No Hebrews in Egypt and no Exodus?

[polonius]

It is now believed that the first seven book of the Bible were written about 800-700 AD perhaps by Jews living in Babylon.

And archeology has determined that there were no Hebrews in Egypt and hence no Exodus.

How do those of the Jewish faith make an adjustment to these new findings? How do Christians?

[2timothy316]

At least in the case of the Exodus.

Be wary of putting the label 'accurate' upon the Bible. Where does that label end?

Be wary of putting the label of 'inaccurate' upon the Bible. If you approach everything in life as being inaccurate this way then you will fall when others stumble. Like those that took one verse from the Bible and just assumed Ramses II was the pharaoh of the Exodus and got it wrong.

[2timothy316]

Correction on my posts: Ramses I, was not the right pharaoh either. I have not watched the film in a while. Still the real time period of the Exodus is hundreds of years before both Ramses.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by 2timothy316]

Just to let you know, I've got the movie queued up and will be watching it in a short bit. Just have to pop out to get pizza. However, do not expect my critique on it until tomorrow morning (around 12 to 14 hours as of the posting of this comment).

Just wondering what your official stance on this is: do you agree with everything said in the documentary, or is there something you take issue with? When I do critique the documentary, should I be treating it as something you agree with wholeheartedly, or are there things I should keep in mind that are not also held by yourself?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 23 by rikuoamero]

It presents both sides and their reasons why. The thing that I don't understand is why even though all this evidence that the Exodus took place in the Middle Kingdom. Raamses is the same area as Goshen and Avaris. Just what this place was called has changed and even overlapped.

Many, even Rabbis have jumped to the conclusion that Ramses II must have been the Pharaoh at the time of Moses. But none of the evidence supports that, so why hold on to it? Just because of a name change from Avaris to Raamses that perhaps some scribe was ordered to change it from Avaris to Raamses so that it could be understood by people of that time where it was. Perhaps Avaris was no longer used and people only knew the area as Raamses. Yet both names are correct in what area they are speaking of.

One of the 'scholars' said that they dismiss many critical pieces of evidence for one reason. 'It's too fantastic to believe'. This 'scholar' even says of the only piece of non-Bible evidence to an Egyptian eye witness, he says of this man, 'must have imagined it.' That's nuts. How can a scholar know if someone was an eye witness or he imagined it? The papyrus they know comes from the Middle Kingdom. How can someone look at the evidence and just turn it down like that?

You will note the main person that supports the Bible record as correct and thinks the Exodus did happen is an agnostic. Perhaps you can be as non-biased and follow the evidence and not the main stream answer based on tradition.

[polonius]

JW posted:

Anyway the bible says the Israelites were in Egypt, I don't see your point is theology, doctrine or dogma which is what this sub-forum is dedicated to. The bible is quite clear, and does not present the account as metaphoric, what theological point are you submitting?

RESPONSE: Ah yes! The old Bible says…claim.

Are you again attempting to use “The Bible says so therefore it must be true� argument?

Do you understand the difference between folklore and history?

Since the bible is authoritative here I am proposing that bible history IS history... So... are you essentially saying "Prove the bible true"? If not, we are discussing theology, if you have a bible based theology to propose do so, if not your post is irrelevant, its neither theology, doctrine or dogma. If I wanted to question the authenticity of the bible I would go to a more appropriate sub-forum.

RESPONSE: Nope, Your opinion is not supported by the evidence. In fact, it is contradicted by the clear evidence to the contrary. Let's review: 400 years, 2 million Hebrews, but absolutely no archeological or historical trace. Just a legend which some fundamentalists claim.


Moderator Clarification

Note that the guideline only applies to the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum, not to the entire site. [b]The guidelines also do not imply that the Bible is only to be interpreted in a fundamentalist perspective. The guidelines say nothing about the Bible being inerrant or infallible.[/b] It only says that it is considered authoritative and it is not allowed to dispute it as a primary reference.

The clear evidence demonstrates that there is no archeological record of Hebrews being in Egypt. The story is just a foundational fable.

Fundamentalist may claim otherwise but can present no supporting evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 25 by polonius.advice]

The clear evidence the bible says otherwise, your so called evidence contradict the BIBLE. In this sub-forum it is the bible which is authorative and since it is not allowed to dispute it as a primary reference I will ignore you comments as irrelevant. if I wished to discuss the authenticity of the Bible I would do it elsewhere.

Now given the above do you have a thecological point regarding the interprelation of the Scriptures concerned' feel free to present it, for example site the scripture and tell me what you believe it does mean rather than site archaeologists and tell me what it doesn't.

Of course I will remind you I am not obliged to accept your interpretation but as yet I don't see you have even offered one just a load of irrelevant details ?

So what is your biblical interpretation and do you have any scriptural support for it? If you don't actually have an interpretation to present, I'll just wish you a most excellent day and call it one.

Peace out,



JW

[Elijah John]

JW posted:

Anyway the bible says the Israelites were in Egypt, I don't see your point is theology, doctrine or dogma which is what this sub-forum is dedicated to. The bible is quite clear, and does not present the account as metaphoric, what theological point are you submitting?

RESPONSE: Ah yes! The old Bible says…claim.

Are you again attempting to use “The Bible says so therefore it must be true� argument?

Do you understand the difference between folklore and history?

Since the bible is authoritative here I am proposing that bible history IS history... So... are you essentially saying "Prove the bible true"? If not, we are discussing theology, if you have a bible based theology to propose do so, if not your post is irrelevant, its neither theology, doctrine or dogma. If I wanted to question the authenticity of the bible I would go to a more appropriate sub-forum.

RESPONSE: Nope, Your opinion is not supported by the evidence. In fact, it is contradicted by the clear evidence to the contrary. Let's review: 400 years, 2 million Hebrews, but absolutely no archeological or historical trace. Just a legend which some fundamentalists claim.


Moderator Clarification

Note that the guideline only applies to the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum, not to the entire site. [b]The guidelines also do not imply that the Bible is only to be interpreted in a fundamentalist perspective. The guidelines say nothing about the Bible being inerrant or infallible.[/b] It only says that it is considered authoritative and it is not allowed to dispute it as a primary reference.

The clear evidence demonstrates that there is no archeological record of Hebrews being in Egypt. The story is just a foundational fable.

Fundamentalist may claim otherwise but can present no supporting evidence.

Moderator Clarification

Yes, "authoritative" does not necessarily mean historically or scientifically accurate. The Exodus story can still be considered spiritually inspirational even if not historically accurate. A literalist interpretation is not required for the purposes of this forum.

Disputing the historical nature of the Exodus is fair game, even on this forum.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[polonius]

JW posted:

Anyway the bible says the Israelites were in Egypt, I don't see your point is theology, doctrine or dogma which is what this sub-forum is dedicated to. The bible is quite clear, and does not present the account as metaphoric, what theological point are you submitting?

RESPONSE: Ah yes! The old Bible says…claim.

Are you again attempting to use “The Bible says so therefore it must be true� argument?

Do you understand the difference between folklore and history?

Since the bible is authoritative here I am proposing that bible history IS history... So... are you essentially saying "Prove the bible true"? If not, we are discussing theology, if you have a bible based theology to propose do so, if not your post is irrelevant, its neither theology, doctrine or dogma. If I wanted to question the authenticity of the bible I would go to a more appropriate sub-forum.

RESPONSE: Nope, Your opinion is not supported by the evidence. In fact, it is contradicted by the clear evidence to the contrary. Let's review: 400 years, 2 million Hebrews, but absolutely no archeological or historical trace. Just a legend which some fundamentalists claim.


Moderator Clarification

Note that the guideline only applies to the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum, not to the entire site. [b]The guidelines also do not imply that the Bible is only to be interpreted in a fundamentalist perspective. The guidelines say nothing about the Bible being inerrant or infallible.[/b] It only says that it is considered authoritative and it is not allowed to dispute it as a primary reference.

The clear evidence demonstrates that there is no archeological record of Hebrews being in Egypt. The story is just a foundational fable.

Fundamentalist may claim otherwise but can present no supporting evidence.

Moderator Clarification

Yes, "authoritative" does not necessarily mean historically or scientifically accurate. The Exodus story can still be considered spiritually inspirational even if not historically accurate. A literalist interpretation is not required for the purposes of this forum.

Disputing the historical nature of the Exodus is fair game, even on this forum.

RESPONSE: Thanks, Moderator. You made my day. But, unfortunately, you probably do the same for JW;s day.

[polonius]

There are a number of errors and contradiction in the Bible which some claim to be “God breathed.� About 1964 at Vatican II the problem of errors in divinely scripture was debated.

The solution reached is very creative!

Dei Verbum , section 11 reads reads:
“Those things revealed by God which are contained and presented in the text of sacred scripture have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church itself.�

However, "we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

The phrase "for the sake of our salvation" can then be argued when an obvious error is encountered.

So, in short, if something is an error, it must not have been revealed by God. Do you see where this can lead?

[Elijah John]

There are a number of errors and contradiction in the Bible which some claim to be “God breathed.� About 1964 at Vatican II the problem of errors in divinely scripture was debated.

The solution reached is very creative!

Dei Verbum , section 11 reads reads:
“Those things revealed by God which are contained and presented in the text of sacred scripture have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church itself.�

However, "we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

The phrase "for the sake of our salvation" can then be argued when an obvious error is encountered.

So, in short, if something is an error, it must not have been revealed by God. Do you see where this can lead?

Errors in science and history do not effect what is revealed "for the sake of our salvation".

The Church gives itself an "out" there.