BIBLE
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- ********0
From Wikipedia
"Historians and academics in the field of linguistics claim that the five books of Moses (the Torah) are a combination of documents from different sources.
In general, the authorship of all the books of the Bible is still an open topic of research. Historians are interested in learning about who wrote the books of the Bible and when they were written...Within the academic community, the main discussion revolves around how much weight to give the text of the Bible against contradicting evidence or lack of evidence. Generally those giving more weight to the text of the Bible, assuming its correctness unless proven otherwise and tending to interpret it literally are called Biblical maximalists, while the opposing view is Biblical minimalism. The debate between both sides is inextricably tied with modern politics. See below.
As for any other written source, an educated weighting of the Biblical text requires knowledge of when was it written, by whom and for what purpose. For example, academics estimate that the Pentateuch was written somewhere between the 10th century BCE and the 6th century BCE. A popular hypothesis points at the rein of Josiah (7th century BCE). This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible. This means that the events of, e.g. Exodus happened centuries before they were written down, so one should be prepared — indeed one should expect — that telling and retelling through the centuries accentuated the tale, perhaps merged originally unrelated stories, and so on. Analysis of the text suggests that it was written in the Kingdom of Judah and probably reflects the political ambitions of the kingdom or of the temple. Thus for example one should keep in mind that representing Judah and Israel as a unity throughout history, separated only "recently" fitted in with Josiah's political plans for the remnants of the Kingdom of Israel.
Finally, an important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which claims that our current version was based on older written sources that were lost. Most scholars accept this hypothesis."
- vburo0
Disperse.
QBN
(Apr 7 05, 06:30)
- opiate0
07 Apr 05
"Christians, huh? So forgive me." - Bill HicksGood news, April fools fans. The writing and recording is back under way. When approached for comment on his recent encounter with the Son of God, Maynard said, "That guy's a punk!"
As it turns out, Maynard was out "location scouting" near the Fourth Street bridge in downtown Los Angeles when he "found Jesus."
"Turns out he was here the whole time, and not that difficult to find if you know where to look," Maynard reported. Apparently Jesus offered him the position of campaign manager for his new line of "Holier Than Thou" sparkling holy water, which Maynard of course accepted. What wasn't obvious was that this guy is a total drunk. It's an occupational hazard. Every time our Lord goes to get a glass of water, it transforms into a generic grocery store Merlot. Because the alcoholic is the Son of God and an all-knowing being, he knew of Maynard’s extensive interest in collecting wine. So he went to work trying to get his lips on it. Maynard caught J.C. in his cellar transforming his precious wine collection into urine, then pissing it into the empty "sparkling holy water" bottles for the eventual sale to all those people who bought, read, and embraced "The Celestine Prophesy." Tragic.
"Truth be told," Maynard confessed, "I wasn't feeling top notch when I found him. The evening prior to the day in question I had over-indulged in a series of bad Molotov shrimp cocktails with a side of Makers Mark and twin strippers. So after an entire night of G.I. Blowouts, hot/cold sweats, and blurred vision, it's very possible that the guy I met wasn't even Jesus at all. For all I know, it was Willem Dafoe."
Toolband.com
- ********0
Also from Wikipedia
"The Biblical creation tale, up to and including the deluge are not a subject of dispute in the majority of the scientific community. They are generally regarded as a myth, except by creationists. The arguments raised come from cosmology, geology, evolution (in particular fossil evidence), and textual analysis of the Bible itself, showing similarity to other mythologies."
Kuz
(Apr 7 05, 06:28)
- ********0
MSN Encarta:
"The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. The Biblical narratives about them are generally held to be myths, that is stories which may have a basis in fact but are not themselves historical. (The King Arthur myth is a good example — there is a kernel of historical truth there, though finding it is difficult and requires much archaeological detective work. Several Biblical passages narrate realistic and detailed cultural traits of the 2nd millenium BCE, as corroborated by archeology, fueling the debate.) No archeological evidence supporting the person of the Patriarchs was found, nor was it likely to expect archeological proof for the existence of a single household in the 18th century BCE. "
- ********0
Again Encarta:
"The historicity of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is a matter of some speculation. Looking for hints in the extensive Egyptian records, some scholars identify the Israelites with the Hyksos, Asian tribes that inhabited Egypt in the 17-16 centuries BCE. Others suggested the Apir which are reminded occasionally between the 15th and 11th centuries BCE. The earliest known reference to "Israel" (c 1200BCE), is the "Victory Stele" (or "Merneptah Stele", refered to erroneously as the "Israel Stele") of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah, in which among other victories it is recorded that "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not". Egypt continued to rule the area until the 10th century BCE. Some researchers have speculated that the stories of Exodus simply reflect the liberation of Israel from the Egyptian yoke in the land of Israel as presented in the Merneptah Stele, although the validity of the Stele's claims of victory is questionable. Supporting the idea, however, that Israel began as roving nomads as suggested in Exodus is Donald Redford, whose research indicates of a band of roving people- the Shasu- included among their number a Yahwistic group, providing a potential origin for the nation of Israel.
Some have attempted to relate various plagues to historic events, notably the volcanic eruption in Thera in the 17th century BCE. See Ten plagues for details.
The number of Israelites stated in the Bible, 600,000, cannot be taken at face value, as this number is thought to exceed the total Egyptian population at the time. A common suggestion is that the word "thousand" should be interpreted here as meaning "family", which gives a figure much more compatible with the historical record. (The record shows significant periodic movements by Asiatic populations in and out of Egypt, in particular retreating to the fertile Egyptian delta in times of drought.) Researchers however differ widely in their opinion on the true number, and indeed if the event ever took place."
- ********0
More from Wikipedia
"The historicity of the book of Joshua was strongly suspected, as archeological research found no evidence of a massive population increase in Canaan during the traditionally calculated time dates. At this time the land had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. Kathleen Kenyon excavated in Jericho from 1952-1958, using improved methods of stratigraphy, and found many details which would seem to conform to the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho, but she determined that the siege took place 150 years too early for it to have been the city Joshua's army destroyed. She dated the city by the absence of a type of imported pottery common to the era around 1400 B.C. She concluded, as had Sellin and Watzinger before her that the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho was untenable if the traditional dates were upheld. Jericho and other settlements do show signs of violent disruption (an event common on the other hand throughout early history in the area), but, so far, archeology does not suggest that the Kingdom of Israel was formed by a violent struggle, nor does archeology show the Israelite Kingdom as having existed before at the very latest 853 BC."
- ********0
Wiki:
"A number of scholars have argued that although there may well have been a real person named Jesus, the Jesus we know from the Bible today has many elements that come from myths and religions current at the time, for example Mithraism. It is suggested that this process of assimilation is similar to the way in which peoples in Latin America and Africa have often incorporated elements of their traditional faiths into their newly-adopted Christianity. And they point out that even in European traditions, such fundamentals as the traditional date of Jesus' birth (midnight 24th December) and death (Easter) are taken from pre-existng pagan practices (the winter solstice and the fertility rites of the goddess Eostre). (It should be pointed out that the Bible nowhere claims that Jesus was born on Christmas Day, and Jesus most certainly did not die during Easter, since Easter is not exactly the date of the Passover, although the two do occur close together.)
At the extreme, some scholars, most notably Earl Doherty, have suggested that Jesus never existed at all, that the character is a gestalt of numerous individuals who lived and myths that were common currency during the late Hellenistic age. The early secular references (Tacitus on Jesus, Josephus on Jesus) can be disputed, and once these are discounted little extra-biblical support for Jesus' existence remains (see Jesus).Archaeology tells us about historical eras and kingdoms, ways of life and commerce, beliefs and societal structures; however only in extremely rare cases does archaeological research provide information on individual families. Thus, archaeology was not expected to, and indeed has not, provided any evidence to confirm or deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs."
- ********0
Brittanica:
"Archaeology tells us about historical eras and kingdoms, ways of life and commerce, beliefs and societal structures; however only in extremely rare cases does archaeological research provide information on individual families. Thus, archaeology was not expected to, and indeed has not, provided any evidence to confirm or deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs."
- opiate0
GO KUZ!!!!
- ********0
The Ever helpful Encyclopedia Brittanica on Zoroastrianism
"Zoroastrianism combines elements of monotheism and dualism. Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, Christianity. There is evidence that Cyrus the Great, himself a Zoroastrian, helped foster Judaism and other monotheistic religions as a way of spreading his ideas.
Zoroastrianism is considered by some to be the earliest monotheistic view to have evolved among mankind, though it is not fully so, as the chief god Ahura Mazda is not the sole creator. It has been theorized that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism as well as by Greek philosophy before arriving at its modern monotheistic view of God. Earlier Judaism is assumed to have claimed only that Yahweh was a tribal deity who was the patron of the descendants of Abraham, or that there were many gods but that theirs was the most powerful. This view is not compatible with the modern self-understanding of the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - which traditionally insist that exclusive monotheism is the original religion of all mankind, all other gods being viewed as idols and creatures which wrongly came to be worshipped as deities.
Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BCE) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Evidently, the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Persia, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BCE. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G. Dever, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI (2003). Another such book is The Bible Unearthed by Neil A. Silberman and colleagues, Simon and Schuster, New York (2001)."
- discipler0
Great examples of Historical Revisionism. Notice how those passages list very little in the way of specifics regarding archaeological findings? Get the facts from those without a secular bias. Like Dr. Paul Maier:
False Claims:
Abraham a Myth? Early critics in the 1800s denied the existence of Abraham’s hometown, Ur of the
Chaldees (Gen. 11:31). This continued until Sir Leonard Woolley’s systematic excavations from l922–34
CRI Web: www.equip.org Tel: 949.858.6100 Fax: 949.858.6111
3
uncovered the immense ziggurat or temple tower at Ur near the mouth of the Euphrates in Mesopotamia.
The name “Abraham” appears in Mesopotamian records, and the various nationalities the patriarch
encountered, as recorded in Genesis, are entirely consistent with the peoples known at that time and
place. Other details in the biblical account regarding Abraham, such as the treaties he made with
neighboring rulers and even the price of slaves, mesh well with what is known elsewhere in the history of
the ancient Near East.4
No Migration from Mesopotamia? Semitic tribes of the time were continually moving into and out of
Mesopotamia. In fact, Abraham’s recorded trek into the Promised Land along a route up the Euphrates
valley to Haran in southern Anatolia, which has also been identified and excavated, and then down
through Syria to Canaan is geographically accurate. Using that Fertile Crescent route was the only way to
travel successfully from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in those days.
The Patriarchs? Nothing in the Genesis account contradicts the nomadic way of life, replete with flocks and
herds, that was characteristic of life in the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries BC. The agreements and contracts
of the time, such as finding a bride from members of the same tribe and other customs, are well known
elsewhere in the ancient Near East. To argue that the patriarchs did not exist because their names have not
been found archaeologically is merely an argument from silence — the weakest form of argumentation that
can be used. As fair-minded historians put it, “Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”
No Israelite Sojourn in Egypt or Exodus Therefrom? Critics make much of the supposed “fact” that
there is no mention of the Hebrews in hieroglyphic inscriptions, no mention of Moses, and no records of
such a mass population movement as claimed in the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt. This
“fact” is questionable. The famous Israel Stele (an inscribed stone or slab) of Pharaoh Merneptah
(described more fully below) states, “Israel — his seed is not.” Furthermore, even if there were no
mention whatever of the Hebrews in Egyptian records, this also would prove nothing, especially in view
of the well-known Egyptian proclivity never to record reverses or defeats or anything that would
embarrass the majesty of the ruling monarch. Would any pharaoh have the following words chiseled
onto his monument: “Under my administration, a great horde of Hebrew slaves successfully escaped into
the Sinai Desert when we tried to prevent them”?
The ancient Egyptians, in fact, transformed some of their reverses into “victories.” One of the most
imposing monuments in Egypt consists of four-seated colossi of Rameses II overlooking the Nile (now
Lake Nasser) at Abu-Simbel. Rameses erected the colossi to intimidate the Ethiopians to the south who
had heard correctly that he had barely escaped with his life at the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites,
and so they thought Egypt was ripe for invasion. The story told on the walls inside this monument,
however, was that of a marvelous Egyptian victory!
No Moses? The very name Moses is Egyptian, as witness pharaonic names such as Thut-mose and Rameses.
The ambient life as described in Genesis and Exodus is entirely consonant with what we know of
ancient Egypt in the Hyksos and Empire periods: the food, the feasts, everyday life, customs, the names
of locations, the local deities, and the like are familiar in both Hebrew and Egyptian literature.5
No Exodus? It is true that few remains of encampments or artifacts from the Exodus era have been
discovered archaeologically in the Sinai, but a nomadic, tribal migration would hardly leave behind
permanent stone foundations of imposing buildings en route. Hardly any archaeology is taking place in
the Sinai, and if this changes, evidence of migration may very well be uncovered. Again, beware of the
argument from silence.
No Conquest of Canaan by Joshua? The “Battle of Jericho” continues to be fought! When Dame Kathleen
Kenyon excavated at Jericho in the 1950s, she claimed not to have found any collapsed walls or even
evidence of a living city at Jericho during the time of Joshua’s invasion — nothing for him to conquer. She
did, indeed, find an earlier, heavily fortified Jericho that c. 1550 BC was subject to a violent conquest with
fallen walls and a burnt ash layer a yard thick, indicating destruction by fire. That, in her view, was
before Joshua and the Israelites arrived.6 Critics immediately seized on her interpretation as solid
evidence that Joshua’s conquest of Jericho must have been folklore.
CRI Web: www.equip.org Tel: 949.858.6100 Fax: 949.858.6111
4
Archaeologist Bryant G. Wood, however, editor of Bible and Spade, found that Kenyon had misdated her
finds and that the destruction of Jericho actually took place in the 1400s BC when Joshua was very much
on the scene, according to earlier (1400 rather than 1200 BC) datings of the Israelite invasion. In a brilliant
1990 article in BAR, Wood based his chronology on stratigraphy, pottery types, carbon-14 datings, and
other evidence, including collapsed walls, to show a rather surprising archaeological confirmation of the
biblical detail recorded in Judges 6 and following.7
Kings David and Solomon Barely Historical or Even Mythical? The critics again rely much too heavily
on the argument from silence or absence. They contend that for all the wealth and grandeur of the reigns
of David and Solomon, some of the golden goblets and other luxurious items from their palaces should
have come to light in the excavations, but they have not. Lazare complains, “Yet not one goblet, not one
brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed. If David and Solomon had been
important regional power brokers, one might reasonably expect their names to crop up on monuments
and in the diplomatic correspondence of the day. Yet once again the record is silent.”8
This contention, however, is hopelessly flawed because of one simple fact: Jerusalem has been destroyed
and rebuilt some 15 to 20 times since the days of David and Solomon, and each conquest took its toll on
valuable artifacts. What, moreover, did Belshazzar set out as tableware for his famous feast in Babylon
(Dan. 5:2–3)? Gold and silver cups that Nebuchadnezzar had plundered from the Temple in Jerusalem!
As for David’s name itself, the record is no longer silent. In 1993, archaeologist Avraham Biran, digging at
Tel Dan in northern Israel, discovered a victory stele in three stone chunks on which David’s name is
inscribed, the first archaeological reference to David outside of the Old Testament. The Aramaic
inscription contains a boast by the king of Damascus (probably Hazael) that he had defeated the king of
Israel (probably Joram, son of Ahab) and the king of “the house of David” (probably Ahaziah, son of
Jehoram, c. 842 BC).9
This discovery alone should have quieted minimalist claims that there was no David, but never
underestimate the rigidity of minds locked onto a course of revisionism. They are still desperately trying
to retranslate the message on the stele or even claim that the name David is a forgery — folly
compounding folly!
King Ahab of Israel As the Master Builder of the Temple Rather than David and Solomon? This is a
favorite conclusion of archaeologist Finkelstein, but his archaeological time grid differs from the standard
model by some 150 years, which is — not surprisingly — precisely the difference between David at
1000 BC and Ahab at 850 BC.
One is also struck by the sudden silence of the revisionist critics concerning the record from about the
time of King Hezekiah (fl. 700 BC) on. At that point, evidently, the Old Testament instantly becomes
“more historical” for them. This concession, of course, is forced on them because of the overwhelming
number of correlations from archaeology, records of surrounding nations, and ancient history in general
that fully corroborate the biblical evidence. The Assyrians did not conquer mythical northern Israelites in
722 BC, nor did Nebuchadnezzar deport into the Babylonian captivity a legendary, folkloric band of Jews
who never existed. We leave it to the critics to explain how fact suddenly emerges out of supposed
fantasy in the Old Testament.
Wrong Methodology
In dealing with specifics such as the above, the errors in content, procedure, and even logic employed by
the revisionist critics are apparent and might be listed as follows:
1. Overusing arguments from silence or absence of archaeological evidence. Such arguments
have often been rendered moot by subsequent discoveries that provide such “missing”
evidence.
2. Assuming that archaeology can tell us more than is warranted by the finds. Archaeology is
not the only source of evidence, for it must also be supplemented by relevant data from both
sacred and secular history.
CRI Web: www.equip.org Tel: 949.858.6100 Fax: 949.858.6111
5
3. Assuming that archaeology is dispassionate and objective, when, in fact, some excavators are
quite the opposite; unfortunately, recent political pressures have also impinged on the
discipline.
4. Assuming that there is agreement among archaeologists as to time grids involving uncovered
strata and the artifacts therein. In fact, their interpretations of excavated evidence often differ
widely.
5. Suggesting that revisionist criticism represents the latest and best scholarly and
archaeological research on biblical origins today. In sober fact, recent issues of journals such
as BAR and Bible and Spade are crammed with criticism of the minimalist position, and the
debate between traditional and radical views among biblical scholars continues to rage.
6. Condoning reports, such as Lazare’s in Harper’s, that are so hopelessly one-sided that bias
screams out in every other paragraph.
7. Opting for sensation rather than sense, as is the case with extremists in any discipline.
8. Using results very selectively rather than accounting for all the evidence. Failure to evaluate
evidence on the “other side” or even misrepresenting it results in torque, not truth.
This is not to claim that there are no problems in the Old Testament record; even traditionalists will admit
that there certainly are. We can all fondly wish that the author of Genesis had given us the names of more
contemporary associates of Abraham so that the whole patriarchal era could be dated with more
precision; and why, oh, why, don’t we have the actual names of the Egyptian kings involved in the
Oppression and the Exodus rather than only their generic title, “pharaoh”? Later on, the Old Testament
readily gives us the proper names of pharaohs such as Shishak (fl. 920 BC, 1 Kings 14:25 f.) and Necho (fl.
600 BC, 2 Kings 23:29 ff.). Had such individual names appeared in Exodus, we would have been spared
hundreds of tomes and thousands of articles debating their identity. We all crave, moreover, far more
specific detail about the Hebrews in the period pre-1000 BC and would likely sacrifice several chapters of
Jewish ceremonial law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy in exchange for this description.
Perhaps, though, we are asking too much of early sacred records. No religion or culture on earth has, in
fact, more specificity in its earliest historical records than the Torah, and it is always the case that the earliest
records of any peoples will be more spotty and compressed than the later ones. We certainly see in the Old
and New Testaments, not a progressive historicity in the sense that the earlier records are not historical
and the later records are — as the radical revisionists claim — but rather a progressive historical specificity.
THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Archaeological finds that contradict the contentions of biblical minimalists and other revisionists have
been listed above. There are many more, however, that corroborate biblical evidence, and the following
list provides only the most significant discoveries:
A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all
report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories:
those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of
Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment
by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”)
builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and
Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount
Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind
them that sprang into human beings.
The Code of Hammurabi. This seven-foot black diorite stele, discovered at Susa and presently located in
the Louvre museum, contains 282 engraved laws of Babylonian King Hammurabi (fl. 1750 BC). The
common basis for this law code is the lex talionis (“the law of the tooth”), showing that there was a
common Semitic law of retribution in the ancient Near East, which is clearly reflected in the Pentateuch.
Exodus 21:23–25, for example, reads: “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...” (NIV).
- ********0
dude, discipler the Encylopedia Brittanica, MSN Encarta, and Wikipedia are saying there's no archaelogical evidence
Yet you are saying this is all secular bias?
And then you listen only to Christian sources??
haha
- discipler0
DID THE EXODUS HAPPEN?
By - Dr. David Lewis
A new wave of "scholars" is now dogmatically declaring that the Exodus never took place. They insist it’s just a myth concocted centuries later in the time of Josiah to justify the existence of a Jewish state. Some of these new sceptics, such as Zeev Hertzog and Israel I Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, are Jewish themselves!
The implications of their teaching are profound. They insist that, historically, there really is no such thing as a Jewish or Israelite people descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There never was an Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. Moses was a myth, and never wrote the first five books of the Bible. The so-called Israelites are just Canaanites that emerged in Palestine, were joined by a few nomads, and concocted a new religion.
If these new theories are true, then:
The Jewish people have no historical claim to either the land of Canaan, being a nation, or maintaining the State of Israel today. According to the new historians, Israelites aren’t Israelites, just Palestinians.
Christians can’t rely on the authority of the Bible if the very events that foreshadow the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ are myth. The Passover in Exodus 12 points to His death and He observed as a memorial as did Paul’s converts in I Corinthians who recognized vital spiritual lessons in the Hebrew Exodus.
The new archaeological theories present a fundamental attack on the very foundations of both Judaism and Christianity.
Denial of the Exodus and the reality of the Biblical account is nothing new. Neither are these arguments. The sceptics have been around for over 200 years, and much of their teaching has been the accepted wisdom in universities for a long time. The theories are now being recycled because of a lot of new archaeological evidence that Professor Finkelstein and others have uncovered. This evidence, it is claimed, provides no evidence for the Exodus or the Bible.
Are the sceptics right? They are looking at the right evidence, but at the wrong time. Dating in the history of Egypt and Palestine is based on a couple of assumptions that professors have handed down over the decades. First, they assume the Exodus took place, not when the Bible says it did, around 1450-1447 BC but around 1300 BC. The Bible says the Hebrews built the city of Ramesses and that existed around the time of Ramses II who is dated around 1290. There is no evidence of Hebrews or an Exodus at that time.
What if, however, the Hebrews built the city of Avaris, which existed before the city of Ramesses? Also, what if the Egyptian chronology itself has been wrongly focused? At the very time the historical establishment was more and more rejecting the Biblical record, a handful of archaeologists were questioning the accepted wisdom. In 1991 a group led by Peter James published a book called Centuries of Darkness. Four years later British archaeologist David Rohl published A Test of Time,
marketed in America as Pharaohs and Kings. Both of these books argue, convincingly in my opinion, that the traditional dating of much of ancient history before 1000 BC in most history books is flawed.Both James and Rohl did not start out with an agenda of trying to prove the Bible. They just went to the Egyptian tombs and monuments and concluded that several of the later dynasties ruled side by side. This meant that earlier dynasties were placed anywhere from one hundred to three hundred years further back than they should have been. The three hundred year ‘Dark Age’ which historians describe in Greece, Phoenicia, and other places, shrinks and even disappears.
The Pharaoh Shishak who invaded Jerusalem has been identified with Soshenk. But Soshenk never attacked Jerusalem but northern Israel! Another Pharaoh did attack Jerusalem. ..the famous Rameses II. In Egyptian he is Ra Me Shi Sha, the Shishak being a Hebrew nickname for ‘The Destroyer’. Rohl concluded that Shishak was Rameses, that the splendid late Canaanite period was the time of Solomon, that the period of the El Amarna letters was the time of Saul and David.
Rohl’s biggest discovery, though, was in finding the evidence for the Exodus in the Thirteenth Dynasty. His findings are summarized by John Fulton, a supporter of David Rohl:
‘Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum (p.276, fig. 310) resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:- Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (cf. Exodus 1:15-21).
That 50% of the names are Israelite means that there must have been avery large group of them in the Egyptian Delta at that time, corroborating the testimony of Exodus 1:7 which alludes to how numerous the Israelites became. The sceptics look for Israel in the Egypt of the Nineteenth Dynasty and remain sceptics, because the proof is in the Egypt of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The site of Avaris has been uncovered by the Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak in the land of Goshen underneath that of
the city of Ramesses. It provides plenty of proof, says Fulton, for Israel’s presence and sufferings in Egypt:‘The people who lived in Avaris were not Egyptian but Asiatic Palestinian or Syrian. The finds there included numerous pottery fragments of Palestinian origin. Several factors about the graves were particularly fascinating:- 65% of the burials were of children under 18 months of age, the normal for this period being 20-30%. Could this be due to the killing of the male Israelite children by the Egyptians, recorded in Exodus 1:22? A disproportionately high number of adult women as opposed to adult men are buried here, again pointing to the slaughter of male Israelite babies. There are large numbers of long-haired Asiatic sheep buried which indicate these people to be shepherds. Large numbers of weapons found in the male graves indicate the warlike nature of the people.’
According to the Bible, Moses was bom around 1527 BC, in the reign of Neferhotep I. A few fragments of ancient records from a Jewish historian called Artapanus were preserved by the Catholic historian Eusebius. They say that the Pharaoh’s daughter at the time Moses was born was called Merris. She married the Pharaoh Khenephres, also called Sobekhotep IV.
Moses or Mousos, meanwhile became a great general who invaded Nubia and Ethiopia. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 2.10.1-2 tells the story. The Ethiopians had invaded Egypt and had practically overrun the country:
‘The Egyptians, under this sad oppression, betook themselves to their oracles and prophecies; and when God had given them this counsel, to make use of Moses the Hebrew, and take his assistance, the king commanded his daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of their army ... So Moses ... cheerfully undertook the business’ and defeated the African invaders by marching through a snake-infested region and taking them by surprise: ‘When he had therefore proceeded thus on his journey, he came upon the Ethiopians before they expected him; and, joining battle with them, he beat them, and deprived them of the hopes they had of success against the Egyptians, and went on in overthrowing their cities, and indeed made a great slaughter of these Ethiopians.’
Josephus was right. A monument in the British Museum tells of Khanferre or Khenephres invading Sudan and Ethiopia, the only Thirteenth Dynasty ruler to do so. Remains of an Egyptian government building with the Pharaoh’s statue has been found hundreds of miles south of known Egyptian territoy
Sobekhotep IV/Khenephres was the Pharaoh of the Oppression from whom Moses fled, about 1487 BC. The forty years Moses spent in Midian were likely to have been 1487-1447 BC. The Pharaoh of the Exodus was Dudimose. Fulton records that the Austrians found evidence both of God’s slaying of the firstborn and the sudden departure of Israel from Goshen:
‘The Tenth Plague to be sent on Egypt just before the Exodus was the plague on the first-born, recorded in Exodus 12:29,30. At the end of stratum G/l at Tell ed-Daba or the ancient city of Avaris (p.293), archaeologists found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible disaster had been thrown. These death pits were not carefully organized internments; the bodies were simply thrown in on top of one another. Could these be the burial pits of the first-born Egyptians? What is more, immediately after this disaster, the remaining population left Avaris en masse; this fits perfectly with the Exodus of the Israelites following the final terrible plague.’
Manetho, the Egyptian historian wrote how Egypt collapsed in the reign of Dudimose:
‘Tutimaos: In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.’
The invaders were the Amalekites Israel encountered after leaving Egypt. They found Egypt, devastated by Divine judgment an easy prey.
‘The continuing archaeological discoveries’ says Fulton, ‘here in the ancient city of Avaris mirror exactly the early Israelites revealed in the Old Testament. For two centuries no evidence was found for the Israelites when looking in the strata of the 19th Dynasty. Now that the chronologies have begun to be amended and the sojourn in Egypt placed in the 12th and 13th Dynasties, we have a wealth of archaeological evidence corroborating the Biblical account.’
- ********0
From Wikipedia
"The origins of Judaism and the ancestral Abrahamic religion are still obscure. The only documentary source bearing on that question is the Genesis book of the Hebrew Bible, which according to Rabbinic tradition was written by Moses sometime in the 2nd millennium BC, with many estimates arriving at 1500 BC. According to Genesis, the principles of Judaism were revealed gradually to a line of patriarchs, from Adam to Jacob (also called Israel); however the religion was only established when Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, and with the institution of priesthood and temple services, after the Exodus from Egypt.
Archaeologists so far have found no direct evidence to support or refute the Genesis story on the origins of Judaism; in fact, there are no surviving texts of the Bible older than the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC or later). However, archaeology has shown that peoples speaking various Semitic languages and with similar polytheistic religions were living in Palestine and surrounding areas by the 3rd millennium BC. Some of their gods (such as Baal) are mentioned in the Bible, and the supreme god of the Semitic pantheon, El, is believed by some scholars to be the God of the Biblical patriarchs. There exist some inscriptions which some scholars believe to confirm the Biblical record, such as the Tel Dan Stele."
- opiate0
Advantage Kuz...
- ********0
discipler
i don't know where your very fundamentalist Christian is getting his sources, but all the Encyclopedic current up to date sources i've been reading (and had to pay $4.95 for today just to see for myself) they all say there is no archaeological evidence what so ever. And there cannot be, because it makes no sense for such archaeological evidence
- discipler0
Kuz, you are quoting secular sources with dated information. Dude, the lack of archaeological evidence claims have been around for a looong time. And such claims have been answered.
I'm quoting reliable Scholars - PHD's who eat, sleep and breathe this stuff. Not online encyclopedias with generalized summaries based on dated misinformation. Additionally, much of what you've quoted is not saying there is nil evidence. And with every turn of the researcher's spade, more evidence to support the Bible is unearthed. It's simply a fact.
- ********0
Ok discipler, i'm going to take you one step at a time
no MASS cut and paste bullshit
one point at at time, no trying to confuse people with masses of texts that sound convincing in the double speak that you use, but is in fact distorted lies
here we go
- ********0
First you mention the name of David Rohl, as though he's respected and reliable. This is what i got from Wikipedia regarding Rohl and James and Bible history
"Marginal views
Popular writers such as Immanuel Velikovsky, Donovan Courville and others believe that the lack of archeological attestation of biblical figures is due to errors in the traditional chronology or the dating of archaelogical strata. Velikovsky's theories were rejected outright by the scientific community and refuted in detail, see Immanuel Velikovsky. More recent theories, notably those of Egyptologists David Rohl and Peter James are viewed with cautious interest by the scientific community but have not gained widespread acceptance. Indeed, a re-dating on the order of 300 years, as they proposed, is strongly rejected by leading Egyptologists, notably Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, although a redating by lesser amounts, such as 50 years, is more widely seen as potentially necessary."And please stop using "secular" as though it's a religion that people believe in and worship. I am merely listening to reason.