Written Evidence For The Exodus

[Guest SteveBennett]

Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60710-question-for-non-christians-did-you-know/ 

 

I quickly realized a bit more organization would be needed in order to respond to all of the (many valid) points that were being raised.

 

So, in this forum, I would ask for your permission to address one single fact at a time in dealing with the body of evidence for the Exodus. I feel this is necessary, because there are many facts that require (in and of themselves) sincere consideration.  And (with the moderator's permission), I will frequently update this post one fact at a time.

 

At the end of every week, once discussion on the fact in point has run its course, a new fact will be added to this original post.  Any that wishes to deviate from the fact in point are extended a sincere offer to contact me on Skype or in private messages.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

----------

 

 

Before one even looks at the facts:

 

Remember to always back up and look at the forest, not just the trees.  What does that mean exactly?

 

It means that history always begins and ends with two things and two things only-- texts, and artifacts (that's honestly it).  How we regard the these texts and artifacts is very much a modern day issue (I will eventually raise a separate forum specifically for that subject). But none of us here, 3000 years after the fact, stands a chance at offering any legitimate input with regard to what actually happened before we were born.  

 

Therefore our focus should not be on any secondary sources or present day philosophies or catch phrases (ad novitatem fallacy).  A truly interested investigator trains their mind to "suck out" the primary sources, and "discard" the commentary (this is because commentary or previous judgments can begin to color subsequent facts that we haven't even learned yet).

 

Even as I write, I encourage you to do the same. Take a separate sheet of paper and list the facts, then look up these primary sources, and do your OWN analysis!  Don't just google search for secondary sources that offer analysis to agree with you and then walk away (same goes for you Christian).

 

---

 

Step 1)  Read the Exodus text, specifically look for empirically testable details. Discard everything else (remember we're being historians, here-- not preachers or anti-bible antagonists).

 

Step 2)  Ask, "has anyone credibly tested these details yet?" (For example.  Mr. Ron Wyatt doesn't fit the established criteria for credible testing-- though he is to be credited as the first (known) person to piece all of the primary sources together. Dr. Moller, and his international team of scientists present on site, were the first to establish a credible attempt to test where these primary sources actually lead us).

 

Step 3)  Ask, "are there additional tests outside the text that we can further formulate to test what the text, itself, is claiming?" How would the Egyptians have perceived the same events in their own language for example?

 

Step 4)  If no manner of testing can be established, move on (do not attempt any form of informal fallacy or mixing of issues).  Focus on that which can be tested.  (Bertrand Russell said:  "If something is true then you should believe it, if its not then you shouldn't, and if you can't find out whether its true or whether it isn't then you should suspend judgment"). 

 

Note: always remember-- just because something has been tested once or twice, and passed, doesn't make it true.  But after it passes test after test after test-- THEN it becomes far more likely true than not.

 

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

 

So. . . what testable details does the Exodus text provide us?  Let's begin. . .

 

Testable fact #1:

 

Genesis 37 - Exodus 1 claims that there was a peaceful immigration from Canaan to Egypt under Joseph's authority. This (technically) constitutes two testable facts:  1) That there was a peaceful immigration and 2) That this immigration was facilitated under Joseph's authority.  We know that there was only one era in ancient Egyptian history when foreigners rose to power-- the Hyksos era-- so we should start our search there.

 

What do we find #1? As to the claim of peaceful, foreigner immigration:

 

Please google, "egyptian mural, Hyksos immigration" and you will get to see a series of murals depicting Hyksos (foreigners from Canaan and other Asiatic regions) immigrating into Egypt. The Hyksos era did indeed begin as a result of a peaceful immigration into Egypt (no one debates this).

 

What do we find #2? As to the claim of peaceful, foreigner immigration:

 

Manfred Bietak excavated the Hyksos capital, Avaris.  There, his team found clearly Hebrew architecture.  One particularly prominent building (prominent because of its superior size and central location) had three scarabs inside the structure with the inscription "Jacob Hr" (which translated means "Rock of Jacob").  Several other identical scarabs have been found scattered around Egypt and Canaan.  See here:   http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=14&Issue=1&ArticleID=16

 

To understand the significance of these scarabs, one must understand two things:  1)  A scarab was the equivalent of a modern day police badge and 2) "Jacob" = "Israel".  In other words, if your authority came from from a particular Pharoah, your scarab would have had that Pharoah's family name inscribed on it.  If your authority came from Joseph, as described in Genesis 37- Exodus 1, then your scarab would have referred back to the promises made to Israel as your basis for authority.

 

Again, remember, these buildings were found in the Hyksos capital (Avaris).  And three of these scarabs were found *inside* this prominent Hebrew structured building.  Many more were found scattered throughout Egypt and Canaan.

 

Please be respectful in always referring everything back to the testable detail being discussed.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, you ducked my challenge to prove the validity and veracity of the bible in order to start a whole new thread where you intend to continue using Ron Wyatt as a source?  I'd say, "Well played" but it would be a lie.  

 

Please present your evidence concerning the bible, before expecting anyone to take you seriously.

[MerryG]

Oh brother. Here we go again. SteveBennett, are you even slightly aware that the typical pattern with proselytizing christians here at Ex-C is that they start threads, then when people ask questions or bring up points that they can't specifically answer, they start NEW threads to avoid the issues?

 

Yep, you're just repeating the same old pattern.

 

And also repeating a familiar pattern of talking down to us.

 

You do seem to have a more-than-usally severe compulsion to set and rigidly control the terms of the dialog, though. So you're a little different -- though not in a good way.

 

And you know, I don't think the Flord our Mod is likely to let you use the Lion's Den for long as your own private lecture hall.

 

It's about dialog here, Steve. Try going back to your other threads and addressing the specific points people have raised.

[Guest SteveBennett]

you intend to continue using Ron Wyatt as a source?

 

No.  You will clearly see in my original statement that I have absolutely no intention of using Ron Wyatt as a source-- since he does not pass the criteria for a credible testing of the text.

 

Only someone who has credibly tested a text may be used as a primary source (and not even them, actually, but the results of their tests are what one may actually use).  Dr. Moller and his international team of scientists, present on site, pass this critera.  Their findings may be regarded as fact when conducting our (one's ) analysis.

 

This is the last I will respond on this issue (for now), but I promise it will be addressed once we reach the facts that actually lead us (one ) to the crossing point.

[MerryG]

when conducting our analysis.

 

 

Our analysis? Speaking in the Imperial voice, are we?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

you intend to continue using Ron Wyatt as a source?

 

No.  You will clearly see in my original statement that I have absolutely no intention of using Ron Wyatt as a source-- since he does not pass the criteria for a credible testing of the text.

 

Only someone who has credibly tested a text may be used as a primary source (and not even them, actually, but the results of their tests are what one may actually use).  Dr. Moller and his international team of scientists, present on site, pass this critera.  Their findings may be regarded as fact when conducting our (one's ) analysis.

 

This is the last I will respond on this issue (for now), but I promise it will be addressed once we reach the facts that actually lead us to the crossing point.

 

Thank you for the clarification.  However, we are not required to regard anything as fact unless and until it has withstood scientific scrutiny.  If you intend on using Dr. Moller, you will need to provide independent sources that verify Dr. Moller's findings.

 

Lastly, we are all still waiting for your evidence demonstrating the validity and veracity of the bible.  You could present this evidence either on this thread or on the one I started for that purpose.  However, I would prefer you did so on my thread in order to contain any confusion.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60710-question-for-non-christians-did-you-know/ 

 

 

 

Therefore our focus should not be on any secondary sources or present day philosophies or catch phrases (ad novitatem fallacy).  A truly interested investigator trains their mind to "suck out" the primary sources, and "discard" the commentary (this is because commentary or previous judgments can begin to color subsequent facts that we haven't even learned yet).

 

Even as I write, I encourage you to do the same. Take a separate sheet of paper and list the facts, then look up these primary sources, and do your OWN analysis!  Don't just google search for secondary sources that offer analysis to agree with you and then walk away (same goes for you Christian:rolleyes:).

 

---

 

 

Please be respectful in always referring everything back to the testable detail being discussed.

Cool. We'd all like to receive, earn, and give respect.

 

I fear your new thread about assessing facts will run aground at the outset unless you:

 

1 - start unpacking the notion of "facts." For example, you haven't yet showed an appreciation of what MerryG and others have urged, i.e. that you attempt to take into account the genre, biases, etc. that infect literary accounts. In a story like that in Exodus, there are precious few brute "empirically testable details" that can be detached from the surrounding story. Can you set out some considerations about how to avoid mistaking elements of the ancient author's slant for facts?

It was already pointed out, I forget by whom, that Exodus includes a story about magicians and Moses throwing down their rods, which turn to snakes. The presence of this detail suggests that Exodus is not what we would consider simply a factual account. But then, what conventions of writing guide the author and his audience? There are no nuggets in that account that are not infected by the system of story-telling in which each element of the account is presented.

How to handle ancient story/history is a very complex problem, which I do not think you have yet confronted.

 

2. Don't jump to accuse people of "ad verecundiam" and other fallacies. We're all trying to cite sources, and few of us, if any, are trained, professional historians. We all have to rely on the work of experts. We're not going to do our own carbon 14 lab tests or go learn languages we don't now know...

[Guest SteveBennett]

deleted-- off point.

[Storm]

Ravenstar already refuted your Scarab belief, yet you continue to make the statement that it is equivalent to a police badge. Secondly, as someone already pointed out to you in your other thread about the exodus, Hebrew influenced architecture is not a valid proof that Hebrews lived in a city en masse. While I believe that it is likely that there were some Hebrews that may have lived in Hyksos territories, it does not by any means actually prove anything that is written in the Bible about the exodus. And, as others have also stated, even if the exodus is verified to be true, it does not validate the bible nor does it prove god exists. Numerous fictional stories contain information regarding actual factual events. That does not validate those stories as truth. They are fiction. So I do not see what you are attempting to show anyone here by making these posts.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Ravenstar already refuted your Scarab belief, 

 

What, exactly, did a secondary source (anywhere) say that could possibly refute how well the Jacob Hr scarabs correspond to Genesis 37 - Exodus 1?

 

A perfectly, historically expected, symbol of Joseph's authority?

 

Could someone have fabricated such a perfect detail to correspond to what Genesis 37-Exodus 1 claims?

 

Of course not.

 

Does this make the events that Genesis 37-Exodus 1 records all true?  No. It only makes them more likely true.  Since, wherever we can empirically test, the text passes.

[MerryG]

 

Ravenstar already refuted your Scarab belief, 

 

What, exactly, did a secondary source say (anywhere) say to refute the Jacob Hr scarabs?

 

 

Maybe you should go back to Ravenstar's post, follow the links she provided, and address any specific questions or disagreements directly to her, directly on those issues, and directly in the thread where the issues were being discussed.

[Guest SteveBennett]

The topic of this forum is one fact at a time.  

 

Please try and understand, and be respectful, of the fact that not everyone can keep up with a discussion that keeps deviating off topic.

 

My personal opinion is that sincere thinkers are hungry for a single forum in which someone doesn't reference an authority figure or secondary source-- and dissects one issue at a time.

 

Thankyou.

 

I'll be logging out now.  I will return in about 14 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

[MerryG]

The topic of this forum is one fact at a time.  

 

Please try and understand, and be respectful, of the fact that not everyone can keep up with a discussion that keeps deviating off topic.

 

My personal opinion is that sincere thinkers are hungry for a single forum in which someone doesn't reference an authority figure or secondary source-- and dissects one issue at a time.

 

Thankyou.

 

I'll be logging out now.  I will return in about 14 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

 

In other words, you don't want to answer other people's questions. You can't actually meet their challenges and you know it. So you just want to preach at us on a subject entirely of your choosing, using rigid methods you don't want us to question, and avoiding all discussion of issues people raise.

 

Yeah, that's clear enough.

[florduh]

Steve, you store your canned goods in alphabetical order, don't you?

[MerryG]

My personal opinion is that sincere thinkers are hungry for a single forum in which someone doesn't reference an authority figure or secondary source-- and dissects one issue at a time.

 

BTW, you are the only person here who has shown any hunger to have a single-minded discussion about one small part of the OT.

 

Others -- you know, the people you're supposedly having a conversation with -- have been quite emphatic that other issues interest them more and are far more important.

 

Even those who've expressed an interest in discussing Exodus have raised specific issues that you are quite specifically avoiding.

[MerryG]

Steve, you store your canned goods in alphabetical order, don't you?

 

Ohgod, Florduh. I really, really, really wish we could give reputation points to mods.

 

And I wish I had your talent for wicked brevity.

[Margee]

 

 

Note: always remember-- just because something has been tested once or twice, and passed, doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

 

 

.....Like an ancient book written by man and is supposedly the 'spoken voice' of god himself without 'him' showing any evidence except to speak through people's minds???  I could have been a better god than Yahweh......

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The topic of this forum is one fact at a time.  

 

Please try and understand, and be respectful, of the fact that not everyone can keep up with a discussion that keeps deviating off topic.

 

My personal opinion is that sincere thinkers are hungry for a single forum in which someone doesn't reference an authority figure or secondary source-- and dissects one issue at a time.

 

Thankyou.

 

I'll be logging out now.  I will return in about 14 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

"Play by my rules or I will take my ball and go home!"

[MerryG]

 

 

 

Note: always remember-- just because something has been tested once or twice, and passed, doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

 

 

.....Like an ancient book written by man and is supposedly the 'spoken voice' of god himself without 'him' showing any evidence except to speak through people's minds???  I could have been a better god than Yahweh......

 

 

Margee, FWIW, I think you would have been a really nice god -- bestowing love, communicating freely, and keeping the smiting to a bare, necessary minimum.

 

Of course, being nice would have put you at a severe disadvantage among all the world's other gods, who'd probably end up beating the crap out of you (vicious lot that they are).

[Margee]

 

 

 

 

Note: always remember-- just because something has been tested once or twice, and passed, doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

 

 

.....Like an ancient book written by man and is supposedly the 'spoken voice' of god himself without 'him' showing any evidence except to speak through people's minds???  I could have been a better god than Yahweh......

 

 

Margee, FWIW, I think you would have been a really nice god -- bestowing love, communicating freely, and keeping the smiting to a bare, necessary minimum.

 

Of course, being nice would have put you at a severe disadvantage among all the world's other gods, who'd probably end up beating the crap out of you (vicious lot that they are).

 

 

I would have bestowed the whole world with tons of money and happiness. I would have told you that at 90 years of age to lie down on your bed and go to sleep and then brought you to my heaven when we would  toke and drink and dance and party forever!!!

 

love ya merry!!

[Kris]

Are you kidding-- you are an idiot. You already posted "facts" on exodus that were trounced in another thread so you move it? No wonder you are still a Christian. You only see what you want.

[mymistake]

 

 

Testable fact #1:

 

Genesis 37 - Exodus 1 claims that there was a peaceful immigration from Canaan to Egypt under Joseph's authority. This (technically) constitutes two testable facts:  1) That there was a peaceful immigration and 2) That this immigration was facilitated under Joseph's authority.  We know that there was only one era in ancient Egyptian history when foreigners rose to power-- the Hyksos era-- so we should start our search there.

 

What do we find #1? As to the claim of peaceful, foreigner immigration:

 

Please google, "egyptian mural, Hyksos immigration" and you will get to see a series of murals depicting Hyksos (foreigners from Canaan and other Asiatic regions) immigrating into Egypt. The Hyksos era did indeed begin as a result of a peaceful immigration into Egypt (no one debates this).

 

What do we find #2? As to the claim of peaceful, foreigner immigration:

 

Manfred Bietak excavated the Hyksos capital, Avaris.  There, his team found clearly Hebrew architecture.  One particularly prominent building (prominent because of its superior size and central location) had three scarabs inside the structure with the inscription "Jacob Hr" (which translated means "Rock of Jacob").  Several other identical scarabs have been found scattered around Egypt and Canaan.  See here:   http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=14&Issue=1&ArticleID=16

 

To understand the significance of these scarabs, one must understand two things:  1)  A scarab was the equivalent of a modern day police badge and 2) "Jacob" = "Israel".  In other words, if your authority came from from a particular Pharoah, your scarab would have had that Pharoah's family name inscribed on it.  If your authority came from Joseph, as described in Genesis 37- Exodus 1, then your scarab would have referred back to the promises made to Israel as your basis for authority.

 

Again, remember, these buildings were found in the Hyksos capital (Avaris).  And three of these scarabs were found *inside* this prominent Hebrew structured building.  Many more were found scattered throughout Egypt and Canaan.

 

 

You are assuming things you need to prove.  Hyksos doesn't mean Hebrew.  Why are you looking for fact in religious texts that are filled with magic, gods, angels, genocide, genital mutilation, blood sacrifice and all that other bias?

 

Ravanstar already destroyed your point #2.  As for point #1 you have no reason to connect the mention in a mythical source of a few dozen people moving to Egypt with any particular moment of real people in history.  People would come to Egypt from the surrounding desert regions during any famine year.  The numbers mentioned in Genesis could have happened at any year and not even been noticed.

 

Your apologist methods are backwards.  If you want to get anywhere you should make the last Hyksos ruler the Pharaoh who would not let Moses go.  Then God's wrath destroying that Pharaoh would "magically" allow the Egyptians to overthrow the Hyksos and you could hand wave away all the Egyptian accounts of their victory as pride and propaganda . . . cuz God did it.

[mymistake]

  I could have been a better god than Yahweh......

 

 

Oh Margee you already are a better god than Yahweh.

[Kris]

By the way. Moller used Ron Wyatt as his primary source and even used his "evidence" and failed to explain the controversy of Wyatt's findings in his video as any good historian should do so as to educate the viewer who could then decide what to believe. He is untruthful and deceptive--- what a Christian.

[♦ ficino ♦]

My personal opinion is that sincere thinkers are hungry for a single forum in which someone doesn't reference an authority figure or secondary source-- and dissects one issue at a time.

I too call bullshit. In #1 you said to take this step after picking out testable details:

 

"Step 2) Ask, 'has anyone credibly tested these details yet?'"

 

This will require consulting and citing secondary sources.

 

Yet above you say that we are not to "reference an authority figure or secondary source."