Written Evidence For The Exodus

[Overcame Faith]

Steve, compare the kind of thoughtful and thought provoking responses you have received from the highly intelligent folks on ExC to what you would receive if you presented your "evidence" in the average Christian church anywhere in the world.  In those churches, you would receive smiling faces, nodding heads, and shouts of "Amen!" because you would be telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.  Here, on the other hand, you must meet your burden of proof and in that you have failed as the scholars on this forum have so aptly demonstrated.

 

Try thinking about that for a minute or two.

[Ravenstar]

Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christ...-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. Whatever

 

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. No, I'll do it my way, thank you… because I have MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE than you do on this era. That is obvious.

 

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? But.. later you say we can't look at the forest.. we need to concentrate on this one little leaf. Quit changing the rules. I'm going to ignore them anyway - because they are stupid, and arbitrary.

 

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.  Correct.. we can only look at ALL the evidence and come up with the most likely interpretation/conclusion.

 

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). *secondary sources, like the Bible. It is just ONE of many puzzle pieces. Already showed the Bible is NOT a primary source, it is secondary.. not to be dismissed for sure - but it has no more authority than any other information.

 

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).  Being an Historian I have more sources than Google, but it's easier to copy and paste from papers on the net than re-type out my fucking library. Plus, I have access to certain papers on the net…peer-reviewed. If I didn't I wouldn't have any space in my home.

 

---

 

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). No, I will NOT discard everything else because the Bible is NOT a primary source.. I have established that.

 

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).  Yes, actually, many historians and archaeologists have tested these details - though much work remains to be done as we discover more.

 

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?   LOL, seriously? I think I have also established that the Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians and Babylonians have MUCH to say… but not about the EXODUS.. hmmm.. why is that? Even the Canaanites have little to nothing to say about it.

 

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. I understand Occams Razor, thank you.

 

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

 

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). I thought you said NOT to just Google? The Hyksos were NOT the Hebrews, I have established that, unless the Hebrews worshipped SETH. Fail.

 

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-a...=1&ArticleID=16    Please cite the peer-reviewed paper from Beitak, not an apologist site (which I can't access anyway).  And it DOES not.. it translates to "protected by the mountain (god)" or, "supplanter of the mountain".  and it's Yaqob(v)–har.. and not the Hebrew Ya-aqov-hr. 27 scarabs were found.. all over… we have been over this a few times. That there was a Hyksos ruler (or vassal to a Hyksos ruler) named Menuserre yaqob-har is not in dispute.. during the second intermediate period… which is actually a pretty sketchy historical time. The exact dates are unknown… though thought to be 15th Century BCE.

 

To understand the significance of these scarabs, one must understand two things:  1)  A scarab was the equivalent of a modern day police badge (bwahahahahahahaha   NO. [insert grumpy cat here] ) and 2) "Jacob" = "Israel".

 

(Some biblical scholars and historians of ancient Israel today view the patriarchical narratives, including the life of Jacob, as late (6th and 5th centuries BCE) literary compositions that have ideological and theological purposes but are unreliable for historical reconstruction of the presettlement period of Israel’s past.^[45][46]

The recent excavations in the Timna Valley dating copper mining to the 10th century BCE also discovered what may be the earliest camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.^[47]

 

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

 

Obviously there are questions here, and the timeline is all wrong. By almost a 900 years.

 

Important Canaanite populations first appeared in Egypt towards the end of the 12th Dynasty c. 1800 BC, and either around that time or c. 1720 BC, formed an independent realm in the eastern Nile Delta.^[5] The Canaanite rulers of the Delta, regrouped in the 14th Dynasty, coexisted with the Egyptian 13th Dynasty, based in Itjtawy. The power of the 13th and 14th dynasties progressively waned, perhaps due to famine and plague,^[5][6] and c. 1650 BC both were invaded by the Hyksos, who formed their own dynasty, the 15th Dynasty. The collapse of the 13th Dynasty created a power vacuum in the south, which may have led to the rise of the 16th Dynasty, based in Thebes, and possibly of a local dynasty in Abydos.^[5] Both were eventually conquered by the Hyksos, albeit for a short time in the case of Thebes. From then on, the 17th Dynasty took control of the Thebes and reigned for some time in peaceful coexistence with the Hyksos kings, perhaps as their vassals. Eventually, Seqenenre Tao, Kamose and Ahmose waged war against the Hyksos and expelled Khamudi, their last king, from Egypt c. 1550 BC.^[5]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos}

 

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. Already completely demolished… wrong - where the heck did you get this bullcrap? The signet ring is another story - THESE were basically seals of authority (actually anyone who wanted to sign something probably had one, or a cylinder seal… but commoners rarely had the means or reason to use these unless they were merchants). People didn't have 'LAST' names, or family names.. sheesh. ('Last" names are fairly recent - middle ages) They changed their names all the time.. the closest we get to a family name is "son of" in the case of Pharaohs they usually changed their names to include the name of their patron god, not their father. (i.e.: Ramses means "son of Ra", Akenaten refers to the ATEN as the primary god, as opposed to Ra or Re,  Tut-ankh-amen(aten)… actually changed his name several times to correspond with the political climate, and avoid being assassinated by the priests after his fathers monotheism was rejected [and Ay])  Because.. wait for it!!!… Pharaohs got their authority by being the gods representative, a manifestation of the god itself… not from their family - though lineage was important - which is why most Pharaohs married their sisters… because the bloodline came from the FEMALE. Egyptology 101.

 

The Canaanites and then the Hyksos adopted Egyptian customs and names somewhere between the 15th and 18th dynasty. They were NEVER slaves.. but conquerors who were driven out in the 18th dynasty. (Ahmose = Son of Ah, or Ai, Lunar deity)

 

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. What prominent Hebrew building? Architecture was a mixture of Canaanite, Egyptian and MINOAN in Avaris. There is no evidence I can find for a purely Hebrew piece of architecture in Avaris. (maybe because the Hebrews weren't actually an organized peoples yet, at least not with any real power.. just sayin') Please cite a or several peer-reviewed papers for this building.

 

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

 

Anything else?

 

*Edited for clarity

[Ravenstar]

Oh Flord!  Would those be divine mod babies?

 

[Ravenstar]

Hahahahahahaha…. I found a statue of Menuserre Yq'b-Hr   A GRAVEN image!!!  His CARTOUCHE names him as "Strong is the love of Re". Yup…  that's NOT Jacob of the Bible.

 

 

 

He looks like someone I know  LOL

[mymistake]

Hahahahahahaha…. I found a statue of Menuserre Yq'b-Hr   A GRAVEN image!!!  His CARTOUCHE names him as "Strong is the love of Re". Yup…  that's NOT Jacob of the Bible.

 

tumblr_mrgca83eY81qifcxeo1_500.jpg

 

He looks like someone I know  LOL

 

 

See?  You are not following proper methodology.  You are suppose to look at only the one fact Steve gives you.  Once you start looking at facts related to that one (such as statues of Yq'b-Hr) you are no longer looking at just the one fact Steve choose.  Now buckle down.  We are going to stick only to Steve's chosen fact and we are going to keep looking at it until you are ready to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.  Remember?  Proper methodology!

[Ravenstar]

[Kris]

Wow--- awesome find Ravenstar!!

[Ravenstar]

Pretty cool huh?  I'm amazed they have anything like this considering the turmoil of the time.

 

He's got a very strong square jawline    Egyptians were more round-faced usually.

 

But the carving shows definite signs of Egyptian artistic style.. it's static, facing forward… it's typical of Egyptian depictions. He has no beard though (unless it's been lost) which would make him NOT really a pharaoh, but more like a regent or vizier. The hairstyle is typically Egyptian, not Canaanite, probably a wig. He isn't wearing the crown of lower Egypt either.

 

The face is definitely not Egyptian though - too knobby, of course I would have to know what material it is… they carved a lot in Basalt which is very hard and only lends itself to smooth, round forms. This looks more like, maybe Diorite.. or a cheap alabaster… maybe marble or granite. The pic isn't good enough to tell.

 

Wait.. Serpentine or Jasper.

[Kris]

Well, this certainly lends credence to what I was trying to tell Mr Steve earlier----- that there may have been a Jacob back in the day who was then later incorporated into the bible history to meet their needs.

[Ravenstar]

That seems to be the way things are coming out in archaeology as far as the bible history goes. Of course I find it odd that 'pharaoh' (actually a few that are mentioned) are not named in the Bible…. because everyone would have known who the ruler of Egypt was back then. Kind of like everyone knows who the president of the USA is.

[RipVanWinkle]

When Xtian archaeologists (a/k/a apologists) come across any documents or artifacts which they can construe or misconstrue to confirm their preexisting beliefs they want to immediately call the the investigation closed and declare themselves the winner. "No need to investigate any further; we won!"   bill

[mymistake]

That seems to be the way things are coming out in archaeology as far as the bible history goes. Of course I find it odd that 'pharaoh' (actually a few that are mentioned) are not named in the Bible…. because everyone would have known who the ruler of Egypt was back then. Kind of like everyone knows who the president of the USA is.

 

 

It makes perfect sense that the Hebrews wouldn't know who the Pharaoh was if these were just folk tales that were passed around like rumors and then collected into writings after the Hebrews came back from Babylon.  They wouldn't even know what century the story was suppose to have happened in.

[Ravenstar]

good point

[LivingLife]

Imagine if atheists only compelling argument was to type in big font sizes...

 

That is all

[mymistake]

Imagine if atheists only compelling argument was to type in big font sizes...

 

That is all

 

  You made my day LL.  Thanks!

[Guest SteveBennett]

I've scanned for anyone that would contest the facts in point as they stand.

 

I see nothing new being added to the discussion ever since Ravenstar pointed out that "rock" could also be translated "hill" or "mountain."

 

As such, with the moderators permission, I'll go ahead and add the next empirically testable detail to the list.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I've scanned for anyone that would contest the facts in point as they stand.

 

I see nothing new being added to the discussion ever since Ravenstar pointed out that "rock" could also be translated "hill" or "mountain" or some other such immovable object.

 

I do, of course, see a myriad of alternative interpretations of the facts.  Most of them are very reasonable hypotheses only if one doesn't take Genesis 37-Exodus 1 seriously (like the idea that Yaqub-Hr is just a Pharaoh whose home we haven't been able to dig up yet).

 

But, of course, the purpose of our experiment is to test if the text ought to be taken seriously or not-- and to do that, we have to proceed as if we can take the text seriously just to see where we end up.

 

As such.  With the moderators permission, I'll go ahead and add the next empirically testable detail, so that it may be debated.

[bornagainathiest]

I've scanned for anyone that would contest the facts in point as they stand.

 

I see nothing new being added to the discussion ever since Ravenstar pointed out that "rock" could also be translated "hill" or "mountain."

 

As such, with the moderators permission, I'll go ahead and add the next empirically testable detail to the list.

 

 

 

No Steve!

 

It's not up to the Mods and it's not up to you.

 

If you want a monolog, go ahead.

 

You wait for Ravenstar, Kris, MyMistake and Ficino to give you the green light.

 

THEN you go ahead.

 

That's what a dialog is.

 

So wait.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Well we will never get anywhere if we don't ever just allow the facts to speak for themselves and move forward.

 

I've always felt its best, especially when dealing with subjects for which people have extremely strong opinions, to just let people decide for themselves what the facts show.

 

If I told you I was not going to proceed linearly, that I was just going to jump around from place to place wherever I thought the evidence was strongest, wouldn't you be suspicious that I was waxing a confirmation bias?

 

Isn't the same thing true of someone who wants to jump around to places wherever they think the evidence is weakest?

 

That's why a linear approach is so important-- it exhibits that we are not just trying to follow our confirmation biases.

 

I promise that I will get to each and every concern.  For example, the next concern is to do with Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446.  A while back someone said (I can't remember) that the papyrus is not actually populated by names with Hebrew characteristics.  I'd really like to answer that objection next.

 

But I can't unless we proceed.

 

What does it matter if we jump around from topic to topic now, so long as I promise that we will get to each objection as they arise-- but in an organized, linear fashion?

[falemon]

Well we will never get anywhere if we don't ever just allow the facts to speak for themselves and move forward.

 

I've always felt its best, especially when dealing with subjects for which people have extremely strong opinions, to just let people decide for themselves what the facts show.

 

If I told you I was not going to proceed linearly, that I was just going to jump around from place to place wherever I thought the evidence was strongest, wouldn't you be suspicious that I was waxing a confirmation bias?

Tell me your exact goal and process.

 

I will tell you the quality of your process, and refine it for you if I see any flaws.

 

Would you be happy to verify that your process is truthful?

[bornagainathiest]

Well we will never get anywhere if we don't ever just allow the facts to speak for themselves and move forward.

 

I've always felt its best, especially when dealing with subjects for which people have extremely strong opinions, to just let people decide for themselves what the facts show.

 

If I told you I was not going to proceed linearly, that I was just going to jump around from place to place wherever I thought the evidence was strongest, wouldn't you be suspicious that I was waxing a confirmation bias?

 

Isn't the same thing true of someone who wants to jump around to places wherever they think the evidence is weakest?

 

That's why a linear approach is so important-- it exhibits that we are not just trying to follow our confirmation biases.

 

I promise that I will get to each and every concern.  For example, the next concern is to do with Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446.  A while back someone said (I can't remember) that the papyrus is not actually populated by names with Hebrew characteristics.  I'd really like to answer that objection next.

 

But I can't unless we proceed.

 

What does it matter if we jump around from topic to topic now, so long as I promise that we will get to each objection as they arise-- but in an organized, linear fashion?

 

You still don't get it, Steve.

 

This thread is not about getting... "somewhere".

This thread is about dealing with the concerns of others and if they don't agree with you that their concerns have been properly addressed, then this thread goes... "nowhere".

 

You began this thread with these words...

Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christ...-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.

 

You clearly and plainly asked permission to address one single fact at a time - but that permission has not been given.  Your methodology has not been approved by the people this thread was meant to serve.  When or if it is, then and only then can you proceed.  If permission is never given, then you can never proceed.

 

So Steve, it may be a bitter pill for you to swallow, but here's the deal.

If this thread goes nowhere, there's nothing you alone can do about that.  If this thread never gets past the very first item, there's nothing you alone can do about that either.  You have to get the other on board before you can proceed, ok?

 

How you do that seems to be the sticking point here. 

Therefore I strongly recommend that you come to some kind of agreement with Falemon, Ravenstar and the others on how to proceed.  If there's no agreement on that issue - then this thread goes nowhere.

 

Please indicate that you understand and accept that this thread only proceeds by common agreement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

This thread is not about getting... "somewhere".

This thread is about dealing with the concerns of others and if they don't agree with you that their concerns have been properly addressed, then this thread goes... "nowhere".

 

Sorry.  If I promise people a scientific, linear, approach where one fact at a time is given an opportunity to be debated and disputed-- I have to keep that promise.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

This thread is not about getting... "somewhere".

This thread is about dealing with the concerns of others and if they don't agree with you that their concerns have been properly addressed, then this thread goes... "nowhere".

 

Sorry.  If I promise people a scientific, linear, approach where one fact at a time is given an opportunity to be debated and disputed-- I have to keep that promise.

 

 

Wrong!

 

Your promise was made on the condition that you ask permission to proceed.

 

Shall I post your own words again?

 

Shall I keep on posting them until you admit that you require our permission?

 

Or will you just retract your promise - so that you can go forging ahead as YOU want to?

[Guest SteveBennett]

Well.  To clarify, I am perfectly willing to concede that moderators may silence me at any time-- which is why I require their permission.

 

But my promise is to continue with this approach-- pending my permissions are taken away.

[Ravenstar]

I've scanned for anyone that would contest the facts in point as they stand. Which tells me that you don't have the knowledge to assess the information. I don't just regurgitate what I use to support what I know… I have knowledge in this area and the citations are to support my position.

 

I see nothing new being added to the discussion ever since Ravenstar pointed out that "rock" could also be translated "hill" or "mountain" or some other such immovable object. Really now? hmm… scarabs, architecture, time line, Hyksos history, religious differences, etc… you have not ONCE given me credit on any point or evidence I have produced.

 

I do, of course, see a myriad of alternative interpretations of the facts.  Most of them are very reasonable hypotheses only if one doesn't take Genesis 37-Exodus 1 seriously (like the idea that Yaqub-Hr is just a Pharaoh whose home we haven't been able to dig up yet). No.. the interpretation is that the script is NOT history, the text is not history, the scarabs do not identify Yacob-har as the Jacob of the bible, not does the signet ring, and the Hebrews never ruled in Egypt.

 

But, of course, the purpose of our experiment is to test if the text ought to be taken seriously or not-- and to do that, we have to proceed as if we can take the text seriously just to see where we end up. It's not MY experiment, but still, it fails.. we can not take it seriously at this time. If other evidence comes up then we can reassess what we already know - THAT is what science does.

 

It would be nice if you would address my points.. THAT's a dialogue. Please show me where the information I have produced is in error if you believe it is, and can demonstrate that. I have addressed each one of your points and expanded on them - to  where they look patently ridiculous. Each one of the things I have brought up bear on the veracity of you OP. You can not compartmentalize history - it doesn't work that way. No ONE find or text tells the story… you could find a robe with Jesus' name on a tag with Mary's signature on it and it's still not proof of anything…other than some guy named jesus had someone named mary weave a robe and out a tag in it,  it's one piece of the puzzle.

 

I've demonstrated that The Torah is not a primary source document (not all of it anyway) and WHY it isn't. Although in most cases I would not say that because it is a valid source document. As are the Ugarit texts, the myriad tablets from Sumeria, Egytpian records, The Enuma Elish, and the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as the wealth of artistic, trade, architecture and household finds during the era(s).

 

I've stated that the story of Joseph is a parable/metaphor (though, fairly haven't exactly gone into detail on that).

 

I've shown that the Hyksos are not the Hebrews of the Bible… unless the Bible is lying about who they were and the archaeological record is lying about their actual level of skill. Seriously - compared to the Hyksos they sucked.. compared to the Egyptians they were barbarians. AT that time.

 

The text you are trying to support doesn't seem to actually have much support except as part of a parable and an ego boost for the Hebrews - it's propaganda that doesn't correspond with the actual discoveries about this Dynasty, and I've shown WHY. In multiple ways. I'm not your personal flipping' library or professor.

 

If you can't understand the larger view.. that's fine, but if you are going to summarily dismiss the evidence because it doesn't correlate with what you want it to say - then you are dishonest, and disrespectful of the time and effort Kris, Ficino and myself have put into answering your query. I have decimated your OP… do you think I'm wrong? Show me and the readers why.

 

I strongly suggest that you go back to my posts and show me where I am wrong, if not for me then for those lurking christians who are on the fence right now, because your OP is incomplete. You can't assert a claim and then just ignore the evidence placed before you - that's not how it works… if you only can support your claim from apologists and have no actual knowledge of your own and have not done the WORK then maybe you should do that.

 

Waiting...