Exodus Decoded

[freeday]

very interesting show. which tried to prove the biblical exodus. didn't know, but egyptian history tells of an exodus too around the same time of the biblical.

 

proof of jacob by ring insignia found on excavation.

 

proof of hebrew slaves, crying to God in rock carvings

 

the plagues are explained by a volcanic eruption that occurred in greece (one of the largest know in history, 1000 times stronger than the A-bomb), this erruption caused massive minni earthquakes, some registering as high as 5 on the scale. the nile is on several different fault lines.

 

1st plague, gasses release from fault lines cause excees iron in the water that makes it blood red. this phenominon has occured before. as a result of lack of O2 the fish dies. this happened in 1982 at some lake, showed pictures of it, the water looked blood red. plague #6 and 10 occured also at the lake in 1982.

 

2nd plague, the frogs leave the waters and infest the city

 

3,4,5th plagues, due to dead fish and no clean water, flies become abundant, plagues ensue.

 

6 plauge was boils caused by co2 in the air

 

7 plague of hail and ice is recorded also by the egiptians, was called valcanic hail. durring the erruption, some of the debriee goes high enough into the atmosphere to freeze some, doesn't.

 

8 climate conditions heating up and cooling down would have caused locustes to swarm

 

9 plague, darkness would have ensued due to volcanic ash, ash found in the area was dettermined to be from the original volcanoe that erupted in greece

 

10 plague, co2 gases would have leaked from the fault lines, egiptian first born sons slept on beds at the bottom of a house. this is proven by archeologist, mass graves are found having only men dated at the time of the exodus. also the pharoes son who is dated at the time of the exodus dies at age 12

 

parting the red sea. they say the translation is messed up, it is not the red sea, but the reed see. at which they found archeological evidence on a tomb that coincides with the story in egyptian. that the parting was caused by shifting plates and then hit by a tsunami.

 

they go on to say they found tombstones in ancient greece that coincides with the story, saying that some of the isrealites migrated to greece.

 

all in all, the history channel goes on to say that the exodus is fact, not a myth. wether you believe it to be by natural causes or devine intervention is your choice. there was a lot more information, this is all i could remember. sorry for any typo's, i wrote in a hurry.

[HuaiDan]

Great, let's take this far-fetched scenario under consideration for a second. What's your point? That god had nothing to do with it, and that previously thought supernatural occurences can now be accreditted to purely natural phenomena? Great work debunking the bible!!!

[Lightbearer]

Yeah I saw parts of it tonight. It's shows all of what happened can be perfectly explained by natural phenomana.

 

I think the Semites in this case took a great oppurtunity with these events taking place and eventually when the story was told over and over again it got worped into the Exodus. Like you said, Reed Sea got turned to Red Sea.

 

They also explained the pillars of fire that were actually oil fires causes by the geologic events of the eruption.

 

They also found gold jelwery depicting the ark of the covenant.

 

It was very interesting.

[Valgeir]

Like you said, Reed Sea got turned to Red Sea.

 

I'm still not sure when or by what mechanism they purport that this happened.

[freeday]

Like you said, Reed Sea got turned to Red Sea.

 

I'm still not sure when or by what mechanism they purport that this happened.

 

it was a mistranslation

 

the reason i posted it, i can't tell you how many times i have heard that the bible stories are myths borrowed from older pagan traditional myths. this was a sequence of events that actually occured, wether you beleive it to be devine or natural science is your descision.

[mwc]

I haven't seen the show yet (I'll probably get around to watching it Wednesday or Thursday) but it sounds like a rehash of a number of already theories that have been floating around for awhile now.

 

Just off the top of my head it sounds like they're taking some loosely related items and sticking them together to say this was all plausable. The problem is that these things would all have to go off at the same time not just "close enough" on the timeline in order to have an actual explanation.

 

Proof of Jacob? I'd have to see the show but I'd say proof of Jacob would be mention of him in Egyptian documents in the position of power he supposedly held just like all the others that have held the office. Surprisingly, like all other high ranking Israelites in foreign lands, it seems everyone forgot to jot their name down.

 

Also, Hebrews have lived in Egypt so I wouldn't be surprised to find evidence of them there. Keep in mind that they really had no god at this point. They got their god AFTER they left Egypt and went into the desert. There was the god of Abraham and so on that claimed this line of people but they really didn't claim him back quite yet. Hell, they make a golden calf after looking up at the volcano that is supposed to be god and hearing his voice and all that. If they were crying out to god they weren't too sincere. Sounds like the carving was made by someone else and they are falsely attributing it or it was made after the fact and they are attributing it to the wrong period (I believe that's an anachronism) because it fits their preformed beliefs (a big problem with biblical archeology.

 

So, the hyksos (sp?) leave Egypt. The hyksos was the generic name for foreigners so who exactly are we talking about? There was a known exodus (I'm sure Crunk Bishop knows of this since I think he's mentioned on another thread he feels this influenced the story).

 

The plagues happened when the volcano happened. Okay. How does this explain how all the animals were killed by an earlier plague and then they had animals to then sacrifice for the passover meal and to put blood over the doors? Logical inconsistancies can't be explained away so easily.

 

The Red Sea/Sea of Reeds mis-translation has been known for many years. So where is the Sea of Reeds? No one knows. It is a mystery to this day and so every just guesses which is what I'm sure they did in the show if they were honest.

 

The more logical answer as to why you might find Hebrew graves in Greece would be they migrated there from Canaan (or taken as slaves) which is where they originated from according to all the actual hard evidence and not just speculation based on the bible and some television shows.

 

Anyhow, like I said, I'll have to watch the show to really make an informed opinion but based on what you've said I fear I'm in for a huge let down since it just looks like a polished version of the same bullshit arguments.

 

mwc

[freeday]

i am sorry for the short hand version, it was a 2 hr. show, and i typed what i could remember inbetween commercials. as far as joseph, thier proof resided in finding 6 rings that had his name (or something like it) on them. they stated they knew where the reed sea was and offered evidence of it. the hebrew writing on the wall that showed slaves crying out to El, they didn't go into much as far as dating it. i found it an interesting show, i hope you do too. like i said, the show was not trying to prove there is a God. just trying to figure out if there is any truth to the biblical exodus. some of the stuff was a little far fetched, but other stuff was really interesting. especially the volcanic part.

[mwc]

Oh, I understand you were going from memory.

 

I look forward to watching the show to see if they do more than rehash the same old arguments that I've heard before (I have heard the volcano argument before so unless they've found a new way to spin it that will be old news). I'll keep an eye open for some of the things you mentioned here so I can hopefully give a better response (or maybe learn something new since that's always fun too).

 

mwc

[Dhampir]

I'm sorry, but it's the History Channel. They seem to specialize when they don't have hard evidence, in what-if scenarios, and treat them like what they put forth is on the leading edge of historical research.

 

At any rate, like huai dan said, they way they explain it, it's really just a bunch of coincidences, with absolutely no way to prove 'god was working through natural means' as someone, I think you, put it. Did they show any real evidence that this chain of improbability actually could have occurred?

[Lizard]

Most myths have some basis in reality..

[Dhampir]

Sure, but is the reality posited the reality that particular myth is based upon?

[Evelyn]

I watched part of this show, though I had also watched the previous show about the Antichrist so was a little bit tired of shows like this and turned it off. Maybe the filmaker(s) had found new evidence that the Hebrews indeed lived in Egypt and left to return to Canaan. Some of what I saw before I turned off the TV was a case of "you find what you're looking for", if you look for evidence to prove your hypothesis, your bias will twist what you find to fit what you are looking for. Kudos to James Cameron for bringing this story to light as producer of the show, though I wasn't convinced.

 

Did the exodus happen? I remember a recent report that genetic testing of Jews and Palestinians showed they had the same deep genetic code and that supposedly this proved that the Jews and Palestinians were of the same stock and so forth, rather than the Jews/Hebrews coming in as an outside group from Egypt long ago. All I could think of, every time I read about this, was, "The Hebrews did originally come from Canaan (well, Abraham came from Ur) and left there, per the story, because Joseph had attained power in Egypt and Canaan was in the midst of a bad drought. They came back during the alleged 'exodus' about 200 years later. So, to me, it makes sense that they would have the same genetic root as the Canaanites. This finding does not disprove the exodus story at all!"

 

I saw a show recently, not sure which channel, which posited a different view - that the Hebrews were mercenary soldiers. It looked at the story of the exodus from a military history point of view. Was sort of intriguing - the "pillar of fire by night" was a torch on a pole and the "column of smoke by day" was a covered brazier and were supposedly a way that Egyptian commanders led their troops. Also, if you cast Moses as a army commander and one who had lived in the desert area near the Red Sea marshes for supposedly 40 years, he would know the tides and winds and know the best time to cross that area when the water was lowest. The program showed that the Hebrews' detour south into the Egyptian desert as they left was a diversion, that Moses put the fire and smoke things at one place to deceive Pharoh's troops into thinking they were camped there for the night, then Moses led his group under cover of night across the marshlands. At daybreak, they were on the other side and Pharoh's troops began to chase as the tides came in, thus they got stuck. The program, in general, was another way of examining the story.

[HuaiDan]

I saw a show recently, not sure which channel, which posited a different view - that the Hebrews were mercenary soldiers. It looked at the story of the exodus from a military history point of view. Was sort of intriguing - the "pillar of fire by night" was a torch on a pole and the "column of smoke by day" was a covered brazier and were supposedly a way that Egyptian commanders led their troops. Also, if you cast Moses as a army commander and one who had lived in the desert area near the Red Sea marshes for supposedly 40 years, he would know the tides and winds and know the best time to cross that area when the water was lowest. The program showed that the Hebrews' detour south into the Egyptian desert as they left was a diversion, that Moses put the fire and smoke things at one place to deceive Pharoh's troops into thinking they were camped there for the night, then Moses led his group under cover of night across the marshlands. At daybreak, they were on the other side and Pharoh's troops began to chase as the tides came in, thus they got stuck. The program, in general, was another way of examining the story.

That's actually quite conceivable. Would take but a few generations, if that, for the glory to be given to god rather than the ingenuity of one man.

[Lizard]

Sure, but is the reality posited the reality that particular myth is based upon?

I would think that something happened to become the whole Exodus thing. Do I think millions trekked the desert for 40 years eating manna that fell from the sky? No.

 

Its like the Noah's Flood Myth. Or Gilgamesh's flood. A flood of some sort most likely did happen, and through time, became a worldwide cleansing.

[Amanda]

I also think that myths are often interrelated to actual events. The Wikipedia here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded

 

offers these occurrences, as suggested by the Exodus Decoded.

 

Jacobovici suggests that the Biblical Exodus took place shortly after the eruption of Thera (now known as Santorini), which is thought to have happened some time between 1650 BCE and 1450 BCE. The dates are disputed, depending on whether you prefer to use archaeological dating results (1500 BCE to 1450 BCE), or radiocarbon dating results (1650 BCE to 1600 BCE). Jacobovitch accepts a date around 1500 BCE. He goes on to explain how each of the Mosaic plagues, and even the parting of the Sea of Reeds, could be explained by earthquakes, faulting and a limnic disaster all caused by Santorini.

[Dhampir]

I would think that something happened to become the whole Exodus thing. Do I think millions trekked the desert for 40 years eating manna that fell from the sky? No.

I'm not sure it says manna came from the sky, only that it was a gift from heaven.

[Valgeir]

As I've heard others mention in different places, as plausible as the Red/Reed thing looks in English, the words are totally different in Hebrew.

[freeday]

As I've heard others mention in different places, as plausible as the Red/Reed thing looks in English, the words are totally different in Hebrew.

 

i am not sure why they think it is mistranslated, but i find several sources that says it is. i can't remember if the show actually showed proof of mistranslation or not.

[Valgeir]

Well, it's possible that it was a typographical error made post-translation, but seeing as how many bibles were copied by many independent sources, the idea of such an "accident" being so prominent seems a bit outlandish.

[Crunk Bishop]

i didn't see the program... but History Channel is notorius for showing bad religious history:

 

I looked at the Wikipedia link posted above which described Ralph Ellis' evidence on the show and here's what I think of said evidence:

 

the mistranslation of Reed Sea into Red Sea happened when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in Alexandria (the Septuagint or LXX) around the second century BCE, for obviously geographical reasons. The fact that Reed and Red are similar in English is a coincidence of language, the greek words for “Red” and “Reed” are totally different. (“Rhodon” vs. “Kalamos”)

 

the “Hyksos” have been a popular foil for the Exodus since the beginning of Egyptology and biblical archaeology. the problem with the “Hyksos” hypothesis is that the “Hyksos” were Myceneans and not Semites. The term for generic wandering semite during this time was “aripu” and the “aripu” were despised by the Egyptians and the Hyksos alike. Very unlikely that "Joseph" could have gotten in to their administration.

 

Ralph Ellis seems kinda kooky, like Graham Hancock

 

The volcano hypothesis is as old as Napoleon and probably older, because his scientists tried to figure out the miracle at the Red Sea based on this theory during his “conquest” of Egypt

 

the singular word “God” on the Ahmose Stela is probably a throwback to Akenaton, Egypt’s and the world’s first monotheist.

 

“Ahmose” doesn’t mean “brother of Moses…” because “Moses” means “son of…”

Ie… “Ramses” = “son of Ra.” So “Moses” means “son of ____” and “Ahmose” would mean “son of Ah," or "son of brother" or "Nephew"

[mwc]

i didn't see the program... but History Channel is notorius for showing bad religious history:

They will be re-running it this afternoon (8/24) so maybe you can catch it? If not, I am sure they'll run it a few more times. Also, they have to make their shows appeal to the masses so it's no real surprise that they aren't that, for lack of a better word, accurate. But this is true of most infotainment type shows. I just wish they didn't refer to the xian stuff as fact and other things as fiction. It should all be treated the same in my opinion.

 

I looked at the Wikipedia link posted above which described Ralph Ellis' evidence on the show and here's what I think of said evidence:

Read the email exchange at http://www.bib-arch.org/ if you haven't already.

 

“Ahmose” doesn’t mean “brother of Moses…” because “Moses” means “son of…”

Ie… “Ramses” = “son of Ra.” So “Moses” means “son of ____” and “Ahmose” would mean “son of Ah," or "son of brother" or "Nephew"

Not that it changes anything but I've seen it translated simply as "child" as well. With Moses' fathers name (I don't recall it off the top of my head) simply translated as "father." So like other biblical stories you get the rather "on the nose" names of "father" and "child" which are rather meaningless since you also have a leader named generically "pharaoh" and so on.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Okay, I watched the show last night. It was a slick production and with the addition of James Cameron added a lot of weight to the guys argument (not academically of course). The main stage is all virtual in front of some large mechanism that spins into place as piece of the puzzle is completed. I never read/saw it but I imagine this is supposed to be like the Da Vinci code or something. However the evidences they had went beyond the device so I'm not entirely sure what it's purpose what for beyond setting the initial timeline to 1500BCE.

 

The first part of the show is spent laying out his evidence and then the second part is his proofs and some additional materials. Since there is a lot of material to note, and Egyptology is far from my strongest subject, I'll just write out his "exhibits" in this message.

 

Exhibit A: The Ahmose Stele

Supposedely describes strange storms and other phenomenon that normally don't occur in that region. Taken with the final exhibit below, and what we know about volcanoes, this is a non-starter. Volcanic eruptions affect weather patterns in strange ways.

 

Exhibit B: Pharoah Ahmose

We are told that his name is brother of Moses because his father remembers the name Moses and it is a play on words. This is quite a stretch. I don't think I'd name my legitimate son after some "basket baby." Also (I didn't look it up), wasn't it his daughter who found the baby? So why would Pharoah have anything to do with it?

 

But seriously, let's also keep in mind his brothers name was Moses...Kamose and ruled prior to him.

 

The dates of his reign are disputed according to Wikipedia I found 1570-1546, 1660-1537, and 1551-1527 as possibilities.

 

Exhibit C: Tomb at Ben Hassan

According to the host of the show (I don't have his name and wouldn't get it right if I tried...Google it if you really want it ) the tomb shows the Ama (sp?) coming to Egypt. Fair enough. Then he makes the quick switch to Semite then right into Israelites. He does this time and again. Semites do not equal Israelites only and it is totally unfair for him to keep making this connection. At this period of time Semite most likely means lots of things other than Israelite (Canaanites would be more accurate...and I personally think the bible would support my opinion over his).

 

Exhibit D: The "Yakov" (Jacob) Royal Ring

In an attempt to show how Joseph ruled in Pharoah's court he uses this ring. Why does it have Jacob's name on it then? Is it Joseph son of Jacob or some such thing?

 

Here's a problem yet another problem I have with this argument. We are to believe that the Hyksos were Israelites in this program. The Hyksos were foreign rulers of Egypt. They had their own line of Pharoahs and controlled lower Egypt. They were later expelled and Egypt was reunited under "pure" rulers. So, his claims that Israel were the leaders and the oppressed simply don't add up. The Hyksos were militarily equal, or even superior, to the upper Egyptians and so Ahmose couldn't simply order them around. Ahmose' brother Kamose had some military victories over the Hyksos but had little impact overall while he was Pharoah. So it would have had to have been Hyksos oppressing Hyksos in order for this theory to really work.

 

Anyhow, the point of that little aside is this. Why would the the name of Jacob be there then? Well, according to the Hyksos kings list, and this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob-Baal, Jacob was the name of the second Hyksos Pharoah.

 

Now is it all that surprising to find the name Jacob in the capital city of the Hyksos?

 

Exhibit E: Serabit Slavery Inscriptions

Here we find the words "El save me" carved into the rocks. He states that this is the words of the Israelite slaves to their god. Of course, El is the generic name for the Semitic high god and we know that the Hyksos worshipped Seth. Seth has been shown to be tied to Baal. So in all likelyhood El was actually Baal as it was in most of the oldest cases we find (and in all cases, to my knowledge, in this time period). I also don't know what, if any, other inscriptions are found at this location that could help shed light on this (the show mentions others but beyond that is silent).

 

Exhibit F: Santorini Pumice in Egypt

This is to make the connection that fallout from the volcano ended up here. I doubt anyone ever really doubted this since we know that volcanoes really are world wide events and one of this size would effect something as close as Egypt. Dates for the eruption of Thera are 1630-1600 (geographically) or ~1500BCE (archeologically).

 

I think that touches on all his basic evidences. None of these arguments are particularly unique or clever (either what was posited or my rebuttal ). His evidences are then "alligned" to the period of ~1500BCE so that all these events can happen at the same time (as mentioned earlier). The Hyksos expulsion, since I didn't mention it, is thought to have happened around 1540BCE. So even the casual reader can see he's playing fast and loose with the dates to make these events happen within the compressed time frame of the exodus (and we can see they're "out of order" as well but that doesn't seem to be a problem just as long as they happened...these are definately a few warning signs that we need to be cautious, and skeptical, when listening to his arguments. Also, I don't know if there are any outside timelines that will be affected if we try to realign this timeline but I know it happens when people try to alter some of the other near east time lines and forget that people wrote/interacted to one another and by moving the time line of one kingdom it makes it impossible for the two kings to communicate any longer...it appears he did not care to take anything like this into account since he only wishes to make the exodus possible and damn all other time lines...another red flag).

 

In the second part of the show he pulls a few even more disturbing "stunts." As a preview two things that really bothered me is when he speaks of the Midianites and their location as fact (this is not established fact) and when he goes into a museum saying the people have a bias and all that needs to happen is for them is to have an open mind and see what happens but then procedes to force an interpretation on some tablets. It's laughably sad. He does better in other parts of the show. Clearly this is a piece of biblical archeology (oh, wait, that's another thread ).

 

mwc

[webmdave]

A number of years ago, Lee Salisbury wrote an excellent article on this topic which he let us post on the main part of this site.

 

Here's the link: Did Israel's Exodus from Egypt Actually Happen?

[Lorena Rodriguez]

A number of years ago, Lee Salisbury wrote an excellent article on this topic which he let us post on the main part of this site.

 

Here's the link: Did Israel's Exodus from Egypt Actually Happen?

 

What a great article!

 

I have to say that reading history now that I don't have to do mental gymnastics to find god in everything is fascinating.

[Taphophilia]

People tend to think that if it's on the History Channel it has to be true.

 

I have watched these shows and if you pay attention, they are not saying this is what happened but merely giving possible scenarios of how it could have happened, or showing archeological finds saying that it is possible this is what they are.

 

Pay attention next time you watch something like that on the History Channel. They are notorious for doing that.

 

From what I understand, many Old Testament hero's may have originally been lesser deities and the Hebrews made them human when they wrote down their histories (with happened to be during the Babylonian exile which incidentally WAS Sumeria) in order to give their god supremacy.