Was the Exodus fictional?

[polonius]

Is the Old testament fictional regarding the Exodus story?

1. The story begins with Joseph, his faather and his brothers.

2. The Hebrews were supposedly in Egypt for about 400 years.

3. At the time of the Exodus they numbered about 2.4 million, computed from the number of 600 Hebrew soldiers, their wives, children, and men too old or to young to fight.

So evidently Joesph and his brothers were overwhelmed with procreating!

4. And in spite of the number of Hebrews and all the time spent in Egypt, as one archeologisgt put it, they didn't even leave any broken pottery. In short, nothing that showed that 2.4 million had been there.

5. And to make matters worse, Moses l
led them into Canann, a Egyptian terrirtory at that time.

Don't we just love bible stories

[polonius]

Is the Old testament fictional regarding the Exodus story?

1. The story begins with Joseph, his faather and his brothers.

2. The Hebrews were supposedly in Egypt for about 400 years.

3. At the time of the Exodus they numbered about 2.4 million, computed from the number of 600 Hebrew soldiers, their wives, children, and men too old or to young to fight.

So evidently Joesph and his brothers were overwhelmed with procreating!

4. And in spite of the number of Hebrews and all the time spent in Egypt, as one archeologisgt put it, they didn't even leave any broken pottery. In short, nothing that showed that 2.4 million had been there.

5. And to make matters worse, Moses l
led them into Canann, a Egyptian terrirtory at that time.

Don't we just love bible stories

Yes, we just do love those stories.

Some even love to call them fiction.

But no one so far on this thread, has actually proven their claim.

Grace and peace.

REPLY

Perhaps you should read the "Bible Unearthed" written by two archeologists one evidently on the staff of Tel Aviv university

There is also a video on the web.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 30 by Difflugia]

I don't believe that Israel wandered in the Sinai peninsula. They crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, as I mentioned in my first comment, and the true Mt. Sinai is in Arabia, east of the Gulf of Aqaba. After their experience there, they wandered around north of the true Mt. Sinai (in Midian )and basically in the area of Midian and Edom & Seir. People have been looking in the wrong places for evidence of the Exodus. Why should we believe the mother of Constantine who was the one that decided that Mt. Sinai was at the lowest part of the Sinai peninsula? She was kooky enough to say that she found the cross that Jesus died on. There is more evidence that Israel traversed the Sinai on a common route and crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, into Midian, and from there went north.

[Difflugia]

I don't believe that Israel wandered in the Sinai peninsula. They crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, as I mentioned in my first comment, and the true Mt. Sinai is in Arabia, east of the Gulf of Aqaba. After their experience there, they wandered around north of the true Mt. Sinai (in Midian )and basically in the area of Midian and Edom & Seir. People have been looking in the wrong places for evidence of the Exodus. Why should we believe the mother of Constantine who was the one that decided that Mt. Sinai was at the lowest part of the Sinai peninsula? She was kooky enough to say that she found the cross that Jesus died on. There is more evidence that Israel traversed the Sinai on a common route and crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, into Midian, and from there went north.

Modern archaeologists are no more convinced by Christian-era site identifications than you are. Several sites can be identified, though, from biblical descriptions. Finkelstein writes further in The Bible Unearthed:

The pattern should have become clear by now. Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods—after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.

Again, if you can direct us to different evidence, we can examine it. As it is, though, professional archaeologists remain convinced that there was no Exodus. I've seen nothing to make me suspect that they even might be wrong.

[onewithhim]

I don't believe that Israel wandered in the Sinai peninsula. They crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, as I mentioned in my first comment, and the true Mt. Sinai is in Arabia, east of the Gulf of Aqaba. After their experience there, they wandered around north of the true Mt. Sinai (in Midian )and basically in the area of Midian and Edom & Seir. People have been looking in the wrong places for evidence of the Exodus. Why should we believe the mother of Constantine who was the one that decided that Mt. Sinai was at the lowest part of the Sinai peninsula? She was kooky enough to say that she found the cross that Jesus died on. There is more evidence that Israel traversed the Sinai on a common route and crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, into Midian, and from there went north.

Modern archaeologists are no more convinced by Christian-era site identifications than you are. Several sites can be identified, though, from biblical descriptions. Finkelstein writes further in The Bible Unearthed:

The pattern should have become clear by now. Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods—after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.

Again, if you can direct us to different evidence, we can examine it. As it is, though, professional archaeologists remain convinced that there was no Exodus. I've seen nothing to make me suspect that they even might be wrong.

I wonder exactly where Finkelstein believes that archaeologists have examined the landscape to find evidence of the Exodus. Does he mean where Constantine's mother said Mt. Sinai was? I know there is no evidence there because that is not the actual Mt. Sinai. Did his archaeologists go to JABAL AL LAWZ in Midian? There is much room to wiggle regarding this issue. The locations of the cities mentioned in the Bible account are not exactly known today. Scholars have them in various places. If you follow the Bible account from the Gulf of Aqaba, everything lines up. No one seems to want to do that.

[Difflugia]

I wonder exactly where Finkelstein believes that archaeologists have examined the landscape to find evidence of the Exodus.

Sites all over the Sinai Peninsula have been excavated. Even if you're right and the wilderness wanderings were to the east, the Israelites still had to travel from Egypt to Canaan. Terrain and sites of known Egyptian military occupation limit the area through which they must have travelled. There is no sign of at least a half-million people having crossed the two to three hundred miles of desert.

The Israelites are also described as having made camps in specific places. Most of these are unknown references, but Kadesh-Barnea and Ezion-Geber can be identified with some certainty based on biblical descriptions of their locations and boundarieds of the region in Numbers 33 and 34. The sites weren't occupied by a group of any size during the correct time period.

Does he mean where Constantine's mother said Mt. Sinai was?

I don't feel like I should even have to say this, but modern archaeologists aren't tourists. Finkelstein in particular added an appendix to his book to explain that, while there are likely candidates, nobody is sure which mountain peak was Mount Sinai or Horeb. The conclusions he and other archaeologists have drawn don't rely on Sinai being a specific site, let alone one based simply on the traditions of Byzantine monks.

I know there is no evidence there because that is not the actual Mt. Sinai. Did his archaeologists go to JABAL AL LAWZ in Midian? There is much room to wiggle regarding this issue. The locations of the cities mentioned in the Bible account are not exactly known today. Scholars have them in various places. If you follow the Bible account from the Gulf of Aqaba, everything lines up. No one seems to want to do that.

So, do you mean that there is evidence of this? Or are you saying that there isn't any actual evidence because archaeologists haven't excavated the right spot? The Israelites still had to traverse the same terrain. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they actually traveled farther. There should still be evidence in the places archaeologists have looked, even if they haven't looked where you think the actual Mount Sinai is.

[ttruscott]

Heaven did just fine...

As a competing force perhaps, in human terms, heaven eventually got a result, sending the refugees to wander for 40 years. Modern methods of dealing with refugees seem a little more efficient.

You think? wow, and global migration hasn't even started yet from global warming.

Heaven did not fail to get them into the promised land, it cursed them for refusing to accept that sinners must die:
Genesis 15:16 But in the fourth generation they (the Israelites) shall come hither (to the Promised Land) again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Now, the thing that I'd like to note is that Israel's return to the Promised Land had to be postponed. My first question is why did it have to be postponed? Was it because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full enough for their judgement? Okay, then my second question is who wasn't it full enough for?

It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the totally defiling nature of just one sin, that the Amorites were full enough in GOD's sight already. So then, just who still looked on their iniquity as not being full yet, that is, as not being bad enough to warrant this judgement that had to take place before Israel's return?

According to pre-conception existence theology, there was a four generation postponement of GOD's judgement because the Amorites were not yet bad enough in the eyes of the Israelites for the Israelites to be willing to judge them according to the judgement decreed by GOD. Therefore, the Israelites had to stay enslaved in Egypt (symbol for living in sin) or wandering in the wilderness (ie, not in paradise) until they became willing to judge the Amorites (symbol for all HIS eternal enemies), that is, until the Israelites became holy (obedient) enough to see them all judged: men, women and children. (See Joshua 6:21; 8:26,27; 10:40)

Now, this judgement against the Amorites is typical of the judgement that has to take place before we can inherit the antitypical Promised Land, ie, before GOD's people can enter into the truest millennium. According to pre-conception existence theology, this antitypical judgement has also been postponed since Christ because the sinful good seed (elect) do not yet look on the iniquity of HIS enemies as being bad enough to warrant HIS eternal judgement and wrath on them.

Therefore, we too have had to remain in Egypt (our sins) or wandering in the wilderness if we've been converted, that is, outside of the Promised Land, still waiting until we become holy enough to accept that all of GOD's enemies, men, women and children, must be killed, that is, judged and forever exiled to the outer darkness.

[onewithhim]

I wonder exactly where Finkelstein believes that archaeologists have examined the landscape to find evidence of the Exodus.

Sites all over the Sinai Peninsula have been excavated. Even if you're right and the wilderness wanderings were to the east, the Israelites still had to travel from Egypt to Canaan. Terrain and sites of known Egyptian military occupation limit the area through which they must have travelled. There is no sign of at least a half-million people having crossed the two to three hundred miles of desert.

The Israelites are also described as having made camps in specific places. Most of these are unknown references, but Kadesh-Barnea and Ezion-Geber can be identified with some certainty based on biblical descriptions of their locations and boundarieds of the region in Numbers 33 and 34. The sites weren't occupied by a group of any size during the correct time period.

Does he mean where Constantine's mother said Mt. Sinai was?

I don't feel like I should even have to say this, but modern archaeologists aren't tourists. Finkelstein in particular added an appendix to his book to explain that, while there are likely candidates, nobody is sure which mountain peak was Mount Sinai or Horeb. The conclusions he and other archaeologists have drawn don't rely on Sinai being a specific site, let alone one based simply on the traditions of Byzantine monks.

I know there is no evidence there because that is not the actual Mt. Sinai. Did his archaeologists go to JABAL AL LAWZ in Midian? There is much room to wiggle regarding this issue. The locations of the cities mentioned in the Bible account are not exactly known today. Scholars have them in various places. If you follow the Bible account from the Gulf of Aqaba, everything lines up. No one seems to want to do that.

So, do you mean that there is evidence of this? Or are you saying that there isn't any actual evidence because archaeologists haven't excavated the right spot? The Israelites still had to traverse the same terrain. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they actually traveled farther. There should still be evidence in the places archaeologists have looked, even if they haven't looked where you think the actual Mount Sinai is.

I say---not necessarily. The excavating work they have already done could very well have been in the wrong places, and their time frames could be wrong.

I said already that there is compelling evidence connected to searches made by a number of people, and there are pictures of chariot pieces at the bottom of Yam Suf in the Gulf of Aqaba. There are studies done on these inferences, and the latest book that I have obtained is called "The TRUE Red Sea Crossing to the TRUE Mt. Sinai," by Ron Tottingham, PhD, LitD. It sums up everything I have researched up to now. Perhaps you would find it interesting.

[brianbbs67]

I wonder exactly where Finkelstein believes that archaeologists have examined the landscape to find evidence of the Exodus.

Sites all over the Sinai Peninsula have been excavated. Even if you're right and the wilderness wanderings were to the east, the Israelites still had to travel from Egypt to Canaan. Terrain and sites of known Egyptian military occupation limit the area through which they must have travelled. There is no sign of at least a half-million people having crossed the two to three hundred miles of desert.

The Israelites are also described as having made camps in specific places. Most of these are unknown references, but Kadesh-Barnea and Ezion-Geber can be identified with some certainty based on biblical descriptions of their locations and boundarieds of the region in Numbers 33 and 34. The sites weren't occupied by a group of any size during the correct time period.

Does he mean where Constantine's mother said Mt. Sinai was?

I don't feel like I should even have to say this, but modern archaeologists aren't tourists. Finkelstein in particular added an appendix to his book to explain that, while there are likely candidates, nobody is sure which mountain peak was Mount Sinai or Horeb. The conclusions he and other archaeologists have drawn don't rely on Sinai being a specific site, let alone one based simply on the traditions of Byzantine monks.

I know there is no evidence there because that is not the actual Mt. Sinai. Did his archaeologists go to JABAL AL LAWZ in Midian? There is much room to wiggle regarding this issue. The locations of the cities mentioned in the Bible account are not exactly known today. Scholars have them in various places. If you follow the Bible account from the Gulf of Aqaba, everything lines up. No one seems to want to do that.

So, do you mean that there is evidence of this? Or are you saying that there isn't any actual evidence because archaeologists haven't excavated the right spot? The Israelites still had to traverse the same terrain. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they actually traveled farther. There should still be evidence in the places archaeologists have looked, even if they haven't looked where you think the actual Mount Sinai is.

I say---not necessarily. The excavating work they have already done could very well have been in the wrong places, and their time frames could be wrong.

I said already that there is compelling evidence connected to searches made by a number of people, and there are pictures of chariot pieces at the bottom of Yam Suf in the Gulf of Aqaba. There are studies done on these inferences, and the latest book that I have obtained is called "The TRUE Red Sea Crossing to the TRUE Mt. Sinai," by Ron Tottingham, PhD, LitD. It sums up everything I have researched up to now. Perhaps you would find it interesting.

Is that book the one that finds a skull believed to be the pharoah's, that has head wounds because it appears his troops turned on him as the waters fell down on them? Just curious.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 38 by brianbbs67]

RESPONSE: If there was no Hebrew presence in Egypt, obviously there was no Exodus involving about 2 million Hebrews. So begin your argument by establishing any evidence of the very large Hebrew population of Egypt at that time.

[onewithhim]

I wonder exactly where Finkelstein believes that archaeologists have examined the landscape to find evidence of the Exodus.

Sites all over the Sinai Peninsula have been excavated. Even if you're right and the wilderness wanderings were to the east, the Israelites still had to travel from Egypt to Canaan. Terrain and sites of known Egyptian military occupation limit the area through which they must have travelled. There is no sign of at least a half-million people having crossed the two to three hundred miles of desert.

The Israelites are also described as having made camps in specific places. Most of these are unknown references, but Kadesh-Barnea and Ezion-Geber can be identified with some certainty based on biblical descriptions of their locations and boundarieds of the region in Numbers 33 and 34. The sites weren't occupied by a group of any size during the correct time period.

Does he mean where Constantine's mother said Mt. Sinai was?

I don't feel like I should even have to say this, but modern archaeologists aren't tourists. Finkelstein in particular added an appendix to his book to explain that, while there are likely candidates, nobody is sure which mountain peak was Mount Sinai or Horeb. The conclusions he and other archaeologists have drawn don't rely on Sinai being a specific site, let alone one based simply on the traditions of Byzantine monks.

I know there is no evidence there because that is not the actual Mt. Sinai. Did his archaeologists go to JABAL AL LAWZ in Midian? There is much room to wiggle regarding this issue. The locations of the cities mentioned in the Bible account are not exactly known today. Scholars have them in various places. If you follow the Bible account from the Gulf of Aqaba, everything lines up. No one seems to want to do that.

So, do you mean that there is evidence of this? Or are you saying that there isn't any actual evidence because archaeologists haven't excavated the right spot? The Israelites still had to traverse the same terrain. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they actually traveled farther. There should still be evidence in the places archaeologists have looked, even if they haven't looked where you think the actual Mount Sinai is.

I say---not necessarily. The excavating work they have already done could very well have been in the wrong places, and their time frames could be wrong.

I said already that there is compelling evidence connected to searches made by a number of people, and there are pictures of chariot pieces at the bottom of Yam Suf in the Gulf of Aqaba. There are studies done on these inferences, and the latest book that I have obtained is called "The TRUE Red Sea Crossing to the TRUE Mt. Sinai," by Ron Tottingham, PhD, LitD. It sums up everything I have researched up to now. Perhaps you would find it interesting.

Is that book the one that finds a skull believed to be the pharoah's, that has head wounds because it appears his troops turned on him as the waters fell down on them? Just curious.

No. I haven't seen that book, and I haven't heard that anyone claimed to have found the skull of the Pharoah.