Yoseph and The Departure from Egypt

[bluethread]

I pretty much stay away from this thread, because I believe that scientifically proving the details of historical events is a fools errand. However, examining claims that certain things are scientifically impossible can have value. A case in point is a recent examination of previous discoveries discarded due to archeological orthodoxy.

Most archeologists and even many rabbis, reject the idea that Yoseph ever existed and Israel originated from a population of Semitic people who were delivered from slavery in Egypt and effected a conquest of the land of Canaan. However, upon closer examination it has been proposed that, like the location of Mt. Sinai, the reason why no evidence of such things have not been found was because archeologists were looking in the wrong place, based on orthodoxy and not scientific skepticism.

patternsofevidence.com (also available on Netflix)

The thesis is that, based on the references to the region and city of Rameses, archeologists erroneously presumed that Israel was delivered in the time of Ramesses the Great. However, those references might have been inserted in the text for the sake of the reader at a later date. Though there is no significant population of Semites in Egypt at the time of Ramesses the Great, there is evidence of a significant number of Semites and a swift departure of same in the middle kingdom, some 500 years earlier. Now, there is more to the thesis than that and I am not addressing the grandeur of the miracles on this thread. The only question is does this put to rest the assertion that there is no historical basis for Yoseph, the deliverance from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan?

[bluethread]

It is absurd to use absolutes such as "no relationship" in such discussions. People write about what they know/assume and often weave real things/places/people into flights of fancy. What I am referring are things such as Troy (Iliad) or Babylon (Genesis to Revelation) or Egypt and Sinai (Exodus) or London (Hornblower Series) or Washington D.C. (Tom Clancy), etc.

That is my point. It is absurd to say that there is NO evidence. One can disagree with what the evidence tells us, but saying that there is NO evidence is absurd.

Now, regarding your assertion that the Scriptures do not enhance archeology, that is part of what I am addressing. Isn't it routine practice to use one set of artifacts as clues in finding other artifacts? More to the point, is it acceptable to rule out possibilities based on how one chooses to view a particular artifact or set of artifacts? Do archeologists always correctly understand the ramifications of a particular artifact immediately? Isn't this exclusionary behavior orthodoxy, rather than inquiry?

Unless you are arguing for the archaeological "truth" of a relic like a piece of the true cross, the Holy Grail, the Shroud of Turin, etc., there is no real issue.

Who is arguing for any of that on this thread? I am not saying that everything in the Scriptures has archeological significance, or that archeology establishes the "truth" of anything. In fact, as I stated in the OP, that kind of thing is a fool's errand. If one disbelieves in the authenticity of a relic, one can provide reasoned objections to it. However, to flatly say that claimed relics be rejected out of hand, because one claims that there is NO evidence, is dogma, not science. I would think that the scientific response would be, bring forth the evidence and let's examine it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

Let's assume for the sake of argument, Exodus happened, and the desperate evidence you say might be real is there.

Ramses eliminated the ancestors of anyone who may have survived Exodus.

Those people are dead, their culture and God(s) are no more.

So whom are the people claiming to be the descendants of the Exodus, if, again, they were successfully killed off?

Are you with me yet?

[H.sapiens]

It is absurd to use absolutes such as "no relationship" in such discussions. People write about what they know/assume and often weave real things/places/people into flights of fancy. What I am referring are things such as Troy (Iliad) or Babylon (Genesis to Revelation) or Egypt and Sinai (Exodus) or London (Hornblower Series) or Washington D.C. (Tom Clancy), etc.

That is my point. It is absurd to say that there is NO evidence. One can disagree with what the evidence tells us, but saying that there is NO evidence is absurd.

Now, regarding your assertion that the Scriptures do not enhance archeology, that is part of what I am addressing. Isn't it routine practice to use one set of artifacts as clues in finding other artifacts? More to the point, is it acceptable to rule out possibilities based on how one chooses to view a particular artifact or set of artifacts? Do archeologists always correctly understand the ramifications of a particular artifact immediately? Isn't this exclusionary behavior orthodoxy, rather than inquiry?

Unless you are arguing for the archaeological "truth" of a relic like a piece of the true cross, the Holy Grail, the Shroud of Turin, etc., there is no real issue.

Who is arguing for any of that on this thread? I am not saying that everything in the Scriptures has archeological significance, or that archeology establishes the "truth" of anything. In fact, as I stated in the OP, that kind of thing is a fool's errand. If one disbelieves in the authenticity of a relic, one can provide reasoned objections to it. However, to flatly say that claimed relics be rejected out of hand, because one claims that there is NO evidence, is dogma, not science. I would think that the scientific response would be, bring forth the evidence and let's examine it.

The point is that until you can find (and I am confident you will not) the required firepits the discussion is a waste of time and energy. That lack is "proof" that the Exodus story is not worth a can of beans.

As I said, "While 'Archaeology will not prove the veracity of the bible' it is quite sufficient to falsify it, and does so admirably."

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

Let's assume for the sake of argument, Exodus happened, and the desperate evidence you say might be real is there.

Thank you, that is the point of the thread. Your assertions regarding what may have happened afterwards is beyond the scope of this thread.

[bluethread]

The point is that until you can find (and I am confident you will not) the required firepits the discussion is a waste of time and energy. That lack is "proof" that the Exodus story is not worth a can of beans.

As I said, "While 'Archaeology will not prove the veracity of the bible' it is quite sufficient to falsify it, and does so admirably."

I think there were fire pits in those settlements in the Nile delta. So, where did all of these people go, leaving full stores of grain behind? You may believe that there is not sufficient evidence, but the point that there is NO evidence is not justified.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

That is my point. It is absurd to say that there is NO evidence. One can disagree with what the evidence tells us, but saying that there is NO evidence is absurd.

It is not absurd to say there is NO evidence given the context. If we are discussing if there is evidence of the exodus tale as written in the bible it would be accurate to say there is no evidence as there currently is none.

If the context is a possible proto semetic exodus from Africa through Egypt then there would be some evidence albeit inconclusive.

What you have to realize about evidence for one is not evidence of the other is the exodus tale could be a borrowed tale from those that did come out of Africa and settled in Cannan. after all there already is evidence in the bible of borrowed tales and cultural assimilation. We simply don't have a connecting link from one to the other.



The theory is simply an incredible stretch. Trying to connect some inconclusive evidence about an exodus that may or may not have happened to people that may or may not be related to the early Isrealites.

Even if there were a link between the two that scant evidence in no way whatsoever verifies the biblical tale. Ergo not evidence.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

The size of the group and the period of time would dictate the presence of (at least) one fire pit in every 200 sq. meters of the Sinai. The survival of fire pits from that period in the Nile Delta, from that time, helps to make my point: the Exodus is a fable, there is NO evidence. Scattered fire pits are to be expected ... it is the absence of the required quantity that puts the lie to the story.

[bluethread]

What you have to realize about evidence for one is not evidence of the other is the exodus tale could be a borrowed tale from those that did come out of Africa and settled in Cannan. after all there already is evidence in the bible of borrowed tales and cultural assimilation. We simply don't have a connecting link from one to the other.

So, not only can't we speculate whether these people migrated from Egypt to Canaan, regardless of how that took place, we can not even speculate whether they came from Canaan rather than Ethiopia. So, what is it that we do know about these people? This is why I stay away from this thread. When something fits one set of theories, i.e. the big bang or global climate change, we are supposed to swallow it hook, line and sinker. However, if one speculates on another set of theories, any speculation is verboten. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

The size of the group and the period of time would dictate the presence of (at least) one fire pit in every 200 sq. meters of the Sinai. The survival of fire pits from that period in the Nile Delta, from that time, helps to make my point: the Exodus is a fable, there is NO evidence. Scattered fire pits are to be expected ... it is the absence of the required quantity that puts the lie to the story.

These people aren't even in the Sinai. Maybe you should reread the OP, we are talking about the settlements in the Nile delta. Where did these people come from and where did they go? The time in Sinai is not even addressed. It is interesting that, when certain "acceptable" theories are discussed, the fact that there are questions regarding how those theories fit in the grand scheme of things is not relevant. However, when it comes to other theories every detail must be nailed down. Such is the nature of scientific humanism.

[DanieltheDragon]

What you have to realize about evidence for one is not evidence of the other is the exodus tale could be a borrowed tale from those that did come out of Africa and settled in Cannan. after all there already is evidence in the bible of borrowed tales and cultural assimilation. We simply don't have a connecting link from one to the other.

So, not only can't we speculate whether these people migrated from Egypt to Canaan, regardless of how that took place, we can not even speculate whether they came from Canaan rather than Ethiopia. So, what is it that we do know about these people? This is why I stay away from this thread. When something fits one set of theories, i.e. the big bang or global climate change, we are supposed to swallow it hook, line and sinker. However, if one speculates on another set of theories, any speculation is verboten. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

No one said you couldn't speculate. You were talking about evidence. Speculation is the first step. You speculate that an exodus occurred ~500 years before Ramses that laid the foundation for the exodus story in the bible. So specifically what is the evidence for this? Step two would be examining the evidence available.

I don't want you to back down rather I would have you step up. Let's see what evidence is available and whether or not it supports your speculation. I propose a proto semetic immigration from Africa to Cannan passing through Egypt.

What evidence would you have for a Cannan to Egypt to Cannan again migration?