about Gods, angels, divine beings, in the OT.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The ti.e

There is a 700 year gap. Genesis was written in 6 BC around the Babylonian exile. Why does Exodus need to be anything but a national foundation myth?

A history of ww2 written in 2022 does not mean that ww2 took place in 2022. Same for the Bible. The exodus was real. It matches with the travels from the Indus valley to israel.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You mentioned events in the Bible. There are many stories about Gods, angels, divine beings, in the OT.

No bouncing please. No vague deflections. Pl give 2 specific events from the Torah.

 

[Brian2]

Can u pl provide links for evidence of battles at 1400 bce? I do accept the historicity of the bible. We need more evidence though.

This article by the archaeologist Bryant G Wood is one I have posted before but it is a good place to see that Jericho was destroyed around 1400BC. the Biblical date for the start of the conquest.

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/3625-the-walls-of-jericho

This video seems to have plenty of evidence for the 1400BC conquest date.

 

[Brian2]

But why have the Jews been persecuted even when in minority?

That's a good question. Prejudice amongst Christians seems to be a main cause. Digging deeper we see in the Bible that Satan is angry and set out to destroy the Jews (Revelation 12:13-17)---this will no doubt be a cryptic passage to understand)

 

[Brian2]

First you have no evidence the archaeology is wrong. The crank archaeology you presented has been debunked in many ways.
Next you have to demonstrate that supernatural events happened. You don't just assume they did. Otherwise every story gets to do the same. That would mean that Christians and Jews are liars because Gabrielle said so. So your entire theology is completely wrong. You cannot just say " yeah but only my supernatural stories are the real ones, all the others you can assume they are false".
You are just using confirmation bias to keep yourself locked in a circular logic of false beliefs with no interest in what is actually true. You want to suspend rational thinking for your beliefs but employ them for all others.

You are completely wrong about "evidence to the contrary". I looked into that. It fails on every level . Even radiometric dating. What I actually am refusing is to use confirmation bias to force a myth to be true.

David Rohl is only one of many archaeologists that say the conquest happened and in about 1400BC. David Rohl is a qualified Egyptologist and Archaeologist and all he is criticised for is his wanting to change the chronology of the Pharaohs of Egypt, which other also want to do. Most of the other evidence he presents about Israel in Egypt and the Exodus and Conquest does not need his changed chronology to be true.
Archaeology is not or should not be based on whether supernatural events happened or not. Archaeology is archaeology and that is all. (btw David Rohl is an agnostic)

I looked at that evidence. When is the last time you listened to a historical scholar talk about the OT? Never. YOu just say they have a "bias". So you are the one who is refusing to look at evidence to the contrary. Why do so many religious people say that when they are the ones who NEVER explore different points of view?

Check out this article if you want a summary of the various tests etc at Jericho.
The Walls of Jericho - Associates for Biblical Research