Question For Non-Christians: Did You Know?

[francesco]

just curious,

why don't people just take some samples and test them in the several independent labs?

[Ravenstar]

For those who like pictures, lets look at a map, shall we?  1 Kings 6:1 states that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple, which would imply an Exodus c.1446 BCE, during Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty

 

Egyptian Empire 
1500 -1300 BC (19th dynasty). Still no Israelites

Tutmosis III (1479 - 1425 BC) campaigned beyond the Euphrates and reached the Fourth Cataract on the Nile.

Amenhotep III (1390 - 1352 BC) ruled Egypt at a time when it was the richest country in the world. The Amarna letters reveal his extensive diplomacy.

Rameses II (1279 - 1212) halted the advance of the Hittites in Syria and built more temples and monuments than anyone.

 

How did the Hebrews leave Egypt exactly? Did they go to Edom? Moab? To the Amorite Kingdom? Everything else in the region is Egypt.

[Ravenstar]

just curious,

why don't people just take some samples and test them in the several independent labs?

What kind of samples?

 

Samples of what?  I'm curious.

 

I do have a peer reviewed paper on high and low chronology of the time… it discusses radiometric dating and strata in archaeological digs of this era.

[mymistake]

So is Mr. Bennet going to play Absence-Of-Evidence-Isn't-Evidence-Of-Absence or is he just going to quietly sneak away?

[Ravenstar]

(big sigh)  I was really looking forward to a good historical/archaeological debate…got all my books, journals and papers ready and everything!

 

I hope he didn't disappear. I was just getting warmed up     I don't even have to get up early tomorrow.

[francesco]

 

just curious,

why don't people just take some samples and test them in the several independent labs?

What kind of samples?

 

Samples of what?  I'm curious.

 

I do have a peer reviewed paper on high and low chronology of the time… it discusses radiometric dating and strata in archaeological digs of this era.

 

if they are saying that the coral formation is the chariot wheels, parts, etc, can people just take it to the surface and test it in the lab?

just curious about this

[mymistake]

 

 

just curious,

why don't people just take some samples and test them in the several independent labs?

What kind of samples?

 

Samples of what?  I'm curious.

 

I do have a peer reviewed paper on high and low chronology of the time… it discusses radiometric dating and strata in archaeological digs of this era.

 

if they are saying that the coral formation is the chariot wheels, parts, etc, can people just take it to the surface and test it in the lab?

just curious about this

 

 

Oh well, you have to remember that those lab tests are designed by Satan to fool people into thinking the Bible is false.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

just curious,

why don't people just take some samples and test them in the several independent labs?

What kind of samples?

 

Samples of what?  I'm curious.

 

I do have a peer reviewed paper on high and low chronology of the time… it discusses radiometric dating and strata in archaeological digs of this era.

 

if they are saying that the coral formation is the chariot wheels, parts, etc, can people just take it to the surface and test it in the lab?

just curious about this

 

Chariot wheels were made of wood… I don't know if any of the wood would be left after all this time to test radiometrically, any metal would be long rusted away. The only thing it would tell us though if there were wood left would be an approximate date, not who the chariots belonged to.

 

The entire 'Red Sea' thing is in debate anyway though because of translation issues. Some believe it actually means "Sea of Reeds" which would have placed the crossing in the Nile Delta and not in the Red Sea at all.

 

You bring up a good point though.. and I'm sure that if such a thing COULD be tested scientists would be all over that.

[Guest SteveBennett]

In response to Ravenstar,

 

Nearly all of the claims you make are easily falsifiable with only minimal research.  Those that aren't, I ignore as affecting nothing-- because anyone can make un-falsifiable claims.

 

---

 

Consider that the Amarna letters are PROOF that Canaan was conquered exactly as the book of Joshua records.  It hardly takes a history wizz to understand why:

1)  The Amarna letters literally record a series of Caananite requests to Egypt-- all of them are asking Amenhotep III and Akhenaten to send some kind of help to fend off invaders.  ~1350 B.C.
2)  The Amarna letters tone of desperation increases as time goes by, until one day these desperate pleas for help just stop coming.
3)  The Amarna letters identify their attackers as "Hapiru" and "Apiru."  In the Egyptian language, this derisive word denotes a people's with no country-- nomadic in nature.

Fast forward to ~1200 B.C.

-- The Merneptah Stele establishes, as fact, that Israel was an established, and recognized regional power by 1200 B.C.

------------

Now, one could try and argue that these "Hapiru" are not, in fact, the Israelites.  But to do that, one would have to show that:

1) These "Hapiru" conquered Canaan and then
2) The Israelites proceeded to conquer the "Hapiru" over the next 150 years.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis.

Furthermore, Pharaoh Akhenaten attempted to institute monotheism-- apparently, he thought there was something to this monotheism thing. . . given that Egypt's entire Canaanite sphere of influence was completely lost during his reign.

His attempt at instituting monotheism, however, failed miserably.

----------------

Historical dating methods from pottery (which are tethered to astronomical dating methods), taken from excavations at Jericho and Hazor further confirm this timeline.

This timeline is within 40 years of the biblical timeline established in I Kings (which was written ~480 years after the fact).

Some people try to contest this timeline using carbon dating.  And while the carbon dating method is reliable, it has been repeatably shown again and again to be in error by 100-200 years for all samples taken along a fault line.  This is because the water source for typical samples taken along fault lines comes from irrigation-- which comes from aquifers-- which is deficient of C14. Meanwhile the tree ring data (dendrochronology) used to calibrate the carbon dating machine uses water from precipitation during photosynthesis-- which is not C14 deficient.

The archaeological findings excavated at Jericho and Hazor further confirm the specific, testable details recorded in the book of Joshua.  See here for an example of Jericho's findings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-cmdl4Cqdo

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

I committed none of the fallacies that you listed. . . .

 

You are correct in one thing: I did not offer any primary source data.

 

 

 

Anytime a conclusion is not supported by primary sources, there is inevitably a fallacy of some sort involved.

 

The most common one's I typically see being abused today (and in this forum) are:

 

Ad hoc analogies

Ad hominem

Ad lapidem

Ad novitatem

[Thurisaz]

Why is it that Christians have this habit of starting discussions then disappearing? Isn't there a name for that behaviour...?

It's called morontheism

(Well that's technically not the whole truth but I'll leave it at that for the moment, for comedy potential) 

 

just curious,

why don't people just take some samples and test them in the several independent labs?

Morontheists will never want any actual scientific testing, for at least in their subconscious they know what the result will be. If someone else does the testing, indeed these were automatically Ebil Saaataaanic Gay Librul Ebilushenists™ and thus morontheists (claim they) can ignore any test results brought forth.

 

Never forget: Hardcore morontheists may claim they're in it for the evidence and the truth, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I don't know if any of the wood would be left after all this time to test radiometrically, any metal would be long rusted away. 

 

 

Ravenstar,

 

What you are doing, here, is engaging in what is known as an "ad hoc hypothesis."  People who engage in these typically exhibit no legitimate desire to test them, themselves.  They just "throw it out there" (much like ad hoc analogies).  If such ad hoc, undeveloped hypotheses are accepted uncritically. . . this speaks volumes about the intentions of the person who accepts them.

 

Nonetheless it is yet another falsifiable hypothesis.

 

See here:  

 

http://edition.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/25/ancient.ships/

 

While under water forensics is still a science with many gaps still yet to be filled-- various archaeological findings (very similar to the one mentioned in the linked news article) indicate that artifacts become better preserved the deeper under water one goes.  This is may be because there is less alive to corrode or eat away at such artifacts-- but no studies have yet been done to control for all given variables.

 

It is important to note, therefore, that there still remains legitimate potential to falsify Nuweiba as the crossing site of the Exodus.  The under water land bridge there goes 759 meters deep before coming back up-- and the farthest down anyone has been able to go thus far is approximately 100 meters.

 

But if one is not already convinced by the plethora of evidence already existent and readily available for review. . . it's questionable that one could ever be convinced. . . even if God were to raise someone from the dead.

[Deva]

 

But if one is not already convinced by the plethora of evidence already existent and readily available for review. . . it's questionable that one could ever be convinced. . . even if God were to raise someone from the dead.

 

 

Well I might actually be interested if he would perform the feat of raising someone from the dead today. I might like to go watch that. However, the Bible is not on that level of proof. Far from it.

[disillusioned]

 

 

 

I committed none of the fallacies that you listed. . . .

 

You are correct in one thing: I did not offer any primary source data.

 

 

 

Anytime a conclusion is not supported by primary sources, there is inevitably a fallacy of some sort involved.

 

The most common one's I typically see being abused today (and in this forum) are:

 

Ad hoc analogies

Ad hominem

Ad lapidem

Ad novitatem

 

 

Listing more fallacies does not do anything to demonstrate that I have actually committed one. Neither does writing in size 24 font. If you wish to show that I have committed a fallacy, then point to a conclusion that I drew, and demonstrate that my methodology in drawing this conclusion was fallacious. This will probably be difficult for you, as I have not drawn any substantial conclusions in this thread.

 

In the future, please read my posts more carefully before you reply.

[slave2six]

Well, one thing is is certain, SB knows three latin phrases which he uses as the equivalent of "Nu-uh!" and he's keen on only doing only minimal research.

 

Good job Ravenstar. Looking forward to the rest of this shellacking. 

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Steve.

 

I'd like to draw your attention back to post #12 please.

 

Would you please indicate if you're willing to explore this?

 

I'm happy to start up a thread devoted exclusively to this topic, if you like.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

 

 

I committed none of the fallacies that you listed. . . .

 

You are correct in one thing: I did not offer any primary source data.

 

 

 

Anytime a conclusion is not supported by primary sources, there is inevitably a fallacy of some sort involved.

 

The most common one's I typically see being abused today (and in this forum) are:

 

Ad hoc analogies

Ad hominem

Ad lapidem

Ad novitatem

 

 

Listing more fallacies does not do anything to demonstrate that I have actually committed one. Neither does writing in size 24 font. If you wish to show that I have committed a fallacy, then point to a conclusion that I drew, and demonstrate that my methodology in drawing this conclusion was fallacious. This will probably be difficult for you, as I have not drawn any substantial conclusions in this thread.

 

In the future, please read my posts more carefully before you reply.

 

 

With sincere respect,

 

I assure you, that when I read, I always scan everyone's comment's for two things (and two things only):

 

1)  Use of primary sources.  Or at least secondary sources which directly cite primary sources-- not secondary sources citing secondary sources citing secondary sources (this is known as an "echo chamber"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)).

 

2)  Proper methodology in the analysis of the primary sources (proper methodology can be derived by studying how we think when addressing neutral examples).

 

Anything outside of this is merely a person trying to attempt some kind of "broad brush approach" so as to avoid the evidence itself (this is, actually, the function that informal fallacies serve).  So I leave them be-- because they demonstrate to me that the person doesn't want to stay on the topic of evidence.

 

 

 

--------

 

I'll be logging off now.  Busy day of work tomorrow.  I will come back to scan for 1) and 2) in about 20 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

[mymistake]

 

 

 

I committed none of the fallacies that you listed. . . .

 

You are correct in one thing: I did not offer any primary source data.

 

 

 

Anytime a conclusion is not supported by primary sources, there is inevitably a fallacy of some sort involved.

 

The most common one's I typically see being abused today (and in this forum) are:

 

Ad hoc analogies

Ad hominem

Ad lapidem

Ad novitatem

 

 

So which fallacies does Christianity use?

[Fernweh]

 

 

With sincere respect,

 

I assure you, that when I read, I always scan everyone's comment's for two things (and two things only):

 

1)  Use of primary sources.  Or at least secondary sources which directly cite primary sources-- not secondary sources citing secondary sources citing secondary sources (this is known as an "echo chamber"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)).

 

2)  Proper methodology in the analysis of the primary sources (proper methodology can be derived by studying how we think when addressing neutral examples).

 

Anything outside of this is merely a person trying to attempt some kind of "broad brush approach" so as to avoid the evidence itself (this is, actually, the function that informal fallacies serve).  So I leave them be-- because they demonstrate to me that the person doesn't want to stay on the topic of evidence.

 

 

 

--------

 

I'll be logging off now.  Busy day of work tomorrow.  I will come back to scan for 1) and 2) in about 20 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

Perhaps you mistook my earlier posts as tongue in cheek. So, I will use your high standards and put the question directly to you with sources cited. Do you believe sorcerers can turn wooden sticks into serpents with magic? What evidence do you have to support this extraordinary claim outside of the Bible itself? One cannot assume the evidence you use for the parting of the Red Sea, as accounted for in the Bible, to be true without also showing it is possible to turn wood into serpents.

 

I'm working within the framework of the observable universe and have concluded that it's not possible to turn wood into serpents with magic or any other method. The story of the parting of the Red Sea is predicated upon this earlier and extraordinary claim. Since wood cannot turn into snakes one can conclude this story is a work of fiction and therefore the parting of the Red Sea is also part of the same fiction.

 

My primary source for this question is cited below and it is germane to the discussion of the parting of the Red Sea as described in the story of Exodus.

 

Exodus 7 verses 8 - 13.

 

8And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 9When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. 10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 11Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. 13And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

With sincere respect,

 

I assure you, that when I read, I always scan everyone's comment's for two things (and two things only):

 

1)  Use of primary sources.  Or at least secondary sources which directly cite primary sources-- not secondary sources citing secondary sources citing secondary sources (this is known as an "echo chamber"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)).

 

2)  Proper methodology in the analysis of the primary sources (proper methodology can be derived by studying how we think when addressing neutral examples).

 

Anything outside of this is merely a person trying to attempt some kind of "broad brush approach" so as to avoid the evidence itself (this is, actually, the function that informal fallacies serve).  So I leave them be-- because they demonstrate to me that the person doesn't want to stay on the topic of evidence.

 

 

 

--------

 

I'll be logging off now.  Busy day of work tomorrow.  I will come back to scan for 1) and 2) in about 20 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

Perhaps you mistook my earlier posts as tongue in cheek. So, I will use your high standards and put the question directly to you with sources cited. Do you believe sorcerers can turn wooden sticks into serpents with magic? What evidence do you have to support this extraordinary claim outside of the Bible itself? One cannot assume the evidence you use for the parting of the Red Sea, as accounted for in the Bible, to be true without also showing it is possible to turn wood into serpents.

 

I'm working within the framework of the observable universe and have concluded that it's not possible to turn wood into serpents with magic or any other method. The story of the parting of the Red Sea is predicated upon this earlier and extraordinary claim. Since wood cannot turn into snakes one can conclude this story is a work of fiction and therefore the parting of the Red Sea is also part of the same fiction.

 

My primary source for this question is cited below and it is germane to the discussion of the parting of the Red Sea as described in the story of Exodus.

 

Exodus 7 verses 8 - 13.

 

8And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 9When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. 10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 11Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. 13And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

 

 

That is where you are wrong.  Chariot wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea could only mean one thing.  The only way those chariot wheels could have gotten there is if a magic stick can make water stand up and form a wall.  There is no other possible explanation.  I know what you are thinking.  But the answer is no.  Chariots could not have been loaded onto a barge for transport and then been washed overboard during a storm because those things are impossible.  The only reasonable explanation is magic.

[hereticzero]

I understand a film also exists showing the actual parting of the Red Sea. 

With such historical evidence, I can only imagine a great conspiracy exists that was exposed by Cecil B. De Mille. 

 

[mymistake]

 

It is important to note, therefore, that there still remains legitimate potential to falsify Nuweiba as the crossing site of the Exodus.  

 

What Exodus?  You need to prove the things you assume.

[Ravenstar]

"Those that aren't, I ignore as affecting nothing-- because anyone can make un-falsifiable claims." 

 

Another christian who will IGNORE anything that doesn't support his beliefs.. why am I not surprised?

 

I'm not making claims..although I have a degree in History I am no archaeologist - I do however have the ability to judge what good source material is and what is good unbiased research - or I wouldn't have gotten my degree. My papers would have been summarily rejected.

 

I'm citing (primary source) archaeological peer-reviewed publications. I didn't pull this material out of my ass or off some biased opinion site.

 

I've read most of the Amarna Letters (a lot are just fragments), only a few reference the hibiru. OUT OF 300. Most reference the Hittites. (they were badass, probably the "iron chariots' people the Bible says God couldn't prevail against)

 

We must remember that this was the frontier of the Egyptian lands… the farthest their borders went before reaching Assyria, and Mesopotamia. A long way from home and expensive to send troops and support to. It's also over a 100 years after Ramses II, when Egypt was in decline.

 

Amarna letters circa  1351 BCE (? or thereabouts)

 

"The letters from the local rulers in Canaan are of immense value for the history of Syria during the latter part of the fifteenth and the early part of the fourteenth centuries B.C., and reflect the causes and circumstances which led up to the disintegration of the Egyptian Empire in Western Asia. They reveal a country seething with intrigue and faction, which the Egyptian Government was either unable to suppress, or the serious consequences of which it utterly failed to realise.

The trouble partly arose from the activity of the Hittites, an Anatolian people of whom comparatively little is at present known, who were pressing their way into Northern Syria ; another contributing cause being the predatory operations of the Habiru in the south, to whom
Abdi-b,iba of Jerusalem refers so frequently, and for protection against whom he implores the King of Egypt so earnestly (see pp. 6, 8 f.).

So far as can be gathered, Abdi b,iba, the Governor of Jerusalem, maintained his loyalty to Egypt, but in this respect he appears to have been almost unique. His letters indicate the danger as both widespread and imminent. He entreats the King of Egypt to send troops, and adds
that if no troops arrive " this year," all the counties of the king will be utterly destroyed.

The identification of the name HabirQ, with Hebrews has been largely canvassed of late years, and the theory has
gained a good deal of support among scholars. Whether this theory will ultimately be substantiated beyond all
reasonable doubt or not remains to be seen, but the identification of the Habiru with the Hebrews, who sojourned in Egypt and made good their escape at the Exodus, is very precarious, even assuming the identification of the names, and involves the repudiation of the Biblical tradition which in the main there is no reason to suspect but every reason, archaeological and otherwise, to accept.

 

TELL EL-AMARNA LETTERS

One of the tablets, of which a translation is given below (p. 12), is of exceptional interest, as it was found it Lachish, and obviously belongs to the Tell El-Amarna series. Mention is made therein of Zimrida, Governor of Lachish, who in one of the Tell El-Amarna letters professes
loyalty to the Egyptian king, and is also referred to in one of Abdi-hiba's letters (see p. 9).

One of the most interesting features about these letters is that they are all written in the cuneiform script, and it is not merely that a Babylonian king himself uses the Babylonian script and language 1 in corresponding with the King of Egypt, but kings of the Mitanni and Cyprus,
and the local Egyptian Governors in Palestine, do likewise, which shows clearly that Babylonian was the lingua franca of the Near East at that time a striking testimony to the enduring influence of Babylonian culture in Canaan and the neighbouring countries.

But although written in the Babylonian language, there are sporadic occurrences of Canaanite words, sometimes by themselves, and sometimes added by way of explanation of the Babylonian equivalent, and these Canaanite words are almost identical with Hebrew.

(not surprising either since the Hebrews WERE Canaanites)


J. A, Knudtzon (Die El-Amarna Tafeln), which takes the place of Hugo Winckler's edition
P. H.

 

 

From the internal evidence, the earliest possible date for this correspondence is the final decade of the reign of Amenhotep III, who ruled from 1388 to 1351 BC (or 1391 to 1353 BC), possibly as early as this king's 30th regnal year; the latest date any of these letters were written is the desertion of the city of Amarna, commonly believed to have happened in the second year of the reign of Tutankhamun later in the same century in 1332 BC. Moran notes that some scholars believe one tablet, EA 16, may have been addressed to Tutankhamun's successor Ay.[5] However, this speculation appears improbable because the Amarna archives were closed by Year 2 of Tutankhamun, when this king transferred Egypt's capital from Amarna to Thebes.

 

The full archive, which includes correspondence from the preceding reign of Amenhotep III as well, contained over three hundred diplomatic letters; the remainder comprise miscellaneous literary and educational materials. These tablets shed much light on Egyptian relations with Babylonia, Assyria, the Mitanni, the Hittites, Syria, Canaan, and Alashiya (Cyprus). They are important for establishing both the history and the chronology of the period. Letters from the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil I, anchor the timeframe of Akhenaten's reign to the mid-14th century BC. Here was also found the first mention of a Near Eastern group known as the Habiru, whose possible connection with the Hebrews — due to the similarity of the words and their geographic location — remains debated. Other rulers include Tushratta of Mittani, Lib'ayu of Shechem, Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, and the quarrelsome king, Rib-Hadda, of Byblos, who, in over 58 letters, continuously pleads for Egyptian military help.

 

 

Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem - seems to be the one you are referring to of the over 300 letters. There is no argument that the Hebrews were bloodthirsty assholes who plundered wherever they went… in their small way, the minor kingdoms they came across. They NEVER went up against Egypt, Persia, Akkaddia or Babylonia though - why would that be? Because they were a minor people in a sea of massive civilizations - the Hittites caused much more chaos than the Hebrews ever did.

 

So, what the hell does this have to do with the Exodus? (THAT IS the OP, is it not?) These letters cover a fair bit of time… 2-3 Pharoanic dynasties to be correct, they are written in Akkadian/Babylonian Cuneiform with the odd Canaanite word sprinkled here and there in a few of them. Not suprising at all considering that some of the treatises are from the area of… you guessed it!  Canaan..

 

I could throw in Gobleki Tepe if we REALLY want to get off topic, but that's NOT the subject now, is it?

 

Stele circa 1212-1202 BCE  (150 years later)

 

The Great Ones are prostrate, saying: "Peace" (shalama);

Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows;
Plundered is Thehenu; Khatti is at peace;
Canaan is plundered with every evil;
Ashkelon is conquered;
Gezer is seized;
Yanoam is made non-existent;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more;
Kharu has become a widow because of Egypt!
All lands together are at peace;
Any who roamed have been subdued.

 

The three characters on the left [woman, man, bent throwstick], along with the three vertical strokes beneath the first two, indicate that "Israel" refers to a people, not a land or a city like Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam. In other words, Israel was an unsettled people in or near Canaan at this time.

Translation by Anson F. Rainey, "Israel in Merneptah's Inscription
and Reliefs," Israel Exploration Journal 51 (2001): 63.

 

But, But!!!  The Exodus supposedly happened in 1446 BCE (or close according to Bible chronology - way before the rule of Akenahten) That's about 100 years before the Armana letters even began (300 of them, remember?) and over 250 years before the Stele inscription which is the very first instance we hear about Israel AT ALL EVER in history.

 

Geez… that's a long time. The Stele says they were wiped out, and yet the Bible says that about 150 years later the great Kingdoms of David and Solomon occurred (of which we have NO evidence)

 

The Kingdom of Israel (Hebrew: מַמְלֶכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, Modern Mamlekhet Yisra'el Tiberian Mamléḵeṯ Yiśrāʼēl) was, according to the Bible, one of the successor states to the older United Monarchy (also often called the 'Kingdom of Israel'). It existed roughly from the 930s BCE until about the 720s BCE, when the kingdom was conquered by the Assyrian Empire. The major cities of the kingdom were Shechem, Tirzah, and Shomron (Samaria). Sooo. from 1202 until 930 BCE.. for 300 years we hear nothing about the Israelites.

 

Historians often refer to ancient Israel as the Northern Kingdom or the Kingdom of Samaria to differentiate it from the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

 

After 734 BCE, the Assyrian Empire (based in northern Iraq) began to intervene directly in the politics of the southern Levant, helping to further concentrate power in the person of the king and his officials with whom the Assyrians dealt. Failure of the nation states to pay tribute to the Empire, or any show of resistance, brought about crushing retaliation. The northern kingdom of Israel came to an end about 722 BCE with the capture of its capital, Samaria. The southern kingdom of Judah was also forced to submit to the cruel and oppressive might of the Assyrians. Following a revolt led by the king of Judah, Hezekiah (715-686 BCE), Assyrian armies swept into Judah destroying many cities and deported the ruling class to the far reaches of the Assyrian Empire.

 

The Babylonians of Mesopotamia succeeded the Assyrians as the region's dominant power and ended the political independence of these Iron Age states -- most notably with the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezar's destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent exile of the Jews to Babylon in 586 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(Samaria)

 

So.. in 1202 BCE "Israel' is wiped out… and then 500 years later the Assyrians wipe it out again (including Judah), then 200 years later the Kingdom of Judah is exiled by the Babylonians.

 

WHAT does this have to do with the Exodus?  Pretty much nothing. Other than we know the Hebrew tribes had some sort of presence in the area between 1202 BCE until 586 BCE… about 600 years before they were taken into captivity and became, in essence, Babylonian (and brought back with them a whole lot of Babylonian and Persian[Zoroastrian] ideas). ONLY the ruling class (rulers, priests) of the tribe of Judah however that was captured, exiled, whatever.. the rest were effectively wiped out, scattered, including the priestly tribes of the Levites. Judaism, as described in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers was over - something else came out of it as the Judeans were Yahwists who adopted some Zoroastrian concepts.

(Karen Armstrong: A History of God (1993)

 

The Ugarit texts are interesting in this equation. 

 

Ugarit culture ca. 1450 BC until 1200 BC.

 

Ugaritic language

 

Main articles: Ugaritic language and Ugaritic grammar

 

The Ugaritic language is attested in texts from the 14th through the 12th century BC. Ugaritic is usually classified as a Northwest Semitic language and therefore related to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician, among others. Its grammatical features are highly similar to those found in Classical Arabic and Akkadian. It possesses two genders (masculine and feminine), three cases for nouns and adjectives (nominative,accusative, and genitive); three numbers: (singular, dual, and plural); and verb aspects similar to those found in other Northwest Semitic languages. The word order in Ugaritic is verb–subject–object (VSO); possessed–possessor (NG) (first element dependent on the function and second always in genitive case); and noun–adjective (NA) (both in the same case (i.e. congruent)).[8]

 

Ugaritic literature

 

Apart from royal correspondence with neighboring Bronze Age monarchs, Ugaritic literature from tablets found in the city's libraries include mythological texts written in a poetic narrative, letters, legal documents such as land transfers, a few international treaties, and a number of administrative lists. Fragments of several poetic works have been identified: the "Legend of Keret," the "Legend of Danel", the Ba'al tales that detail Baal-Hadad's conflicts with Yam and Mot, and other fragments.[9]

 

The discovery of the Ugaritic archives in 1929 has been of great significance to biblical scholarship, as these archives for the first time provided a detailed description ofCanaanite religious beliefs, during the period directly preceding the Israelite settlement. These texts show significant parallels to Biblical Hebrew literature, particularly in the areas of divine imagery and poetic form. Ugaritic poetry has many elements later found in Hebrew poetry: parallelisms, metres, and rhythms. The discoveries at Ugarit have led to a new appraisal of the Hebrew Bible as literature.

 

Ugaritic religion

 

The important textual finds from the Ras Shamra (Ugarit) site shed a great deal of light upon the cultic life of the city.[10]

 

The foundations of Ras Shamra, the Bronze Age city, were divided into "quarters." In the north-east quarter of the walled enclosure the remains of three significant buildings were unearthed; the temples of Baal and Dagon and the library (sometimes referred to as the high priest's house). Within these structures atop the acropolis numerous invaluable mythological texts were found. Since the 1930s these texts have opened some initial understanding of the Canaanite mythological world and religion. The Baal cycle represents Baal's destruction of Yam (the chaos sea monster), demonstrating the relationship of Canaanite chaoskampf with those of Mesopotamia and the Aegean: a warrior god rises up as the hero of the new pantheon to defeat chaos and bring order.

 

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

 

 

We know that Pheonician language and early Hebrew are pretty much identical - what I am establishing here is that the Hebrews were NOT a separate people from the Canaanites, or Phoenicians, but came out of them… the date is approximately 1400 BCE - but this is the time they were supposedly in Egypt? (or had just left) - and yet no Egyptian language is remarked from this area at all in the writings we have from this time… on the contrary.

 

Doesn't it seem kind of strange that the Hebrews, if they were enslaved by Egyptians for a long time, wouldn't use EGYPTIAN?  Do slaves speak their own language and expect their masters to speak theirs? No.. that's ludicrous. Yes there is almost no indication that the Egyptian language was used by the Hebrews, or Canaanites either.

 

I have a lot of friends who've moved to Canada from many other places in the world (Syria, Sudan, India, Bangladesh, etc..) and have had children here. They might still speak their own language in their homes but they also speak English and their children are completely fluent in English.. even injecting English words where their language of origin just doesn't work here. In ONE generation. It's now a part of how they think.

 

 

 

KK.. On to Jericho

 

Bronze Age[edit]

Archaeological evidence indicates that in the latter half of the Middle Bronze Age (MBE, c. 1700 BC) the city enjoyed some prosperity, its walls having been strengthened and expanded.^[23] The MBE period and following centuries have engendered controversy due to their importance in the Biblical story of conquest of the "promised land" by the Israelites, during which the walls of the city are supposed to have collapsed, allowing the Israelites led by Joshua to enter the town. John Garstang, who excavated in the 1930s, announced that he had found fallen walls dating to the time of the biblical Battle of Jericho.^[24] However, Garstang later revised the destruction to a much earlier period.^[24] Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of the walled city to the middle of the 16th century (c. 1550 BC), too early to match the Bible story, on the basis of her excavations in the early 1950s.^[25] The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski.^[26]Kenyon's dating was challenged by Bryant Wood in 1990, largely on the argument that Kenyon had misinterpreted the ceramic evidence.^[27] William Dever accused Wood of deceiving the public, while Bienkowski accused Wood of multiple errors, which Wood strenuously denied.^[28][29][30] In 1995, Bruins and var der Plicht announced radiocarbon dating of the city destruction to between 1617 and 1530 BC, agreeing with Kenyon.

 

After the destruction of the city, occupation was minor until about the 11th century.^[24]

 

 

Iron Age[edit]

In the 8th century BC the Assyrians invaded from the north, followed by the Babylonians, and Jericho was depopulated between 586 and 538 BC, the period of the Jewish exile to Babylon. Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, refounded the city one mile (1.6 km) southeast of its historic site at the mound of Tell es-Sultan and returned the Jewish exiles after conquering Babylon in 539 BC.^[12]

~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

 

^ Kenyon, Kathleen "Digging up Jericho"(London, 1957)

^ Piotr Bienkowski (1990). "Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, not the Late Bronze Age". Biblical Archaeology Review 16 (5): 45–46, 69.

^ Bruins, HJ and van der Plicht, J (1995). Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age, Radiocarbon Vol. 37, pp. 213–220. A radiocarbon date of 3306±7 BP was obtained for grains probably remaining from the final few years. This corresponds to a date range (2 sigma) of 1617–1530 BC by the 2004 calibration scale.

 

Emphasis mine

 

 

Ad hoc analogies… nope

Ad hominem… nope

Ad lapidem… nope

Ad novitatem… nope

[mymistake]

 

Another christian who will IGNORE anything that doesn't support his beliefs.. why am I not surprised?

 

 

 

Even if our newest pseudo-intellectual apologist doesn't appreciate your contributions I am grateful for them.  They are good reading.  Thank you so much.

[Ravenstar]

 You are welcome, someone lurking might get something out of it too.