Thread: Evidence for the Bible

people keep asking for 'evidence' and when a thread was started in another forum, it reminded me of one of the biggest secualr debacles of all time.

for centuries, secularists have been pointing to the mentioning of the hittites in the Bible as proof that the Bible was in error. In fact for about 1800 years, the Bible was THE ONLY source for a people known by that name.

Then one day, someone made a discovery and the Bible was vindicated and proven accurate, true once again. Just because the secular world does nbot get the evidence they seek. does it mean that the event did not take place as described b=in the Bible.

another case in point, K.A.Kitchen, a well respected egyptologist and christian, proved beyond doubt that the slave price for joseph was the exact figure that was paid for slaves in that time period.

showing that they bible could not have been written in the 5th or 6th centuries b.c as the price for slaves was much higher at that time and without extremely good historical records, such a figure would have been unknown at the time.

One thing must be remembered is that the people who advocate a late writing of the Old Testament cannot provide one shred of credible nor actual evidence to prove theirpoint. it is all conjecture with nosubstance.

I have quoted an article many times before from the book Mesopotamia and the Bible, edited by chavalas and younger from the article Syro-Mesopotamia: The Old Babylonian Period, by ronald veenker pg. 163 showing that the reputation of copying lays with the babylonians not the israelites.

not one scholar i have read has been able to show any copying done by the israelites and no one even hints that they even had such a reputation.

{ if anyone wants to discuss or rebut, i do not accept people's word or hearsay evidence and they better include credible references as i have done.}.

The christian world comes up with the evidence it is the secular world that likes to dismiss without consideration.

Archaeologist how are you.

I'm not surprised that people were thinking that once again the bible did not match the world they saw.

I believe you are correct about the bible and "source for a people known by that name." Isn't it fair to say that there was other evidence of the Hittites, but it couldn't be attributed to them until the early 1900s. There were tablets from Assyria that mentioned them, right?

I'm all ears. Why do people want to have the OT written in the 5th or 6th century BC?

The christian world comes up with the evidence it is the secular world that likes to dismiss without consideration.

And what's this nonsense all about?

Leaving the considerable debate about whether the bible Hittites are even the same people that came from that empire of present day Turkey, there's a huge difference between getting the place names and tribes named correct and credibility behind specific stories, especially when they are of extraordinary events.

Do we hang on the truth of every word and magic Circe did against Odysseus and his men just because the historic Troy was so recently discovered? Of course not.

That's an excellent argument lynx_fox.

just like those stories of ancient greece; based in a real place, with exagerated people, events, and all many of story-telling heavily laid atop it. It may be based on a true story, but is it not possible that it was embelished? That maybe the events were recorded by someone who thought it fun to make things bigger than they really are? Or, perhaps, there are other sources for this, that may, just may, have been stored in Alexandria? Maybe the non-christian (non-biblical) references and histories were destroyed?

Do we hang on the truth of every word and magic Circe did against Odysseus and his men just because the historic Troy was so recently discovered? Of course not

why would you? circe was a mythical character created by homer a fallible human who wanted to tell a good story. and had no bearing on life and did not change lives or grant guidance away from evil so one could have salvation. there is quite a diffeence between the two.

one is true, the Bible, and the other false, circe.

One is true? The bible is certainly not true on many accounts. Homer's stories assumed to be stories turned out to have some truth.

Evidence for the Bible = The Bible

Originally Posted by Obviously

Evidence for the Bible = The Bible

willful ignorance as the poster ignores 2 pieces of evidence posted in the O. post.

if you want a third, it has been well proven correct that the names used by the Bible for the patriarchs, in the time period the Bible puts them in. If the Bible was an edited version or written for politcal/religius purposes inthe 5th or 6th centuries b.c. such details would not be neccessary nor would such care be taken to get it all right.

Here is my synopsis.

1. You posted that the bible mentions the Hittites. Today people are not so sure that the biblical reference is to the group identified from archaeological finds.

2. You posted that the price of a particular slave seemed reasonable.

3. The bible does mention people who did exist

And this tells you what?

Originally Posted by hokie

And this tells you what?

It tells him that pi equals 3, among other things...

1. You posted that the bible mentions the Hittites. Today people are not so sure that the biblical reference is to the group identified from archaeological finds.

hahahaha. they will always find a way to dismis the evidence. that is why you are given so little. you demand evidence, then when you get it you say that isn't any and then yo cry for more evidence.

sorry but stop making excuses for your unbelief. if you do not want to believe, that is your choice but do not call or whine for more evidence because you have shown to be irresponsible with it when you get some.

here is the rule: 'BY FAITH are ye saved...' 'WITHOUT FAITH you cannot please God...' 'we walk BY FAITH...'

'BY FAITH are ye saved...' 'WITHOUT FAITH you cannot please God...' 'we walk BY FAITH...'

Nice head in the sand motto.

And this tells you what?

I'm serious when I say that I am still curious what this means to you. All it means to me is that the bible isn't completely wrong. Are you trying to us all that it is historical fiction?

These items are so unimportant in the scheme of things I just don't get it.

I'm serious when I say that I am still curious what this means to you. All it means to me is that the bible isn't completely wrong. Are you trying to us all that it is historical fiction?

no, i am saying that the Bible is verified over and over and yet people still won't change their minds or positions.

These items are so unimportant in the scheme of things I just don't get it.

its a start. Did you want me to start out with the Dan inscription and the mernethpath stele?

"nice head inthe sand..."

not really but the realistic approach considering that the ast will always have parts destroyed through various means and 100% of the evidence will never be found.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

no, i am saying that the Bible is verified over and over and yet people still won't change their minds or positions.

What do you mean when you use the word "verified" (in principle - please don't give examples as an explanation), and do you apply the same standards of verification to science?

What do you mean when you use the word "verified" (in principle - please don't give examples as an explanation)

i used it as a softer word than 'proven'. But you can say that much of what the Bible describes is verified by the archaeological discoveries and the amount of written material that has survived.

If you want to go into a controversial area, then we could talk about the solomonic dates and Is. Finkelstein's inane meanderings without proof (you can tell i do not like Finky or his work). Or the stables at Megiddo for that matter.

do you apply the same standards of verification to science?

I think that Kitchen's work is ample enough for the price of slaves and is accepted by secular scholars as well as Christian ones.

For the believer if it contradicts the Bible then it is not true because the Bible is NOT an ordinary book of opinions which need to be challenged, or changed. it is a revelation from God and about is work, involvement in life plus it provides guidance, direction rules and so on.

Secular science does no such thing thus it would be like comparing apples and oranges for the most part as it tries to look at life with little direction, guidance, rules and is subjectto the corruption of the world.

Most secularists do not accept these facts thus to apply a verification system equally to both sides is basically impossible. The two are not really the same things. One is a book from the Creator the other is a tool that has been misused, and limited in scope by those who do not want Christianity a part of the field.

Dan inscription and the mernethpath stele?

Are you referring to the Mesha stele?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

What do you mean when you use the word "verified" (in principle - please don't give examples as an explanation)

i used it as a softer word than 'proven'. But you can say that much of what the Bible describes is verified by the archaeological discoveries and the amount of written material that has survived.

You still haven't given me a decent working definition.

What sort of evidence (again, no examples please, but matters of principle) do you accept as 'verification'?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

do you apply the same standards of verification to science?

I think that Kitchen's work is ample enough for the price of slaves and is accepted by secular scholars as well as Christian ones.

For the believer if it contradicts the Bible then it is not true because the Bible is NOT an ordinary book of opinions which need to be challenged, or changed. it is a revelation from God and about is work, involvement in life plus it provides guidance, direction rules and so on.

This does not address my question: do you apply the same verification standards to the Bible as you do to science?

You still haven't given me a decent working definition.

What sort of evidence (again, no examples please, but matters of principle) do you accept as 'verification'

examples are partofthe verification to illustrate clearly what one means.

maybe i shold have used the word 'accuracy' i think yiou are making a mtn. out of a molehill here.

This does not address my question: do you apply the same verification standards to the Bible as you do to science?

you have my answer as i am thinking you are looking for a loophole to 'verify' or confirm what is not true via the methods that are used to confirm what is true.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

maybe i shold have used the word 'accuracy' i think yiou are making a mtn. out of a molehill here.

Stop ****ing wriggling and answer the damn question.

archie:

you're right, the bible is not complete bullshit. its an important, albeit hugely subjective and inaccurate historical document.
everything in the bible needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
just like every fairy tale, the bible stories also has a core of truth.
but also, anyone who denies the bible as a historical document, is a fool.
it shows us how people were thinking thousands of years ago, it gives us a muddled glimpse into the world before the burning of the library in alexandria.
its however, not a scientific document. you cannot make any accurate scientific predictions based on it, its more of a very rough guideline.
i don't doubt jesus existed.
in fact, with all the prophets roaming around, the likelyhood of someone claiming themselves to be god, or gods son, having disciples, and doing party parlor tricks to woo their audiences is fairly likely. it was just a matter of time before someone wrote about one of them.

I wholeheartedly agree. The bible does have some truth in it, very little.

I'd argue there's a decent amount of truth in it, though it's overshadowed by MASSIVE errors. Like, as mentioned above, . nuff said there.

and you wonder why you are not given more evidence.

Evidence isn't "given" to us. It simply exists for us to find it. So far we haven't found any evidence for the stories in the bible.

archie, you are a walking contradiction that is given incredible amounts of evidence that you simply label as 'non-credible'. Constantly, over and over, EVERY thing is non-credible. We provide numerous counts, and You are the one who disregards it all. Now, The evidence coming from YOUR end is from 2 sources, as I have seen. You quote the information from your site (I assume you have some kind of admin over that site) and the Bible. You claim that you can't use something to prove it, yet that is ALL you do, you have evidence that the people writing the bible are familiar with the time periods in which the bible takes place, at least parts of it. But beyond those few quotes, all you do is use the bible. The evidence for anything you are trying to support MUST come from something other than what you are trying to support, i.e. evidence for a theory (evolution) must come from an empirical source, and not the theory itself. Evolution doesn't use 'evolution' to prove itself. What it uses is the empirical data that we have from studying fossils, living animals, and every other bit about life we can. We DON'T use the words of the theory as proof of the theory. I've noticed that a majority of your posts twist the words of others to make them either against religion, against a 'christian' scientific view, (there really is no difference between sciences. Science is Science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, of the 'truth' of the world around us. It is the precept of science to question EVERYTHING) or against you personally. I don't understand this vendetta you have, but you really aren't going about it in a way that makes sense. The bible has errors. Care to refute that? I have a few examples, and the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter is just one.

Originally Posted by verzen

Evidence isn't "given" to us. It simply exists for us to find it. So far we haven't found any evidence for the stories in the bible.

we have found evidence for some stories... though...

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

Originally Posted by verzen

Evidence isn't "given" to us. It simply exists for us to find it. So far we haven't found any evidence for the stories in the bible.

we have found evidence for some stories... though...

Like we have found evidence for some stories in Spiderman. We know that New York is real and some of the landmarks are real. But to say that there is some wall crawling spiderman out there is insane.

Archy

Read my post on the OT in the Politics thread under the title 'Will Israel Survive'.

Cosmo

more than that, though, we do have evidence, via roman documents, that supports the story of his execution, and a few other parts of his life as represented in the bible. it's not TOTAL bunk, some bits are 'true' and there is evidence for a few, more realistic of the stories to be sure. There is, however, no evidence for Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, or much else of the outlandish tales. I do believe that, up until the 'resurrection' bit, that chapter is rather true, or at least based tightly on a true event.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Archy

Read my post on the OT in the Politics thread under the title 'Will Israel Survive'.

Cosmo

why?

There is, however, no evidence for Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, or much else of the outlandish tales. I do believe that, up until the 'resurrection' bit, that chapter is rather true, or at least based tightly on a true event

Thatis why youhave to use faith and if you do not believe moses how will you believe Jesus?

[quote="archaeologist"]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

There is, however, no evidence for Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, or much else of the outlandish tales. I do believe that, up until the 'resurrection' bit, that chapter is rather true, or at least based tightly on a true event

Thatis why youhave to use faith and if you do not believe moses how will you believe Jesus?

actually, there seems like there is some evidence for the story of moses.
here's a reference to a recent excavation by BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi.../moses_3.shtml

The story goes that Moses led two million Hebrews out of Egypt and they lived for 40 years in the Sinai desert - but a century of archaeology in the Sinai has turned up no evidence of it. If the Hebrews were never in Egypt then perhaps the whole issue was fiction, made up to give their people an exotic history and destiny.

Some archeologists decided to search instead in the Nile Delta: the part of Egypt where the Bible says the Hebrews settled.

They combed the area for evidence of a remarkably precise claim - that the Hebrews were press-ganged into making mud-bricks to build two great cities - Pithom and Ramses. Ramses II was the greatest Pharaoh in all of ancient Egypt - his statues are everywhere. Surely his city could be traced? But no sign could be found. There were suggestions it all been made up by a scribe.

Until a local farmer found a clue: the remains of the feet of a giant statue. An inscription on a nearby pedestal confirmed that the statue belonged to Ramses II. Eventually, archeologists unearthed traces of houses, temples, even palaces. Using new technology, the archaeologists were able to detect the foundations and they mapped out the whole city in a few months. The city they had discovered was one of the biggest cities in ancient Egypt, built around 1250BCE. 20,000 Egyptians had lived there.

But was this city actually built by Hebrew slaves? There is a reference in ancient Egyptian documents to a Semitic tribe captured by Pharaoh and forced to work on the city of Ramses. A clay tablet lists groups of people who were captured by the Pharaoh and one of the groups was called Habiru. Could these be the Hebrews? No-one can be sure.

as for the story with the burning bush, moses could simply have suffered from a heatstroke.

well, anyways, you can see how the bible stories can be explained away with natural events, that we have dated evidence for.

concerning the apiru

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hab...UTF-8&fp_ip=KR

1250 is too late as the hebrews had already left. There is much discussion about the apiru people, some say they were the hebrews and some disgaree, we really do not know for sure.

one of the pieces of evidence were found in some mud bricks made without straw, just as the Bible stated.

it would be impossible to find an evidence out in the desert for most nomadic people, even 40 years worth of travelling by the sam egroup. there are too many things that would obliterate and destroy evidence.

Dever and others at times claim the Israelites were camped at K-B. for 38 years but that is not the case. They have misread the Bible.

The Egyptians took slaves from time to time but not always, so it is possible that that city was made by soemone else or the dating for it is wrong

see:

www.biblearchaeology.org

for more information and more specifically:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/cate...-Conquest.aspx

some other article i found on the habiru:

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

trying to find pictures and the location of the excavation site which the farmer found.

it would be impossible to find an evidence out in the desert for most nomadic people, even 40 years worth of travelling by the sam egroup. there are too many things that would obliterate and destroy evidence.

How many people are we talking about here? Ten? Hundred? Half a million?

Ten people will be difficult to impossible to locate. Half a million leaves a large footprint that can be found.

no hokie because : 1. they did not have disposal wrappers, etc., 2. their clothes did not wear out, 3. winds, earthquakes, other travellers would cover their tracks, 4. as Kitchen said, the israelites would not carry heavy pottery just to please moderrn archaeologists and 5. the israelites left with all egyptian material goods, they did not have their own manufactoring plants in egypt to produce their own style of goods which they then carried with them. allthat woul dbe found would be egyptianitems mis-directing the researchers conclusions.

Yet somehow they had the equipment to build a golden calf big enough for them all to worship? And a huge battery of some sort?

And somehow they had the agriculture to feed the half million for two generations without leaving behind extensive signs of tillage, grain storage, irrigation, planting or plowing tools etc?...ya ya...I know “manna” and “quail” to which we find neither their privies or lots and lots of bird bones.

Or given the two generations spent out there trying to find their way across a region it should take 40 days instead of 40 years to cross we don't find a million burial sights either.

And this is a desert, even soft things, such as leathers, tend to get buried and preserved rather than rot. We had some sites going back nearly 200,000 years from what were almost certainly tiny stone age tribes living in the area. Did this enormous group of Hebrews leave less than a stone age tribe? It hardly seems possible--unless you just wave your hand and say god removed all the evidence.

Given this region is one of the most combed over by archaeologist in the world, it's almost certain that no exodus approaching anything as large in scale or duration as that depicted in the bible actually took place.

their clothes didn't wear out... what proof do you have that after 40 YEARS! clothing doesn't wear out?

no hokie because : 1. they did not have disposal wrappers, etc., 2. their clothes did not wear out, 3. winds, earthquakes, other travellers would cover their tracks, 4. as Kitchen said, the israelites would not carry heavy pottery just to please moderrn archaeologists and 5. the israelites left with all egyptian material goods, they did not have their own manufactoring plants in egypt to produce their own style of goods which they then carried with them. allthat woul dbe found would be egyptianitems mis-directing the researchers conclusions.

1. Obviously
2. This is not worth commented about
3. Wasn't looking for footprints. I was thinking about pictographs or metroglyphs
4. you don't carry much pottery but it can be made and used and the broken material is discarded.

So no one has farms, makes goods, buries people, no encampments, no clothes wear out, nothing lost, no ...

That's complete nonsense. The answer is that this simply did not happen or if it did it was a small group.

What 'archaeologist' is suggesting amounts to nonsense. Aside from the strawman he erected (disposable wrappers), he makes the assumption that the alleged 900,000 Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years (at least two generations) abandoned their culture and assumed the identities of Egyptians.

Even if we assume they wore Egyptian clothing when they left Egypt (another assumption), there's no indication that the clothing they wore were durable enough to never need replacement. Moreover, children who grow need clothing. Therefore, if they're a real culture wandering the desert for 40 years (900,000 people!), it stands to reason that they'll eventually revert to the clothing of their culture.

900,000 people also need livestock, food, water, etc. They need to cook. Cooking means hearths and pottery. They'll build hearths and make pottery in the manner of their culture (it wouldn't make sense for then to use another culture's). One needs pottery to cook in and to carry water. You also store grain and food in pottery (rats can't get in).

If they used bladders for water instead of pottery, then they need livestock. If they have time for animal husbandry, they certainly have time for ceramics. They'll also make use of bronze since its available and trade-worthy.

900,000 people don't simply wander a desert. They set up camps. They shit and throw away trash (broken pots, bones, etc.). They leave a trace. If archaeologists can follow the migration patterns of a few neolithic and mesolithic people, then 900,000 wandering Jews will stand out in the archaeological record like flags on a golf course.

Unless it was a legend of propaganda built on the tiniest kernel of truth (if that).

Whats interesting is the difficulties archeologists and historians have in finding ancient battle sites. For example, the famous Battle of the Teutoburger Forest that decimated 3 Roman legions and their auxiliaries was almost impossible to find because historians and archeologists believed that such a battlefield would be littered with artifacts. What wasnt taken into account that nearly everything of value that could be taken was taken, leaving nothing but the scraps and corpses left. I dont know when the actual battle site was discovered, but we learn a little something every day.

that kind of example could be found by the mass grave that remained (all the left over corpses.)

A battle is a short term event. Finding a culture is different in that we can find the Romans or their enemies, but maybe have difficulty in locating where they fought.

where do i begin...?

Well let's start at the beginning i guess:

Yet somehow they had the equipment to build a golden calf big enough for them all to worship? And a huge battery of some sort?

hmmm. a fire and a pot or two plus a sand mold. no problem there.

And somehow they had the agriculture to feed the half million for two generations without leaving behind extensive signs of tillage, grain storage, irrigation, planting or plowing tools etc?

Last i heard the Jewish people counted 40 years as 1 generation. but that coud have changed by now an d if so, use credible links and ref. your word is not good enough.

you also know little about nomadic life.

Or given the two generations spent out there trying to find their way across a region it should take 40 days instead of 40 years to cross we don't find a million burial sights either.

if buried all you would find would be egyptian items in the grave.

And this is a desert, even soft things, such as leathers, tend to get buried and preserved rather than rot. We had some sites going back nearly 200,000 years from what were almost certainly tiny stone age tribes living in the area. Did this enormous group of Hebrews leave less than a stone age tribe? It hardly seems possible--unless you just wave your hand and say god removed all the evidence

i would challenge the dating and keep on mnd that the israelites WERE NOT the only people travelling the land.

their clothes didn't wear out... what proof do you have that after 40 YEARS! clothing doesn't wear out?

read the Bible, i think it is found in NUmbers, don't remember off hand.

to be continued...

part two...

Wasn't looking for footprints. I was thinking about pictographs or metroglyphs

ancient hebrew has been found in different places but like here, it has been dismissed--no surprise.

you don't carry much pottery but it can be made and used and the broken material is discarded.

even if they carried a potter's wheel, where was the kiln and the remains of a kiln?

This is not worth commented about

sure it is as it is a factor and stated by God himself.

So no one has farms, makes goods, buries people, no encampments, no clothes wear out, nothing lost, no ...

we are talking a NOMADIC lifestyle, sheesh. and you forget the God factor.

What 'archaeologist' is suggesting amounts to nonsense. Aside from the strawman he erected (disposable wrappers), he makes the assumption that the alleged 900,000 Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years (at least two generations) abandoned their culture and assumed the identities of Egyptians.

one reason i do not like talking to skinwalker is that he just does not think nor put 2+2 together. We do not even find much evidence for nomads from 50 years ago let alone 3,000. the time frame plays a large part in this people.

DID NOT SAY THEY ASSUMED AN EGYPTIAN IDENTITY nor abandoned their culture, they were slaves and NOT allowed to do many things. THINK ABOUT IT and compare their plight with the american negro slave population (negro is a correct word here) how much of the africancculture would be found in mississipi or alabama?

900,000 people also need livestock, food, water, etc. They need to cook. Cooking means hearths and pottery. They'll build hearths and make pottery in the manner of their culture (it wouldn't make sense for then to use another culture's). One needs pottery to cook in and to carry water. You also store grain and food in pottery (rats can't get in).

AGAIN not thinking but assuming and assumption will lead you astray every time.

If they used bladders for water instead of pottery, then they need livestock. If they have time for animal husbandry, they certainly have time for ceramics. They'll also make use of bronze since its available and trade-worthy

please study the NOMADIC lifestyle before commenting and not all people were the same. if they had livesrtock they would not have gotten quail. THINK people.

900,000 people don't simply wander a desert. They set up camps. They shit and throw away trash (broken pots, bones, etc.). They leave a trace. If archaeologists can follow the migration patterns of a few neolithic and mesolithic people, then 900,000 wandering Jews will stand out in the archaeological record like flags on a golf course.

they can't follow those people, they are making itup as they do not know. please link up a website that has pictures of 3,000 year old crap. you all are thinking along the wrong lines. you are forgetting much and ignoring other important factors. assumption is NOT the key.

to be continued...

Whats interesting is the difficulties archeologists and historians have in finding ancient battle sites. For example, the famous Battle of the Teutoburger Forest that decimated 3 Roman legions and their auxiliaries was almost impossible to find because historians and archeologists believed that such a battlefield would be littered with artifacts. What wasnt taken into account that nearly everything of value that could be taken was taken, leaving nothing but the scraps and corpses left. I dont know when the actual battle site was discovered, but we learn a little something every day.

good example. do not forget that other nomadic people would have picked up a lot of things the israelites possibly thew away. they would have buried their dead in the sam espots giving the modern day archaeologist reason to think all the graves were a different people. there are myriads of reason swhy their is no evidence.

think the battle of troy--if true--very little evidence was left behind to be found.

that kind of example could be found by the mass grave that remained (all the left over corpses.)

what mass graves? who said their were mass deaths? though there were a couple of incidents but one i believe an earthquake took a lot of bodies and buried them.

A battle is a short term event. Finding a culture is different in that we can find the Romans or their enemies, but maybe have difficulty in locating where they fought

WHAt CULTURE? these were escaping slaves who had their history and that was about it. their laws were given to them at SInai--AFTER leaving egypt. for all we know they still practiced egyptian ways up until then an dmaybe after as people switched to the new way. they had NO mft. plants, no raw materials, no way to trade for some, think about it people.

if you and your extended family were wiped out tomorrow, we woul dnot have any evidence for your existence by the end of next week. your toilets woul dbe filled with someone else's crap, your knick knacs replaced by other people's and so on.

These people were in the desert, withcontless others wandering the land for their own purposes before and after the exodus--it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out---no evidence will be found. (or a minute amount will be)

there's evidence of the Holocaust. I say BULLSHIT on you arch. there is AMPLE evidence they all existed, yet over 9MILLION people died, and we have decent evidence that they existed... evidence of their existence isn't gone. Ann Frank. I have evidence against what you just said, now back up your argument or stop spouting BULLSHIT!

Originally Posted by archaeologist

What 'archaeologist' is suggesting amounts to nonsense. Aside from the strawman he erected (disposable wrappers), he makes the assumption that the alleged 900,000 Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years (at least two generations) abandoned their culture and assumed the identities of Egyptians.

one reason i do not like talking to skinwalker is that he just does not think nor put 2+2 together. We do not even find much evidence for nomads from 50 years ago let alone 3,000. the time frame plays a large part in this people.

One reason you don't like talking to me is you can't get past reason and without invoking ignorance and superstition. We have more than enough evidence for nomads 50 years ago. We have little need for evidence of Nomads 50 years ago. In fact, I was recently at a site of nomadic herders whose number was perhaps a dozen and their camp was very obvious.

A dozen. Biblical mythology alleges that there were 900,000 wandering Jews! That's the equivalent of the population of Vancouver! LOL... perhaps they tip-toed barefoot and didn't eat, sleep, or shit for 40 years hehe ...

DID NOT SAY THEY ASSUMED AN EGYPTIAN IDENTITY nor abandoned their culture, they were slaves and NOT allowed to do many things. THINK ABOUT IT and compare their plight with the american negro slave population (negro is a correct word here) how much of the africancculture would be found in mississipi or alabama?

You're clearly implying that the alleged Israelites of the alleged exodus assumed an Egyptian identity even in the very paragraph that you seem to feel is a refutation. And, yes, there is a significant amount of African culture found in sites of the antebellum south.

900,000 people also need livestock, food, water, etc. They need to cook. Cooking means hearths and pottery. They'll build hearths and make pottery in the manner of their culture (it wouldn't make sense for then to use another culture's). One needs pottery to cook in and to carry water. You also store grain and food in pottery (rats can't get in).

AGAIN not thinking but assuming and assumption will lead you astray every time.

Please, demonstrate the reason these assumptions are incorrect or illogical. Simply making a half-assed quip about "assumptions" serves nothing but your own simple ego. Science is about assumptions -but they're informed assumptions. The alternative, which you opt for, is an assumption without information -a reliance on a silly superstition derived from a Bronze/Iron Age mythology. So, if you're going to criticize assumptions, yours are first in line.

If they used bladders for water instead of pottery, then they need livestock. If they have time for animal husbandry, they certainly have time for ceramics. They'll also make use of bronze since its available and trade-worthy

please study the NOMADIC lifestyle before commenting and not all people were the same. if they had livesrtock they would not have gotten quail. THINK people.

Again, you're making a complete ass of yourself. The story of "quail" comes from biblical mythology (which is the worst source of data possible in a matter of archaeology) and not actual evidence. Further, even if we do assume (I know how you like assumptions) that they ate quail, it is illogical to believe that 900,000 people could survive 40 years on quail alone. It just didn't happen. To believe so is to be ignorant if not outright stupid. Lastly, I only mention animal husbandry as a contingent result of using bladders for storing liquids -a common practice among nomads.

And, yes, I have studied many cultures of the region, nomads and pastoralists among them. The irony is you suggesting someone study and think! LOL.

900,000 people don't simply wander a desert. They set up camps. They shit and throw away trash (broken pots, bones, etc.). They leave a trace. If archaeologists can follow the migration patterns of a few neolithic and mesolithic people, then 900,000 wandering Jews will stand out in the archaeological record like flags on a golf course.

they can't follow those people, they are making itup as they do not know. please link up a website that has pictures of 3,000 year old crap. you all are thinking along the wrong lines. you are forgetting much and ignoring other important factors. assumption is NOT the key.

Ha! That's your entire response? "Show me a picture of 3,000 year old shit?" What about the middens and pot sherds. Lets assume that you are correct (and you aren't) that corprolites cannot survive in the archaeological record. Where's the rest of their stuff? For 40 years 900,000 people wandered the desert and left no trace! Complete and utter poppycock! This is why people laugh at religious nutters that go on and on about the "inerrancy" of biblical mythology.

Imagine: the entire population of Vancouver starts walking around the desert of the American southwest. Kids dropping possessions, the elderly hobbling along. 10 years go by and kids need new shoes, sandals, clothes -food, water, batteries for iPods. Multiply that by 4 and in 4,000 years their presence will be seen.

Here's what 900,000 people looks like:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

we are talking a NOMADIC lifestyle, sheesh. [/quote]

Are you so sure? And don't you realize that we've been particularly conservative. If you accept the numbers from Exodus or Numbers the ~600,000 only includes the men, there are easily at least a million more women and children. We're actually looking for more like 1.5 million peoples. That's nearly the entire population of Egypt of the time; that's many times more than the Sinai could ever sustain; that's so many people that they could have overwhelmed any other peoples they were to encounter. They wouldn't have been afraid, they would have taken over the ancient world. Heck they would have probably been far larger than the nation they were supposedly escaping from (yet didn't notice in any record).

You infer they might be confused with Egyptian remains--given the size of the OT Exodus, that's probably 2-3 million burials, or burial urns if they had already adopted that habit. Yet there aren't even Egyptian remains anywhere close to the numbers required--nor any other group of peoples.

If it did happen at all, the OT size of the exodus are wildly exaggerated--at least by two orders of magnitude (x100), perhaps to by more to have escaped clear notice by archaeologist (real ones).

I'm not even sure why a slave people would have even had reason to have words to describe hundreds of thousands of anything.

The whole idea that the OT is an accurate depiction of the event are beyond ridiculous. If anything like the event happened at all it was a MUCH smaller event.

As a demonstration of 'archaeologist's' lack of understanding of basic culture and history, note his continued insistence that "they had no manufacturing plants" with regard to the alleged wandering Jews of the alleged exodus as a means to explain why we don't see cultural items.

Its as if 'archaeologist' believes the Jews of the Bronze Age were stupid and incapable of creating their own food, clothing, shelter and tools. That they were unable to use technology.

There were no "manufacturing plants" in the Bronze Age.

There were people who knew how to find natural resources and to turn them into tools. There were people who knew agriculture and people who knew animal husbandry.

There is no evidence of an "exodus" of Jews from Egypt to the Levant at the time biblical mythology claims. There is, however, evidence of propaganda and invented history in many human cultures. There's no good reason to think that early Israelites were above such behavior in establishing their national identity. Cultures throughout the Near East lied and exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented their histories to favor themselves. The "Israelites" were among them.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

there's evidence of the Holocaust. I say BULLSHIT on you arch. there is AMPLE evidence they all existed, yet over 9MILLION people died, and we have decent evidence that they existed... evidence of their existence isn't gone. Ann Frank. I have evidence against what you just said, now back up your argument or stop spouting BULLSHIT!

What evidence do you have for Anne frank? a book? could have been written by someone else who put her name on it.

please give me the names of those 9 million and show me where they weren't forged or just made up? we have bones and ashes but how will you match the names to them skeletons? also wait 3,000 years and see how much 'evidence' is left after earthqaukes, eruptions, hurricanes, storms, fires, theft, demolition etc.

think don't react.

skinwalker and lynn fox i will get to your posts later. want to get ready to deal with the less than flattering comments.

We're actually looking for more like 1.5 million peoples. That's nearly the entire population of Egypt of the time;

This website says differently:

http://encarta.msn.com/text_46151115...ent_Egypt.html

It increased during the Middle Kingdom (about 2040-1640 bc), and by the New Kingdom (about 1550-1070 bc) the population had grown to between 3 and 4 million. This figure almost doubled under Hellenistic rule (332-30 bc), with perhaps as many as 7 million people inhabiting the country at the time it was annexed to the Roman Empire

If it did happen at all, the OT size of the exodus are wildly exaggerated--at least by two orders of magnitude (x100), perhaps to by more to have escaped clear notice by archaeologist (real ones).

Can't do anything about that. The Bible only gives one number and that is all we have to work with. The Sinai at that time probably could handle the crowd, we do not know what was there back then.

The whole idea that the OT is an accurate depiction of the event are beyond ridiculous. If anything like the event happened at all it was a MUCH smaller event.

that is why you have to have faith , for the supernatural always goes beyond our ownunderstanding and when you eliminate the God factor, nothing makes sense.

One reason you don't like talking to me is you can't get past reason and without invoking ignorance and superstition.

no, that would not be it. it is the limited thinking and large amounts of assumptions you do coupled with your unobjectivity andbias thatjust makes it impossible to get anything through to your brain.

This is why:

We have little need for evidence of Nomads 50 years ago. In fact, I was recently at a site of nomadic herders whose number was perhaps a dozen and their camp was very obvious.

A dozen. Biblical mythology alleges that there were 900,000 wandering Jews! That's the equivalent of the population of Vancouver! LOL... perhaps they tip-toed barefoot and didn't eat, sleep, or shit for 40 years h

He takes a modern camp that has not been exposed to different destructive elelments for 3,000 years andthinks he can pronounce the exodus false. wrong.

Again, you're making a complete ass of yourself

not at all but you are showing your closed-mindedness and that your prejudices influence your thinking and conclusions. so much for your credibility as you are not listening to the other side ofthe story but dismissing it without proving the story false. we know for a fact that quail go through that region in huge numbers (Humphreys: The Miracles of the Exodus)

Where's the rest of their stuff

you ignore the facts and keep harping on the same point over and over. doing so doesn't change th efacts--3,000 years of exposure tothe destructive elelments removes things.

the answer won't change the more you ask the question.

as for crapping, people normally dig holes andbury it and do not forget that there are insects who take the stuff away. you ignore so many facts without considering all the mitigating factors involved.

Imagine: the entire population of Vancouver starts walking around the desert of the American southwest. Kids dropping possessions, the elderly hobbling along. 10 years go by and kids need new shoes, sandals, clothes -food, water, batteries for iPods. Multiply that by 4 and in 4,000 years their presence will be seen.

again, God kept their clothes intact, i am searcing for the reference but am no teeling that good right now. sorry here i sone;

Nehemiah 9:20-22 (New International Version)
20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst. 21 For forty years you sustained them in the desert; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen

Here's what 900,000 people looks like:

where did you get a picture of my birthday party??

Its as if 'archaeologist' believes the Jews of the Bronze Age were stupid and incapable of creating their own food, clothing, shelter and tools. That they were unable to use technology.

you are NOT even coming close to addressing what i said so that post is ignored. stop distorting and stick to the truth.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

where did you get a picture of my birthday party??

Please retract this remark that reeks of religious prejudice. It is offensive to Muslims.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

We're actually looking for more like 1.5 million peoples. That's nearly the entire population of Egypt of the time;

This website says differently:

http://encarta.msn.com/text_46151115...ent_Egypt.html

It increased during the Middle Kingdom (about 2040-1640 bc), and by the New Kingdom (about 1550-1070 bc) the population had grown to between 3 and 4 million.

Which also means the population got cut in half at some point in there...but there's no evidence of that calamity either--or all the bad things that happened right before the exodus.

If it did happen at all, the OT size of the exodus are wildly exaggerated--at least by two orders of magnitude (x100), perhaps to by more to have escaped clear notice by archaeologist (real ones).

Can't do anything about that. The Bible only gives one number and that is all we have to work with. The Sinai at that time probably could handle the crowd, we do not know what was there back then.

And it gives that number twice. What makes you believe the Sinai could support that number?

that is why you have to have faith , for the supernatural always goes beyond our ownunderstanding and when you eliminate the God factor, nothing makes sense.

An opinion that makes the entire idea of a rational discussion about evidence for the bible a sojourn into irrational absurdities. If you find even the smallest abstruse "evidence" you celebrate, if not or find contrary evidence you pull the "god" card and thump you're chest for being so faithful.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

bleblable

could you, just for once, try and use REAL evidence, instead of constantly quoting the fucking bible?
you just don't get it do you? PEOPLES OPINIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, NOT OBJECTIVE.
the bible is a SUBJECTIVE book.
no matter how fucking inspired it is by god, people are NOT god, and they make mistakes or exaggerations, ALL THE TIME.
do you remember every word of a conversation you had with a person you talked to an hour ago? NO. NOT EVEN IF YOU TRY.
and neither did the guys who wrote the fucking bible.
GET THAT SHIT INTO YOUR HEAD.

'archaeologist' has had his account temporarily suspended for trolling in another thread. I sent him a PM but he perhaps did not receive it due to the suspension of his account, so I'll make it known here in the event that he reads as a guest. Should he start a sock-puppet to get around the suspension, it would not be good for him.

Thanks for tossing out 1 piece of evidence about the shoes not wearing out. We all know how you demand evidence and rarely provide anything at all.

So to keep on the evidence thingy how about these items:

Last i heard the Jewish people counted 40 years as 1 generation.

i would challenge the dating

ancient hebrew has been found in different places but like here, it has been dismissed

sure it is as it is a factor and stated by God himself.

earthqaukes, eruptions, hurricanes, storms, fires, theft, demolition

These are all answers you gave to questions posted here and you provided no evidence.

we do not know what was there back then.

Actually we do know quite a bit of past climates especially ones that are so recent. Studies of climate change and the 'collapse' of ancient civilizations is an important research question.

that is why you have to have faith , for the supernatural always goes beyond our ownunderstanding and when you eliminate the God factor, nothing makes sense.

So you are invoking magic to make all of this work? Why didn't you say that in the first place. You could say "It is clear that none of this happened, but it really did and magic was used, and I don't recall where but god said so and even if he didn't say a magical incantation I know he did some hand waving and everything is ok so just trust me."

closed-mindedness

The only close minded person here is you archaeologist. You keep trying to shoe horn everything into a single goal. Your goal is to believe in every word of the bible no matter how absurd. You are unable to consider other possibilities. That is a close-minded person.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

We have little need for evidence of Nomads 50 years ago. In fact, I was recently at a site of nomadic herders whose number was perhaps a dozen and their camp was very obvious.

A dozen. Biblical mythology alleges that there were 900,000 wandering Jews! That's the equivalent of the population of Vancouver! LOL... perhaps they tip-toed barefoot and didn't eat, sleep, or shit for 40 years h

He takes a modern camp that has not been exposed to different destructive elelments for 3,000 years andthinks he can pronounce the exodus false. wrong.

Modern? I don't recall revealing the age of the site, but current estimates place it at 400 CE. Their are sites in the Near East where preservation is very good that go back 6,000 - 8,000 years ago. We have some Natufian sites that reveal quite a lot of their culture and lifeways and they're far older than the alleged Exodus and about 200 times fewer people in their population.

To suggest that a lack of material record for 900,000 plus people wandering a desert for 40 years is to be expected is to reveal one's complete ignorance about archaeology. For one who dares use 'archaeologist' as his screen name, this makes you a liar.

Again, you're making a complete ass of yourself

not at all but you are showing your closed-mindedness and that your prejudices influence your thinking and conclusions. so much for your credibility as you are not listening to the other side ofthe story but dismissing it without proving the story false. we know for a fact that quail go through that region in huge numbers (Humphreys: The Miracles of the Exodus)

How many quail would be necessary to provide sufficient calories to 900,000 people for 40 years? Like I said: ignorant. And if you didn't lie and have 'archaeologist' in your screen name, I'd probably be less harsh and more tolerant of your ignorance.

Where's the rest of their stuff

you ignore the facts and keep harping on the same point over and over. doing so doesn't change th efacts--3,000 years of exposure tothe destructive elelments removes things.

Not the stuff we're looking for: stones, bones, and ceramics. They endure. The Natufian culture, Catalhouyouk, and many, many more sites around the Near East are testament to this. Like I said: Ignorant.

the answer won't change the more you ask the question.

Clearly. Demonstrating that you are willfully ignorant rather than making any attempt to educate yourself. This is indicative of sticking to a preconceived conclusion and ignoring data that is not supportive or is contradictory. An illogical and irrational method. Definately not scientific. In otherwords, your superstition impedes your own education.

Imagine: the entire population of Vancouver starts walking around the desert of the American southwest. Kids dropping possessions, the elderly hobbling along. 10 years go by and kids need new shoes, sandals, clothes -food, water, batteries for iPods. Multiply that by 4 and in 4,000 years their presence will be seen.

again, God kept their clothes intact, i am searcing for the reference but am no teeling that good right now. sorry here i sone;

Ah. So 'goddidit' -the infamous fallback position to any religious troll that gets his conclusions challenged. Evidence that you have no rational input to offer. If so, then you can no longer participate in a thread about "evidence" of anything since 'goddidit' is not evidence. If you wish to participate in this thread after your suspension is lifted, you will need to PM me with a pledge or promise to stick to evidence and not 'goddidit.' Otherwise, you will again be suspended. This is a discussion forum and rational discourse has priority.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

there's evidence of the Holocaust. I say BULLSHIT on you arch. there is AMPLE evidence they all existed, yet over 9MILLION people died, and we have decent evidence that they existed... evidence of their existence isn't gone. Ann Frank. I have evidence against what you just said, now back up your argument or stop spouting BULLSHIT!

What evidence do you have for Anne frank? a book? could have been written by someone else who put her name on it.

please give me the names of those 9 million and show me where they weren't forged or just made up? we have bones and ashes but how will you match the names to them skeletons? also wait 3,000 years and see how much 'evidence' is left after earthqaukes, eruptions, hurricanes, storms, fires, theft, demolition etc.

think don't react.

The ashes, the bones, those are proof. I don't care about names, they aren't 'proof' of existence. But the physical evidence of 9 MILLION corpses is. those people had lives. They existed. And you can't refute that. I gave the example of Frank just to show you we haven't forgotten. there is still evidence that they are there. 3000 years from now the Mass Graves in Germany, and the Mass Graves in the Near East, and the Mass Graves in Sudan will ALL be testament to the existence of these people who were murdered. and you claim there's no evidence of people who survived. BULLSHIT.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Ah. So 'goddidit' -the infamous fall-back position to any religious troll that gets his conclusions challenged. Evidence that you have no rational input to offer. If so, then you can no longer participate in a thread about "evidence" of anything since 'goddidit' is not evidence. If you wish to participate in this thread after your suspension is lifted, you will need to PM me with a pledge or promise to stick to evidence and not 'goddidit.' Otherwise, you will again be suspended. This is a discussion forum and rational discourse has priority.

Quoted for emphasis.

Archy

I just accessed this thread lately and decided to answer.

Why would you want to give the OT credibility since this book is absolute EVIL.

Karl Marx (a born jew) renounced it as a drug.
The Israelis have opted for the 'gun and the cannon' for their salvation since their past history has not given them any respect except hate?

Cosmo