New Evidence Confirms The Burning Of Jerusalem By Babylonians Described In The Bible

[Polymath257]

I believe the events in Exodus date before 900 BC, if I'm not mistaken. Many of the places mentioned in Exodus have been confirmed to have existed by archaeologists.

But the account was written well after the events described. And it is the view of most archaeologists who have studied the case that the Exodus did not happen.

My statement stands. The *historical facts* in the Bible are primarily for those times after about 900BC.

 

[DavidFirth]

If you choose to purposely misunderstand the nuances of other people's language then there isn't a great deal anyone can do to stop you. It's not the most constructive endeavour though.

Well, if I call whatever you believe in a fairy tale, you're going to just act like it is no big deal? I don't think so.

 

[Magus]

Your denial is a pathetic joke.

Where is HATTI LAND

 

[DavidFirth]

But the account was written well after the events described. And it is the view of most archaeologists who have studied the case that the Exodus did not happen.

My statement stands. The *historical facts* in the Bible are primarily for those times after about 900BC.

Well, that's just your opinion. You cannot possibly know "the account was written well after the events described" unless you were there when it was written. Not sure how you thought you could know that for sure.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, that's just your opinion. You cannot possibly know "the account was written well after the events described" unless you were there when it was written. Not sure how you thought you could know that for sure.

Those who have done the investigations into the earliest versions have made this conclusion. Dating of texts is a fairly advanced subject.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Nothing to see here I'd say, I'd be astonished if there was no archaeological evidence of places mentioned in the bible, but that is not the point really is it? To use a well worn example, archaeologists might find a Spider-Man comic a hundred thousand years from now, along with archaeological evidence of New-York. Just because Spider Man is said to live in New York, doesn't make the story true does it?

 

[Magus]

Hatti in Hebrew is -חִתִּי- one of whom appear in Genesis 26:34 called Judith -יְהוּדִית- ( Jewess ) , before Judah/

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But.. but... I thought that the Bible was just a mythological book with no truth in it whatsoever... isn't it?

Here's your problem, david. You take these few instances of historically verified events, and you validate all of your book with it. It's like validating every single bit of Egyptian mythology because it tells of their history as well.

A fairy tale is Peter Pan or Mother Goose.

And yet London is a place, and children during WWI would often go missing. I guess Peter Pan has some validity to it, after all.

 

[Augustus]

Well, if I call whatever you believe in a fairy tale, you're going to just act like it is no big deal? I don't think so.

You don't have to agree with them, just make a reasonable attempt to understand the actual point they are making.

If you are going to bother discussing a point with someone, it's much better to discuss the point they actually made rather than directing your energies towards a point they didn't make.

You don't take metaphors literally, that's sort of the point of using them.

If someone said at their wedding that it had been a 'fairy tale romance' would you imagine that it involved evil stepmothers and a Prince Charming?

 

[sun rise]

As one who has a "TV special" interest in archeology, I found the study interesting.

It validates my "keep an open mind" to various passages in not only the Bible but other scriptures as well as stories from other places. And part of that validates my not assuming that a finding is conclusive. We've seen over and over including in hard sciences that as we learn more, previous theories (used in the science sense) are modified by new findings. I fall for it, of course, but I try to avoid getting stuck in a 'confirmation bias' trap.

 

[sun rise]

You don't have to agree with them, just make a reasonable attempt to understand the actual point they are making.

If you are going to bother discussing a point with someone, it's much better to discuss the point they actually made rather than directing your energies towards a point they didn't make.

You don't take metaphors literally, that's sort of the point of using them.

If someone said at their wedding that it had been a 'fairy tale romance' would you imagine that it involved evil stepmothers and a Prince Charming?

To add to the latter point, it's not relevant to me if a particular story in a scripture literally happened as described. And for me no piece of scripture can prove or disprove that God exists. Describing perfume to someone who has never smelled it has little value. Once the perfume is smelled, then it's possible to say that perfume exists. Until then, all one can do is intellectually accept or not accept that perfume exists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where is HATTI LAND

As quoted above ...

The Chronicle does not refer to Jerusalem directly but mentions a "City of Iaahudu", interpreted to be "City of Judah". The Chronicle states:

In the seventh year (of Nebuchadnezzar-599 BC.) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adar (16 March) he conquered the city and took the king (Jeconiah) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent forth to Babylon. [ibid; emphasis added]​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hatti in Hebrew is -חִתִּי- one of whom appear in Genesis 26:34 called Judith -יְהוּדִית- ( Jewess ) , before Judah/

Therefore?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My statement stands. The *historical facts* in the Bible are primarily for those times after about 900BC.

But even were that "primarily" true, it would not preclude the existence of a good deal of folk history / founders tales and etiological narrative.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's your problem, david. You take these few instances of historically verified events, and you validate all of your book with it.

While there are those on the "other side" who childishly insist that the Tanakh is entirely worthless because it cannot be "proved" entirely true. It's almost comical how these extremes mimic each other.

 

[Polymath257]

But even were that "primarily" true, it would not preclude the existence of a good deal of folk history / founders tales and etiological narrative.

True. And there are certainly hints of prior mythology in Genesis and Exodus. The correspondence with archeology fails though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True. And there are certainly hints of prior mythology in Genesis and Exodus. The correspondence with archeology fails though.

Seriously? What are your three favorite books on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology?

 

[Polymath257]

Seriously? What are your three favorite books on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology?

Not much all the way into Syria, but for Palestine and Egypt

Amihan Mazar 'Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586BCE'

and

Amnon Ben-Tor 'The Archaeology of Ancient Israel'

For Egyptian,

Redford 'Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times' (although his Egyptian chronology is very unusual).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not much all the way into Syria, but for Palestine and Egypt

Amihan Mazar 'Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586BCE'

and

Amnon Ben-Tor 'The Archaeology of Ancient Israel'

For Egyptian,

Redford 'Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times' (although his Egyptian chronology is very unusual).

Really? Well. ...

First, thanks for answering, and kudos for having an answer.

While I have not read the Ben-Tor collection, I have read (and, in fact, owned) the Mazar and Redford texts. Both are fine albeit dated texts.

In my opinion your minimalism does both authors a disservice.

 

[Magus]

As quoted above ...

The Chronicle does not refer to Jerusalem directly but mentions a "City of Iaahudu", interpreted to be "City of Judah". The Chronicle states:

In the seventh year (of Nebuchadnezzar-599 BC.) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adar (16 March) he conquered the city and took the king (Jeconiah) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent forth to Babylon. [ibid; emphasis added]​

'Iaahudi' is "Interpreted' as Judah , but in the wrong geography , in 'Hatti Land' ( אֶרֶץ חִתִּי )
I noticed in brackets (Jeconiah) (Zedekiah) (Nebuchadnezzar) , so those are interpolation.

“Year 7, month Kislimu: The king of Akkad moved his army into Hatti land, laid siege to the city of
Iaahudu and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru. He
appointed in it a new king of his liking, took heavy booty from it and brought it into Babylon

All the references to 'Hatti' in all the other inscriptions, such as the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmanesser IIi, clearly put 'Hatti' in Anatolia or around the Anti-Taurus mountains.