My Presentation, My 1% of my Evidence Options

[Mazzu X]

Since Sketpicguy is being a cry baby, I guess ill present my 4 concrete evidences: If you guys cant be convinced by these, well i guess you have no comprehension then.

1.) Jesus: Fact or Fiction
http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/

2.) Christian Apologetics
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_02.htm

3.) Locations I
http://www.biblediscoveries.com/holyplaces1.html

4.) Locations II
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/anc...l/nazareth.html


Please I have thousands upon thousands of more Concrete Evidences...All you got to do is ask, But if you cant believe theses...then i dont know what to say.

[skepticguy]

Since Sketpicguy is being a cry baby,

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/bawling.gif) Whaaaaaaaa! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

I guess ill present my 4 concrete evidences: If you guys cant be convinced by these, well i guess you have no comprehension then.

1.) Jesus: Fact or Fiction
http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/

2.) Christian Apologetics
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_02.htm

3.) Locations I
http://www.biblediscoveries.com/holyplaces1.html

4.) Locations II
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/anc...l/nazareth.html


Please I have thousands upon thousands of more Concrete Evidences...All you got to do is ask, But if you cant believe theses...then i dont know what to say.

This isn't "concrete evidences" these are weblinks. Can't you think or argue on your own?

Besides, we had agreed to discuss the Exodus, Mazzu, not Jesus Christ. If you want to change the subject, that's fine. Just tell me, specifically, what you are providing "concrete evidence" of. Your first two links dealt mainly with establishing that Jesus was a true historical person. I don't dispute that a real Jesus lived. My beef with your Jesus is that you think he was a god and that he rose from the dead. You want to debate whether or not Jesus was god and/or that he rose from the dead? Fine. Present your "concrete" scientific and archaeological evidence of this.

Your last link dealt with the location of Nazareth. So what? Are we discussion whether or not there was a real Nazareth?

What I did find interesting was your third link dealing with "the real Mt. Sinai and Exodus Highlights." This holds a great deal of interest for me. Would you like to discuss that link? Want to find out how "concrete" it is? This site is based largely on the work of amateur "arkaeologist" Ron Wyatt. I'm very familiar with Ron Wyatt's work. The guy's a joke. He was a nurse who thought he was Indiana Jones.

This is your "concrete" evidence? (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) Let's discuss the "real Mt. Sinai" then, shall we, Mazzu? If you thought you were embarassed before, you haven't seen anything yet. You think this is some "secret" knowledge? You think I haven't heard of Ron Wyatt before? Oh man, are you in for it. But our discussion will start with the BIBLE, not some website. You want to reference a website, fine. But we START with the BIBLE (you know, the "Holy Word of God" that you think is 100% accurate?). If you are going to DEFEND the Bible, we START with the Bible. I will use the Bible itself as a witness against it's supposed "100% accuracy."

Ready?

Edited to add:
Before you really do embarass yourself too badly, Mazzu, perhaps you should read what the editors at the respected biblical archaeology magazine "Biblical Archaeology Review" once wrote regarding Ron Wyatt and his rather "unusual" claims:

Our office regularly receives calls and letters from people who have heard Wyatt speak or have seen his videos and want to know if they should believe his extravagant claims. We respond that we--and the academically trained archaeologists we deal with--give Wyatt little credence. If it sounds too good to be true, we say, it probably is. Wyatt is an amateur archaeologist; he makes his livelihood as an anesthetist. Wyatt calls himself a "biblical archaeologist," but he would be more at home in the 19th century, when some supposed experts expected the Bible to be a clear, uncomplicated guide to the treasures of the past. In Wyatt's case, the treasures he seeks are not gold or jewelry, but sacred objects and locales mentioned in the Bible. Like many who have no sense of serious archaeology, Wyatt believes that the fabulous and miraculous--Noah's Ark, whole cities--are out there to be found if only you read the Bible and search hard enough.
(...)

Junk science has several warning signs: It advocates a cause, pays little attention to the investigative process, ignores contrary evidence and advertises a high moral purpose.1 All these signals are present in the claims of Ron Wyatt, of the Wyatt Archaeological Museum in Cornersville, Tennessee, and in his "discovery" of the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah along the Dead Sea.

This is from the folks who do real science and real biblical archaeology. Seriously, Mazzu, you should research your "concrete" evidence before you base your whole world-view upon it.

This post has been edited by skepticguy: Mar 7 2005, 02:03 PM

[Mazzu X]

No, the debation was the Holy Bible in particular....All the stories, every detail... I just....well showed factual evidences.

Wow that was a quick debate, looks like ive won this one.

[skepticguy]

No, the debation was the Holy Bible in particular....All the stories, every detail... I just....well showed factual evidences.

Wow that was a quick debate, looks like ive won this one.

This is the debate? Oh, well, why didn't you say so!

Here we go, wiseguy. Get Google started because you're going to need a lot of help.


THE EXODUS FAIRY TALE

How many people participated in the Exodus?

According to Exodus 12:37 that number was "about 600,000 men". Since this is merely the number of young men able to go to war (see Numbers 1:1-50), this population figure obviously leaves out women, the elderly and children of both genders. To simplify the total number, most will agree that there were the same number of women of similar age as there were men. Therefore, the young population of Hebrews would be placed around 1.2 million. We should at least double that number to account for the old people and the children of both sexes so that the total population figure comes to nearly 2.5 million. Exodus 12:38 says that another unknown number of people (a “mixed crowd”) also left with the Hebrews. Therefore, the total number of people leaving Egypt with Moses would have been nearly 3 million.

Why does this figure create a problem? There are a lot of reasons why believing nearly 3 million people leaving Egypt would have been an impossibility. First of all, the ENTIRE population of EGYPT at the time of the exodus would have been around 5 million (see http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/index.html). That means that the Bible is asserting that nearly 60% of the ENTIRE population of Egypt left in a single night! Do you realize what that would be like? I want you to imagine 60% of the population of Laos (est. population 6,068,117) getting up and leaving in a single night. And no one notices. No other countries do anything about it (even if a neighboring country has been waiting to attack that nation because it was one of the most fertile in the region). No archaeological evidence is left behind. And, remember, a great deal of the Egyptian population was already dead or dying from at least one of those supposed 10 plagues that descended on them earlier.

I’ll let you chew on that for awhile, Mazzu. Find me some archaeology or science (hunt down those websites!) that will explain how 60% of the Egyptian population vanished without a trace. And how Egypt could have survived losing this much of its population. If and when you come back for more I’ll have another question regarding the logistics of a population this size surviving in the Sinai desert.

I’ve just begun!

[Mazzu X]

Wow, you did good my child..But let me spice things up a bit...

But first as you should know this debate is not just about Exodus, its about the whole Bible...

But with the Exodus account, lets see my points shall we:

Christ affirms the Exodus:

First, let’s make sure we have a clear picture of the biblical perspective. We find that Jesus Christ affirmed the biblical account of the Exodus as true, and He based some of His teachings on it. Reminding His countrymen that God had miraculously provided food for them during 40 years in the wilderness, He said: "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven" (John 6:49-51).

Jesus staked His reputation, authority and credibility on the Exodus account’s reliability–on His confidence that the Israelites actually did eat manna in the desert as the Scriptures describe. If this account were not true, then Jesus was wrong, and so are some of His teachings.

We should not be surprised, then, that some critics have focused so much attention on this fundamental event in the Bible. They try to discredit the story of the Exodus to undermine its historical validity.

Biblical historian Eugene Merrill describes the importance the Exodus has for the rest of the Bible: "The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event of the Old Testament because it marks God’s mightiest act in behalf of his people . . . To it the Book of Genesis provides an introduction and justification, and from it flows all subsequent Old Testament revelation . . . In the final analysis, the exodus served to typify that exodus achieved by Jesus Christ for people of faith so that it is a meaningful event for the church as well as for Israel" (Kingdom of Priests, 1996, pp. 57-58).

BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!!

How do these factors affect the debate over the Exodus?:

Although not apparent at first glance, the biblical account of the Exodus contains many tiny details that place it within a distinct historical and chronological context. Those who ignore this evidence refuse to give the biblical record a fair hearing.

For instance, in the events leading up to the Exodus, the book of Genesis records that Joseph’s brothers sold him for 20 shekels to slave traders who took him from Canaan to Egypt (Genesis 37:28). Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes some of the flaws in the logic of those who reject the biblical Exodus or assign it to unnamed writers many centuries later. He notes that the price of 20 shekels is "the price of a slave in the Near East in about the 18th century B.C. . . . If all these figures were invented during the Exile (sixth century B.C.) or in the Persian period by some fiction writer, why isn’t the price for Joseph 90 to 100 shekels, the cost of a slave at the time when that story was supposedly written? . . . It’s more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality in these cases" (Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April, 1995, p. 52).

The date of the Exodus can be accurately calculated since the Bible mentions in 1Kings 6:1 that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was "the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt . . ."

Surprisingly, there is scholarly agreement about the dates of Solomon’s reign, placing his fourth year in the 960s B.C. Subtracting 480 years takes us back to a date for the Exodus in the 1440s B.C.

Another biblical reference to date the Exodus is found in Judges, where Jephthah tells the Ammonites that Israel had been in the land for 300 years (Judges 11:26). Again, there is acceptance among the experts that Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites took place around 1100 B.C. This would place the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan near 1400 B.C., precisely 40 years after the Exodus. Thus both biblical dates for the Exodus agree.

In spite of this biblical evidence, most minimalist scholars believe the Exodus took place around 1260 B.C., a date that contradicts the biblically derived dates by almost two centuries. Minimalists generally give three main reasons for this later date of the Exodus: (1) the mention of the Israelites’ building of the city of Rameses (Exodus 1:11); (2) the archaeological evidence that no sedentary population lived in the Transjordan and Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 B.C.; and (3) the widespread devastation of cities and towns of central Canaan during the 1260s B.C.

Recent Discoveries:

Another argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment every item had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few or no traces that could be found 3,400 years later, especially in the shifting desert sands.

Interestingly, recent satellite infrared technology has revealed ancient caravan routes in the Sinai. George Stephen, a satellite-image analyst, discovered evidence in the satellite photographs of ancient tracks made by "a massive number of people" going "from the Nile Delta straight south along the east bank of the Gulf of Suez and around the tip of the Sinai Peninsula." He also saw huge campsites along the route, one that fits the description given in the book of Exodus (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 137).

Could this evidence be a coincidence?

If nothing else at least it shows that a large number of people could be sustained in the same region and on the same path as that taken by the Israelites during the Exodus.

Widespread destruction:

The third argument used to date the Exodus to the 1200s B.C. is the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan.

Yet, if the traditional 1400s date for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence seems to fit much better, for This would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Joshua 13:1; Judges 3:1-6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process.

Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes: ". . . The signs of widespread destruction

at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest (by Joshua). These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace" (The Stones Cry Out, 1997, p. 147).

Dr. Merrill adds: ". . . Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor" (Kingdom of Priests, p. 73).

We find, then, that the archaeological evidence better fits the traditional date of the Exodus backed by the Bible.


Wow, well looks like all the information you had just shattered...And this is only a small fraction, of the Bible. ha, its beautiful when im always right.

[skepticguy]

Wow, you did good my child..But let me spice things up a bit...

But first as you should know this debate is not just about Exodus, its about the whole Bible...

But with the Exodus account, lets see my points shall we:

Christ affirms the Exodus:

Couldn't care less. It is immaterial whether or not "Christ" affirmed the Exodus or not. I want archaeological evidence and Christ just doesn't count.

BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!!

Well, I should certainly hope so because what you posted (and I snipped) above didn't count for squat. It was all sermonizing and as such utterly useless. You really do need to learn to cut-and-paste from better sources, Mazzu.

How do these factors affect the debate over the Exodus?:

Although not apparent at first glance, the biblical account of the Exodus contains many tiny details that place it within a distinct historical and chronological context. Those who ignore this evidence refuse to give the biblical record a fair hearing.

For instance, in the events leading up to the Exodus, the book of Genesis records that Joseph’s brothers sold him for 20 shekels to slave traders who took him from Canaan to Egypt (Genesis 37:28). Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes some of the flaws in the logic of those who reject the biblical Exodus or assign it to unnamed writers many centuries later. He notes that the price of 20 shekels is "the price of a slave in the Near East in about the 18th century B.C. . . . If all these figures were invented during the Exile (sixth century B.C.) or in the Persian period by some fiction writer, why isn’t the price for Joseph 90 to 100 shekels, the cost of a slave at the time when that story was supposedly written? . . . It’s more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality in these cases" (Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April, 1995, p. 52).

What does this prove, Mazzu? That the writer of Joseph's story had the price right? So what? What does this have to do with establishing that roughly 3 million people left Egypt?

The date of the Exodus can be accurately calculated since the Bible mentions in 1Kings 6:1 that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was "the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt . . ."

Surprisingly, there is scholarly agreement about the dates of Solomon’s reign, placing his fourth year in the 960s B.C. Subtracting 480 years takes us back to a date for the Exodus in the 1440s B.C.

Another biblical reference to date the Exodus is found in Judges, where Jephthah tells the Ammonites that Israel had been in the land for 300 years (Judges 11:26). Again, there is acceptance among the experts that Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites took place around 1100 B.C. This would place the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan near 1400 B.C., precisely 40 years after the Exodus. Thus both biblical dates for the Exodus agree.

Hmmmm....it would seem someone isn't reading their Bible very closely, are they? In fact, the Bible gives TWO dates for the Exodus. Each contradicting the other. Your source just mentioned Kenneth Kitchen as some "expert" for the accuracy of the Old Testament. From his book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (yes, I have read Kitchen's book, too. There will be little you can present that I haven't already seen), Kitchen notes, "...if one goes through the date lines between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon, the year he began to build his temple, ‘in the 480th year’ since the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1), we are told. Thus, if that year fell circa 967 (cf. dates in chapters 2 and 4 above), a literal adding up would set the Exodus in 1447. But if we take the trouble to actually tote up all the individual figures known from Exodus to Kings in that period, they do NOT add up to 480 years. But rather to 544+x+y+z years, where x= unknown length by Joshua and the elders (minimum, 5/10 years ?), y= rule by Samuel above his stated 20 years (possibly zero), and z= the full reign of Saul (minimum, [3]2 years). The total comes to between 35 and 42 years at least, bringing the 554 years to a minimal 591/596 years. This is certainly not identical with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.” (pp.202-203.) So, according to another reckoning from the Bible, the exodus occurred in c. 1514-1554 BCE and NOT "near 1400 B.C." So, Mazzu, pick your date for the Exodus: 1554 or 1400 BCE. The Bible will support you either way! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

In spite of this biblical evidence, most minimalist scholars believe the Exodus took place around 1260 B.C., a date that contradicts the biblically derived dates by almost two centuries. Minimalists generally give three main reasons for this later date of the Exodus: (1) the mention of the Israelites’ building of the city of Rameses (Exodus 1:11); (2) the archaeological evidence that no sedentary population lived in the Transjordan and Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 B.C.; and (3) the widespread devastation of cities and towns of central Canaan during the 1260s B.C.

Hmmm...looking over the rest of your material I don't see any "concrete evidence" that shows why this other date for the exodus cannot be accurate. Mazzu, can you tell me the name of the store cities that the pharaoh had the Hebrew slaves built? Wasn't Ramases the name of one of them? When did a pharaoh by this name reign? During which years?

Why don't you answer those two questions above:

1. When did the Exodus occur? Which biblical date are you going to choose?

2. What was the name of the store cities built by the Hebrews? WHy do you think they got those names?

I need to exit now and attend to personal matters (i.e. it's time to go home from work! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif) ) so I will deal with your (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) "Recent Discoveries" tomorrow!

Oh this is getting FUN!

[Mazzu X]

Thats what I thought, you cant back nothing up can you, I already gave you the archeological evidences.

I dont think you know the term "concrete"...Otherwise youd be convinced, but why were not convinced? Ill tell you..Because you cant comprehend and face the facts, face the truth..I what i just show you was what .2% of all my evidences?

Also you criticize the REAL scientist because they found the evidences, i too read their work, and i have to say, its impressive...I think you only criticize them because you really dont have nothing to back up their claims, you can only find other scientist who make falsely claims to meet the ones who has actually been at the sites.

The problem with arguements is that they never end..So just say that you want to quit and its done.

Now if Exodus never happen, their wouldnt be no Judaism...Judaism would cease to exist, thus never creating Christianity, because Christianity would never cease to be without Judaism...Catholicism would cease to exist because of no Judaism....So if theres no Exodus, theres no Judaism, then theirs no Christianity, then theres no Catholicism.

But wait whats this? We have Judaism? Christianity? and Catholicism? Oops!

Well to answer your questions: Prepferably I wont choose no dates, but I wll show you why Exodus DID occured in 1440 B.C.(hope youre ready to read):

Biblical Support for a 15th century date (1440 BC)
For many, the primary evidence in establishing a date for the exodus, or for any historical question relating to the biblical accounts, is simply the Bible itself. While certainly recognizing the need to be faithful to the biblical text, this approach is not as simple as it might sound, and raises a series of questions and difficulties in how it is actually practiced.

1) While Scripture is certainly to be seen as recounting Israel’s encounters with God in history, as opposed to being nothing more than a mythical portrayal of a culture’s conception of the cosmos, is the Bible history? That is, while acknowledging that the Bible is historical and not mythical, is that the same thing as saying that the Bible is the same kind of history writing that we encounter, for example, in Sandberg’s Lincoln? Does the Bible intend primarily to communicate to us the data of history?

2) This raises a second set of questions. Can we automatically assume that the Bible directly answers the kind of historical questions that we want to ask of the biblical text? This moves to questions about the nature of Scripture. The very fact that many historical questions relating to the Bible have been debated for centuries suggests that there are not definitive answers to the historical questions in Scripture. That is, the historical evidence to answer the kinds of questions that we pose to Scripture is often very meager. Is it possible that this is because the Bible was never intending to answer those questions? Is the Bible really intended to be a book of data from which to reconstruct precise history, or is its primary purpose something different? If the Bible’s primary purpose is not to tell us the data of history, can we reliably use the Bible to make decisions about historical data when there is no other evidence, or where the other evidence suggests something different?

3) What do we do with apparently conflicting evidence even from within the biblical narratives? If we are going to use the Bible to answer historical data questions, then how are we going to deal with the great number of instances in which the biblical perspectives do not agree? While it serves no real purpose simply to list discrepancies as if that somehow discounts what the Bible says or teaches, when we ask historical questions those discrepancies force themselves to the foreground. We are often then left with making decisions about the Bible as a source of historical evidence. Some choose to assume that the Bible is always correct in everything it says, and so approach historical investigation from the perspective of trying to prove that even conflicting perspectives are both correct in some way, or even that there are no real discrepancies at all. But this raises problems for historians who want to follow evidence and interpret that evidence, not be forced to fit the evidence to a preconceived idea about what the evidence ought to say.

These and other questions suggest that trying to use the Bible to answer historical questions, or even of using historical evidence to "prove" the validity of the Bible is a very complicated task that goes far beyond simply assuming that the Bible tells us everything we want to know about history. The fact is, the Bible has very little that can be used to address the historical question of the date of the exodus, which leads to differing opinions.

1) 1 Kings 6:1

6:1 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.

This verse gives a time period of 480 years between the exodus and the beginning of Solomon’s work on the Jerusalem temple. From John Bright’s chronology, Solomon ascended the throne around 961 BC, which would make the fourth year of his reign and the beginning of temple construction about 959-957 BC (see Israelite Kings). If we assume that the number 480 is to be taken as a precise number of years much as we would count years on a calendar today, working backward from this date we arrive at a date around 1440 BC for the exodus. This is the primary origin of the 1440 BC date for the exodus.

Difficulties Raised: While we might expect that the number here is precise and intended to tell us exactly how many years, that is largely an assumption from our modern perspective of data-based thinking and history writing. But we have no indication that the ancient Israelites viewed timekeeping in the same way that we do in a modern scientific age. In fact, both our own history and even modern experience of tribal cultures tells us that scientific approaches to history keeping are a relatively modern invention.

Also, this assumption does not consider the fact that numbers were used for other purposes in ancient Israel than just precise counting. A great many numbers in both Testaments are used symbolically, are stylized for other purposes than simple counting, or are approximate numbers based on different cultural ways of reckoning time than just counting years.

There are several groups of numbers that specifically function in such roles, for example the number three (often used simply to mark the passage of a short period of time or extent without intending specifics; Jon 3:3, 1:17), seven (symbolizing completion; Gen 2:2, Gen 29, Matt 15:35), twelve (symbolizing wholeness and community; Gen 35:22, Jud 19:29), and forty (a schematized number used for a generation or simply an unspecified long period of time; Gen 7:4, Ex 16:35). Some of these numbers are then used in multiples for much the same purposes, such as 70 or 77 (10 x 7, or double 7s; note Gen 4:24, Mat 18:22), 120, 144, and 144,000 (10 x 12 and 12 x 12; Gen 6:3, Deut 34:7, Rev 14:1), and multiples of 40 (400, Gen 15:13; 4,000 1 Sam 4:2; 40,000, Josh 4:13; 1 Kng 4:26; 400,000, Josh 20:2).

This has led many scholars to conclude that the number 480 in 1 Kings 6:1 is not a precise number but is intended to be an approximate period of time expressed in ways consistent with Israelite culture. This suggests that the numbers used are not accidental or random since the number symbolizing community (12) is combined with a number used to signify a generation (40). That is, the verse says that between the exodus and the construction of the Temple there were approximately twelve generations, enough time for the community that needed the temple to emerge. That is not a specific period of time but an approximation based on how ancient Israelites tended to mark the passing of time, that is, according to generations of people.

To attempt to translate that into specific years is a precarious undertaking since we can only guess based on modern analogy. But if we use the approximate period of 25 years for a generation between a father and a son, then we end up with about 300 "clock time" years. Working backward from 959 BC, this suggests a date of around 1260 for the exodus. But this is probably too speculative to be of any real use, since this tries to translate numbers that are used for one purpose into the service of questions that force them to be used for another purpose.

2) Judges 11:26

11:26 While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the towns that are along the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?

This occurs in a message from Jephthah the Judge to the king of the Ammonites trying to persuade him to stop campaigns against the Israelites in the Tranjordan territory. The king of Ammon was attempting to retake some of the Ammonite territory that had been lost to Israel in the time of Moses. Jephthah had sent an envoy asking the King of Ammon’s withdrawal, to which he had responded by asking that the Israelites return all the territory they had taken in the Tranjordan area. Jephthah’s argument was that the Israelites had controlled that territory since Moses led the people through the land (Num 21), and if teh Ammonites had not been able to take back the land in the 300 years since then, he saw no reason to return it willingly now.

The time period of the Judges is notoriously difficult to define, simply because there are few details that can be cross-referenced for precise dating. If we follow the generally accepted chronology of John Bright, the period of the Judges was between 1200 and 1020 BC. If we allow for the activity of the other Judges, we can roughly place the time period of Jephthah around 1100 BC. Counting back from this date, we arrive at a date around 1400 BC for the time of Moses’ conquest of Heshbon. By adding another 40 years for the wilderness wandering, this leaves a date approximately 1440 BC for the exodus.

Difficulties Raised: This conclusion is based on several broad assumptions about the text that renders it less than useful as evidence for any date. First, the very nature of the context of Jephthah’s speech suggests that the number is not intended to be precise but only a general reference to a long time. The focus of the text is not on the number of years, but simply on the fact of Israel’s possession of the land for a long time.

Second, even in the context of the narrative, Jephthah is not portrayed as one who would necessarily have any information as to the exact extent of time. He would have had no access to historical records in order to speak with precision. It could be argued that we are not really listening to Jephthah here but the narrator who would have had access to that information. But again, if that is the case and the narrator wanted the dates to be significant and precise, then it seems logical to assume that other details of the narrative that relate to dating would be more evident. In either case, whether the narrator or Jephthah, it does not appear that precision in dating is a concern of the narrative.

Finally, the lack of precision of dates in the entire period of the Judges hampers trying to construct a logical deduction such as this. Even the dates posited by historians are only general time frames based on meager evidence. That suggests that any such logical deduction about exact dates is already compromised by the lack of adequate chronology and datable historical records for the period.

Historical Support for a 15th century date (1440 BC)
A second kind of argument for a 15th century date appeals primarily to archaeological evidence, since there are virtually no historical documents from this era that can be used as evidence to confirm or challenge the biblical account. The archaeological evidence primarily consists of excavations in those cities that are mentioned in the biblical accounts as captured and destroyed by the invading Israelites. There is no archaeological evidence of the exodus itself, so we are left with making deductions based on the evidence from the later presence of Israel in Canaan.

Archeological excavations are sometimes complicated, with a great deal depending on the interpretative skill of the excavator as well as how carefully the excavations themselves have been conducted. There are two principles of archaeological excavations that are important here in reference to dating. First is the fact that ancient cities were built and rebuilt on the same site over many hundreds or thousands of years. The ruins of one city would simply be leveled and filled, and then the next city would be built on top of the old one. This produced levels of occupation or strata. Archeologists use these occupation levels to guide them in dating a site, as well as in establishing the relationship of different levels of occupation.

A second major factor is the use of pottery to establish dates. Different types and styles of pottery, the materials used, and even the level of workmanship can be a very reliable guide to dating. Since pottery was the most common household item in the ancient world, it occurs in all ancient city sites. The enormous amount of pottery available, much of which can be traced to precise localities and time periods, has allowed historians to date a certain occupation level fairly precisely within a range of time.

Both of these provide "hard" historical evidence. Still, we should not assume that such evidence is absolute since there is still the factor of a human interpreter who is collecting and evaluating this evidence. There are sharp disagreements among respected archaeologists and historians about the dating of some sites.

1) Excavations at Jericho

Jericho was the first city taken by the Israelites after they crossed the Jordan. It was an important commercial center at an oasis in the Jordan Valley east of Jerusalem. Archaeological excavations at Jericho by J. Garstang widely reported in the 1920s revealed that a fortified city on the site was destroyed about 1400 BC. If we assume that this destruction was by the invading Israelites as recounted in Joshua 6, by adding the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness we could conclude that the exodus would have occurred about 1440 BC.

Difficulties Raised: This evidence is almost totally rejected today and rarely appears in print, although it is still heard occasionally. Later excavations by K. Kenyon revealed that the tell, the mound of earth that contains the various levels of city ruins, had suffered severe erosion and therefore had disturbed the levels of deposits on the mound. That had skewed early attempts to date part of the excavations. The main evidence used by Garstang to establish a 1400 BC date was, on closer examination, dated to the Early Bronze Age (2400-2000 BC). There was little evidence left that could be dated to the 15th century, and therefore no evidence that could be used to establish when the Israelite destruction of the city occurred.

2) Excavations at Hazor

Hazor was a strategic fortified Canaanite city located in far northern Israel about 10 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. It was the only fortified city that the Israelites captured in battle and destroyed in the early campaigns of their entry into Canaan (Josh 11:13; they had earlier taken Jericho, but had not fought to take the city). While there is confusion or discrepancies in the reports of other cities taken (see Conquest or Settlement), there is consistency in the biblical accounts that Hazor was taken and burned by the Israelites (Josh 11). An early survey at Hazor by J. Garstang in the 1920s revealed signs of destruction by fire that could be dated to about 1400 BC. Again, by adding the 40 years of the wilderness wandering the date of the exodus would be around 1440 BC.

Difficulties Raised: While there was evidence of some destruction that could be dated to the 15th century BC, there was absolutely no evidence that this destruction was part of a wholesale invasion or could be associated with the Israelites. Much more extensive excavations by Y. Yadin in the 1950s revealed that a major destruction of the city had occurred in the 13th century BC. The city was only lightly occupied until around the 11th century when it was heavily fortified, was destroyed again in the 8th century, and again rebuilt. According to Yadin’s interpretation, the archaeological evidence of the excavation could fit within the broad outlines of the biblical narratives, with the city destroyed by the invading Israelites, rebuilt and fortified by Solomon, destroyed by the Assyrians, and then rebuilt under Assyrian control. However, this evidence could not support a 15th century date for the exodus but would tend to support a date in the early 13th century.

Both of these sites reveal problems with attempting to correlate archaeological evidence too easily with biblical accounts. Much of the archaeological excavation in the first quarter of the 20th century was aimed at supporting the Biblical accounts rather than obtaining solid historical evidence. As a result, often assumptions were made about what was found that later proved to be inaccurate or unsubstantiated. In the case of Jericho, most of the initial claims about the archaeological evidence in relation to the biblical accounts proved to be incorrect. In the case of Hazor, the archaeological evidence rather closely parallels the biblical references to the city, but supports a later chronology than had been accepted from a literal reading of the biblical text.

Logical Support for a 15th century date (1440 BC)
Since both evidence from the biblical accounts as well as historical data is so meager, much of the support for dating of the exodus arises from logical deduction based on a few starting points in either the biblical accounts or archaeological data. As with any logically built system or set of conclusions, a great deal depends on the basic assumptions from which the argument unfolds as well as the way in which the logical steps are taken in order to reach a conclusion. While a particular argument may be sound in terms of how it has been constructed, the validity of the conclusion depends to a great extent on the validity of the basic assumption as well as the validity of associations made in each step of the process.

1) Moses in Midian

The biblical account tells us that after Moses’ first abortive attempt to free the Israelites he fled into the desert area and settled with the Midianites. He remained there until that Pharaoh died, and then received his call from God to return to Egypt (Ex 2:23ff). Deuteronomy (34:7) notes that Moses was 120 years old when he died, so allowing for the 40 years in the wilderness with the Israelites, he would have been about 80 years old at the time of the exodus (Ex 7:7). In Stephen’s sermon in Acts (7:30) he says that Moses spent 40 years in Midian. This means that the Pharaoh who first oppressed the Israelites must have reigned for at least forty years to allow Moses to remain in Midian that length of time before he died. According to what we know of Egyptian chronology, the only possibilities for this length of reign in this period are Thutmose III (ca. 1504-1450) and Rameses II (ca. 1290-1224). Since the reference in 1 Kings 6:1 would not allow enough time after the exodus using Rameses, the Pharaoh of the oppression must have been Thutmose III, which would leave a 15th century date for the exodus.

Difficulties Raised: There are several difficulties with this logical reconstruction. First, the three periods of time into which Moses’ life are divided, 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian, and 40 years in the wilderness, sounds suspiciously like a schematized chronology rather than exact numbers of years. This combined with the fact that the number 40 is often used metaphorically for a generation or simply an unspecified long period of time leaves these numbers as an unreliable base upon which to build such a logical conclusion.

Second, it is not sound historical methodology to take at face value numbers from three different biblical books spanning a time period of almost a thousand years and assume that they can be used interchangeably to determine dates. While some would want to appeal to a certain view of the nature of Scripture here (inerrancy; see The Modern Inerrancy Debate), that is not a sound methodology by which to answer historical questions; it appeals to doctrine to try to prove historical data.

Finally, given the problems already noted with the number of years given in 1 Kings 6:1, even if we accept this line of reasoning, Rameses II could as easily be the Pharaoh of the oppression. In fact, there seems to be more evidence to support that conclusion (see below).

2) The Merneptah Stele

A stele is a stone column usually depicting the exploits of a ruler or chronicling the history or laws of a people. Merneptah was the son of the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt in the late 13th century BC. He erected a stele commemorating his victorious campaign against Canaan and Syria around 1212 to 1209 BC. On this stele is the earliest historical mention of the nation of Israel, which Merneptah claims to have totally annihilated. The logical deduction from this reference is that the Israelites must have been in the land for a considerable length of time for them to be recognized as a nation by an Egyptian pharaoh. This would support a 15th century date for the exodus.

Difficulties Raised: This is really based on little more than speculation in assuming how long it would take for the Israelites to have emerged as a nation. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the biblical accounts recall more than once that the miraculous nature of Israel’s escape from Egypt, survival in the wilderness, and initial battles had gained them considerable reputation among the surrounding peoples (Num 22:3, Josh 2:9, 9:9-10, etc.). That suggests that the time period required to be recognized by Pharaoh as a people may not be as long as some posit. And even if we take the later date of 1290 BC suggested by many for the exodus and allowing for the 40 years in the wilderness, they would still have been in the land around 50 years by the time of Merneptah’s campaign. That could have been a sufficient amount of time for the Israelites to emerge as a nation.

3) The Amarna Tablets

Amarna is the modern name of the ancient Egyptian city of Akhetaten. It was established briefly as the capitol of Egypt around 1400-1350 BC by pharaoh Akhetaten, who attempted to reform Egypt’s religious system and inaugurate the worship of a single deity represented by the sun disk (Aten). That experiment was a failure and the city only existed for 15 to 20 years before being abandoned. Archaeologists discovered a cache of letters at the site written on clay tablets from various city officials throughout the area including Canaan. Some of these letters are appeals to Akhetaten for help in defending against the ‘Apiru (Hapiru, Khapiru) who were threatening the cities of Canaan. This could have been the Hebrews who were invading the land and challenging the Canaanite city-states. If the ‘Apiru were the Hebrews, the date of the Amarna letters would suggest a date for the exodus from Egypt sometime in the mid to latter 15th century.

Difficulties Raised: While it was common in the period immediately following the discovery of the Amarna tablets to identify the ‘Apiru with the Hebrews, further investigation has raised serious doubts about that identification. The identification was originally made largely on the assumption that the word ‘Apiru was actually the linguistic root for the word Hebrew. However, scholars concluded that the term is actually Sumerian (the area of later Babylonian) in origin and dates much earlier than the Hebrews. The term was used throughout the Middle East to refer to groups who lived on the margins of civilized society, outcasts who were often hired as mercenaries. While the term is not linguistically related to the term Hebrew, it is possible that it could have been applied to the Israelites. However, since the term was simply descriptive of a range of people without reference to any national or ethnic origins, there is absolutely no evidence that the references in the Amarna letters can be identified specifically with the Israelites. That eliminates any use of the Amarna letters in trying to date the exodus.

4) The period of the Judges

After Israel’s entry into the land under Joshua, there was a protracted period of struggle against the native Canaanites. Various warrior chieftains called shophtim or judges led this struggle (see Judges of Israel). The periods of time assigned to these judges in Scripture seems to require a total span of time between entry into the land and the emergence of the monarchy under Saul around 1020 BC of at least 306 years (Othneil, 40; Ehud, 80; Shamgar, 10; Deborah, 40; Gideon, 40; Tola, 23; Jair, 22; Jephthah, 6; Ibzan 8; Elon, 10; Abdon, 7; Samson, 20).

The traditions tell us that the Judges were not active until after the death of Joshua (Jud 1:1) and that Joshua was 110 years old when he died (Josh 24:29). We also know that Joshua was a young man when he began to serve as an assistant to Moses (Ex 33:11). If we assume that he was in his 20s then (cf. Ex 14:29), and that he spent all 40 years in the wilderness, he would have been about 60 when the Israelites entered the land. That would mean he led Israel for 50 years before the Judges arose. If we add about 30 years for the ministry of Samuel, allow for the fact that the judges were not active in strict succession, and add to this the 40 years in the wilderness and the early years of settlement, this would give a date of sometime in the middle to late 15th century for the exodus.

Difficulties Raised: This deduction rests on two faulty assumptions. First, it assumes that the judges were active in separate time periods and did not overlap in their activities. However, a quick perusal of Judges shows that the judges were not leaders of a unified Israel, but were active in very localized areas. For example, Ehud was from the tribe of Benjamin and fought the Moabites at Jericho, while Jephthah was an outcast from the territory of Gilead in the north and fought the Ammonites on the eastern side of the Jordan. The judges of Ibzan, Elon and Abdon also fought the Ammonites from the tribes of Judah, Zebulon, and Ephraim (Jud 12). This suggests that rather than being separate engagements, many of the Judges may have been active at the same time and simply leading different contingents from different tribes against a common threat (see Conquest or Settlement?).

Second, it assumes that the numbers of years can be taken as exact numbers. But as we have already noted, numbers do not always mean a precise system of counting. That is especially evident when we note that over half of the time periods given are 40 years (Othniel, Deborah, Gideon), multiples of 40 (Ehud, 80) or factors of 40 (Samson, 20; Shamgar and Elon, 10). This suggests that the numbers are schematized and are not intended to be precise spans of time.

Given the likelihood that the judges overlapped in their activity and that the numbers are not precise, the span of time is probably not nearly as long as it appears on the surface. Rather than a 300+ span of time, it is more likely that the period of the Judges was a century or a century and a half.


There you have it, proof and support of the exact dating....Well its Mazzu X 3pts, Skeptic Guy 0.. Im always right, im sorry but your just making yourself look like a fool, by presenting no hard peice, hard hitting claims, nothing...Also all you do is cause confusing to yourself by only criticizing the facts, and truths that I possess.

Anymore? Please give me your best shot if you can.

[KokDahkJeE]

couldnt you guys have went and PM or IM'ed each other?


clearly everyone either stopped caring or doesnt care except you two


just a thought

[shiro]

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...ndpost&p=748661

Congratulations on copy/pasting http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn039/exodus.html

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...ndpost&p=749008

and this one: http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html
Is that your idea of debate?

No, the debation was the Holy Bible in particular....All the stories, every detail... I just....well showed factual evidences.

Wow that was a quick debate, looks like ive won this one.

If by "won," you mean "had one of your sources discredited," you're absolutely right.
You have yet to post an original thought, and you don't even research the information you have let Google provide you with.

Didn't you say you were leaving?

This post has been edited by shiro: Mar 8 2005, 03:50 AM

[BBJai]

heres my reply to Mazzu _X...

Mazzu_x uses the following as a way of supporting his argument: (i just picked ne1)

QUOTE:
---
Dr. Merrill adds: ". . . Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor" (Kingdom of Priests, p. 73).
---

Mazzu_x is thereby believing that his sources are 100% truth.
(keep this in mind)



ok now, BBJAi uses the following as a way of supporting his argument:

QUOTE:
---
From Bob the builders diary: Mazzu_x is wrong
---

BBJai is thereby believing that his sources are 100% truth.



do u see the point i am trying to make ?....

here i have used exactly the same priniciple of argument that Mazzu_x has used... and so if Mazzu_x's argument is indeed correct, then indeed so will mine... however, my argument says that Mazzu_x is wrong, but i am correct... how is this possible...?

the only answer is that we ARE both wrong... BOTH OUR SOURCES ARE NOT 100% TRUTH (and u dont need to be a Christian to know that lol)

PS MAZZU_X PLZ LOOK AT THE EXAMPLES CAREFULLY... OR U WILL MAKE A FOOL OUTTA URSELF.....

This post has been edited by BBJai: Mar 8 2005, 06:11 AM

[skepticguy]

I explained last night that I was leaving the forum for the evening as I needed to go home after work. For you to return and “claim victory” and then post a mess of other cut-and-pastes is wholly dishonest. Just shows the “character” of a Christian who knows defeat is staring him in the face.

Mazzu, I could simply cut-and-paste through this whole exchange, too, but I’d rather engage your so-called “concrete evidences” in order to show how “muddy” they really are. Keep avoiding answering my questions directly. You are losing more souls for Christ by your pathetic displays. But, as promised, I have returned and will continue to dismantle your “evidences” one-by-one.

Recent Discoveries:

Another argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment every item had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few or no traces that could be found 3,400 years later, especially in the shifting desert sands.

Any idea how big those encampments would have been, Mazzu? I’ll explain in a moment after I allow you to embarrass yourself with your next little bit of “concrete evidence.”

Interestingly, recent satellite infrared technology has revealed ancient caravan routes in the Sinai. George Stephen, a satellite-image analyst, discovered evidence in the satellite photographs of ancient tracks made by "a massive number of people" going "from the Nile Delta straight south along the east bank of the Gulf of Suez and around the tip of the Sinai Peninsula." He also saw huge campsites along the route, one that fits the description given in the book of Exodus (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 137).

“Huge campsites,” eh? I wonder how “huge” they were? Eight to ten miles square, at least? Because a horde nearly 3 million in size would have taken up a lot of space in the Sinai desert.

I want you to imagine each Hebrew getting ready for bed each night after they left their Egyptian captivity for the Sinai wilderness. If each person in the camp had had only a 6-foot by 3-foot area in which to sleep at night (roughly the body size of the average individual), this would have equated to 18 square feet. 3 million people sleeping at night would have taken up 54 million square feet or 6 million square yards, even if we pretend that there were no passage ways left open for those who wanted to use the bathroom to travel in order to get outside the camp to do their business. Think of everyone crammed together like sardines, every night, for 40 years (yeah, right!). An acre is 4,840 square yards, so even if the Hebrews slept at night packed together like this, they would have taken up 1,240 acres every night. This means that almost 2 square miles in the wilderness was used each night just for the sleeping people.

But this scenario –people packed together with no room between them—won’t work because the Bible tells us that the Hebrews slept in tents (Exodus 16:16; Numbers 1:52; Deuteronomy 1:27, 33; 5:30; etc.). Tents have to have space for guy ropes to stabilize them, and certainly paths would have been necessary for the people to walk on as they went about their business while they were camped. If we assume that there was an average of 10 people per tent, then there would have been 250,000 to 300,000 tents in the camps. If we still assume the 18 square-foot sleeping space for each person, the tents would have had to have been about 180 square feet in size. A 12- by 15-foot tent would have provided the necessary 180 square feet for its 10 occupants. If we imagine that the guy ropes were pegged into the ground only four feet from the edges of the tent, the space needed to pitch one tent would have been 12 x 15 with 8 feet for guy ropes added to each dimension (4 additional feet on each side). The tent would have then taken up a plot of ground 20 feet by 23 feet or an area of 460 square feet. With only a two-foot path on all sides of the tent to allow for passageways to walk on, the plot of ground for just one tent would have measured about 22 feet by 25 feet or 550 square feet. With 250,000 tents in the camp, the tents alone would have required an area of 137,500,000 square feet or 15,277,777 square yards.There are 5,840 square yards in an acre, so the tents would have occupied an area of 2,616 acres. There are 640 acres in a square mile, so the size of the encampments would have been just over 4 square miles.

Besides the people, the Hebrews had their flocks and herds with them (Exodus
12:38). This verse speaks about "much cattle," but even without this reference, we would have to conclude that the flocks and herds were enormous because of the requirements of daily sacrifices that the book of Leviticus describes in detail. These herds and flocks would have occupied even more territory than the people, so these camps could not have been smaller than 8 or 10 square miles.

If we settle for a size of 9 square miles, the distance from one side of the camp to the other would have been 3 miles (if it was laid out in a square), so when the Hebrews broke camp each time, they would have had to travel at least 3 miles in order for the people on the back side of the camp to reach what had been the front side of the camp. We can hardly imagine people taking down their tents and packing their belongings just to move no farther along than a plot of ground that had been immediately adjacent to the previous camp, so if we assume that the Hebrews put only three miles between each encampment in their wanderings, they would have covered a distance of 246 miles in setting up their 41 different camps. This would have been a distance about twice as far as the width of the Sinai peninsula from Migdol (the last encampment before leaving Egypt) and Ezion-geber at the north end of the Gulf of Aqabah, where the Hebrews camped just before Aaron died (Numumbers 33:36-39).

Did your sources’ satellite photos find such evidence, Mazzu? Or don’t you know? You’re just cutting and pasting, aren’t you, without giving an ounce of thought to what these sources are saying.

See how easily these “concrete evidences” evaporate when scrutinized by rational thought?

Could this evidence be a coincidence?

If nothing else at least it shows that a large number of people could be sustained in the same region and on the same path as that taken by the Israelites during the Exodus.

But a large number of who? Is the evidence you present evidence of a Hebrew horde whose camps took up 8 to 10 miles of space each night? Or are these paths and camps merely those of the Bedouins who have traveled the Sinai Peninsula for centuries but whose numbers don’t come near anything like 3 million nor do their camps occupy nearly 10 miles of space.

Widespread destruction:

The third argument used to date the Exodus to the 1200s B.C. is the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan.

Interesting. There is no evidence that Jericho fell at this time and isn’t that the most famous site of military battle in the Bible, Mazzu? According to archaeology, Jericho’s walls fell c. 1550 BCE (no where near 1200 or 1400 BCE) and the cause was an earthquake, not a military battle.

Yet, if the traditional 1400s date for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence seems to fit much better, for This would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Joshua 13:1; Judges 3:1-6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process.

Not in the slightest. In fact, archaeology supports the theory that the proto-Israelites came from within Canaan itself and did not take the area by military force as the Bible asserts.

Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes: ". . . The signs of widespread destruction at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest (by Joshua). These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace" (The Stones Cry Out, 1997, p. 147).

What a joke. Try reading Finkelstein and Dever for more mainstream and current archaeological evidences of early Israel. Throw away those nonsense books like “The Stones Cry Out”.

Dr. Merrill adds: ". . . Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor" (Kingdom of Priests, p. 73).

See? Even your source acknowledges that Jericho did not fall during this time. Jericho is a major factor in determining the authenticity of the Bible’s story of Canaan’s military conquest at the hands of Joshua and his army. But, unfortunately, there is NO archaeological evidence to back up that rather important story. And I thought you said you had CONCRETE evidences of archaeology that proves the Bible 100% accurate. If there is NO evidence for Jericho’s (or Ai’s or Hazor’s) destruction at the time you place the conquest, then the Bible isn’t 100% accurate, is it? You FAILED already, Mazzu, and one of your OWN SOURCES verifies your failure! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

We find, then, that the archaeological evidence better fits the traditional date of the Exodus backed by the Bible.

No it doesn’t. Your own source shows that the evidence doesn’t fit the Bible. Are you really this stupid, Mazzu?

Wow, well looks like all the information you had just shattered...And this is only a small fraction, of the Bible. ha, its beautiful when im always right.

Wow, well looks like all the information you had just shattered…And this is only a small fraction of what I can do to dismantle your “concrete evidences”. Ha, it’s beautiful when I’m always right. You should'nt be so cocky until AFTER I reply to your nonsense, Mazzu. I wonder what it feels like to be so embarrassed?

[skepticguy]

Thats what I thought, you cant back nothing up can you, I already gave you the archeological evidences.

You gave me "cut-and-pastes" which I have subsequently destroyed. It is you who cannot back up your assertions.

I dont think you know the term "concrete"...Otherwise youd be convinced, but why were not convinced? Ill tell you..Because you cant comprehend and face the facts, face the truth..I what i just show you was what .2% of all my evidences?

Concrete refers to that which exists in reality or in real experience; perceptible by the senses; real. Your evidence does not show that the exodus existed in reality, that it was a real experience. Reality is the world I live in. In my world, dead people stay dead. Donkeys and snakes don't talk. 3 million Hebrew slaves don't leave a country whose population was merely 5 million without destroying its economy and leaving it open to foreign attack. YOU are the one who cannot face facts, Mazzu. You live in a fantasy world.

Also you criticize the REAL scientist because they found the evidences,

Evidence of what? Of the correct amount paid for a slave in the era of the so-called Joseph? What does that prove other than the story may have originated in that era. It doesn't prove the exodus. Can you connect dots, Mazzu? Can you count from 1 to 5?

i too read their work, and i have to say, its impressive...

If you do, in fact, read books like Kenneth Kitchen's, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament," then you clearly don't understand it.

I think you only criticize them because you really dont have nothing to back up their claims, you can only find other scientist who make falsely claims to meet the ones who has actually been at the sites.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this garbled, grammatical nightmare. Clean up your English if you want to communicate in it.

The problem with arguements is that they never end..So just say that you want to quit and its done.

The last thing in the world I want to do is quit, Mazzu. I want you to keep cutting and pasting because:
1.) It shows that you have NO independent thougth of your own. You have to go and plagarize the words of others to make your point. You haven't THOUGHT the issue through. You've merely found some article with which you agree and think it confirms an already preconcieved belief. And,
2.) It provides me more opportunity to show just how INaccurate the Bible really is.

Now if Exodus never happen, their wouldnt be no Judaism...Judaism would cease to exist, thus never creating Christianity, because Christianity would never cease to be without Judaism...Catholicism would cease to exist because of no Judaism....So if theres no Exodus, theres no Judaism, then theirs no Christianity, then theres no Catholicism.

But wait whats this? We have Judaism? Christianity? and Catholicism? Oops!

This is the dumbest statement of all time. Without the exodus there would be no Judaism? Think for a minute, Mazzu. And do so on your own. Use your own brain. Think.

Well to answer your questions: Prepferably I wont choose no dates, but I wll show you why Exodus DID occured in 1440 B.C.(hope youre ready to read):

Why won't you choose a date? You have two to choose from for the exodus because the BIBLE can be read to give two dates! And you said the Bible was 100% accurate. How can it be 100% accurate when it gives TWO dates for the exodus? You better learn to read your Bible, Mazzu, and then pick a date. THEN you better give a reason for why the Bible is WRONG about the date you didn't choose! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) This is fun!

Biblical Support for a 15th century date (1440 BC)

I'm snipping the rest of your post because, frankly, it doesn't amount to squat. I found where you got your cut-and-paste and even the author himself concludes:

This quick survey of the two positions on the date of the exodus demonstrates the tenuous nature of either position, whether working primarily from a literal reading of Scripture (the early date) or working primarily from the evidence of archaeological excavations (the late date). While historical evidence can often contribute to a better understanding of Scripture from a variety of perspectives, it is also obvious that historical evidence cannot solve every historical question that we can raise from the biblical text. This suggests that historical methodology, especially when that methodology is shaped by the assumptions of modern critical investigation, can be a useful tool, but cannot really serve to "prove" doctrinal positions about the nature of Scripture. As a tool, it has value. But just as with any tool when it is used in a manner or task for which it was not designed, we are left with less than acceptable results.

There is simply no solid historical or biblical evidence that will definitely establish a date for the exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historical evidence of the exodus itself.

Why should I deal with this "concrete evidence" when the author of the "concrete evidence" says himself that it doesn't prove anything.

You really are a 'tard, you know that?

Anymore? Please give me your best shot if you can.

Anymore? Please give me your best shot if you can.

[BBJai]

hahahaaa

QUOTE
---
There is simply no solid historical or biblical evidence that will definitely establish a date for the exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historical evidence of the exodus itself.
---

uh-oh, Mazzu_x is screwed

[skepticguy]

hahahaaa

QUOTE
---
There is simply no solid historical or biblical evidence that will definitely establish a date for the exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historical evidence of the exodus itself.
---

uh-oh,  Mazzu_x is screwed

He really should read what he cuts-and-pastes more carefully.

[Mazzu X]

tsk, tsk...Well sinces its 2 against 1, I will add a member to this debate, Cuong.

Wow you guys try hard to twist and argue..But what you say doesnt ammount to nothing....All you do is talk nonsense...Well I guess when the time comes, you'll see my true aspects and results...Then you will see my truths, but until then, Lets continue with my victory debate for a little while..

You have no evidence to back up nothing.....My claims are accurate, if theyre not soo me picture or a photograph of your evidences...

Thats right, you cant, why? because they are false...You guys should really go back to the playgrounds and attend recess, otherwise what you are saying is nothing.

Matter of fact, I dont even have to present anymore evidence, next portion will be on the first link i made....You have to Explore all of it. I mean ALL OF IT!, If not, you wont be able to see what im talking about.

[skepticguy]

tsk, tsk...Well sinces its 2 against 1, I will add a member to this debate, Cuong.

Who are you talking to, Mazzu? Hearing voices again? (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif)

Wow you guys try hard to twist and argue..But what you say doesnt ammount to nothing....All you do is talk nonsense...Well I guess when the time comes, you'll see my true aspects and results...Then you will see my truths, but until then, Lets continue with my victory debate for a little while..

Mazzu, you haven't addressed anything that I've posted. That's what "doesnt ammount to nothing." You see, this is why I wanted a public debate: so others could see the depravity of your "concrete evidence" and you could not claim "victory" falsely. Everyone's watching.

I have a question for those reading this "debate:" Regardless of whether or not you like me or Mazzu personally (if you think we're a pair of pompus a$$es or biblical scholars), who do you think is winning this debate?

You have no evidence to back up nothing.....My claims are accurate, if theyre not soo me picture or a photograph of your evidences...

Your claims are NOT accurate. How could I show you a picture or a photograph of Hebrews NOT leaving Goshen? How could I show you a picture or a photograph of 10 square mile campsites that do NOT exist? It is YOU who should be showing these satellite photos of ancient campsites that your source claims have been found. It is YOU who should be showing photographic evidence of Jericho's destruction at the hands of Joshua's army. So far, all you've been able to do is cut-and-paste other's works which I have demolished with hard, cold facts. Even one of YOUR OWN sources says there is no extra-biblical evidence for the exodus.

Thats right, you cant, why? because they are false...You guys should really go back to the playgrounds and attend recess, otherwise what you are saying is nothing.

I can't show evidence of something that doesn't exist, dumbo. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif)

Matter of fact, I dont even have to present anymore evidence, next portion will be on the first link i made....You have to Explore all of it. I mean ALL OF IT!, If not, you wont be able to see what im talking about.

Mazzu, I have explored your first link. I told you, Ron Wyatt is a fraud. You realize he believed there was a "new" location for the Mt. Sinai, right? Your link talks about it. His proposed new site was Jebel-al-Lawz and one of the things that really struck Wyatt was the "blackened top" of the mountain. According to Wyatt, "...the mountain range was distinctly black. When one stands at the base of the mountain...the high peak that can be seen looks like it is made of coal." (See http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/discovered.../chapter14.htm)

While it is true that the rocks on top are dark this phenomenon is caused by the likelihood that they are basaltic with intrusive dikes of lighter color rocks. The lighter
color rock is what Cornuke (another amateur "arkeaologist" who believed, along with Wyatt, that Jebel-al-Lawz is the real "Mt. Sinai") mistook as "granite." Not being a geologist, but an ex-police officer, how could someone like Cornuke draw his conclusions in the first place? A geologist from the Institute for Creation Research (and their president!), a Dr. John Morris (another fundamentalist Christian), is said to have examined rock from Jebel al-Lawz and concluded that it is normal metamorphic rock typical for the volcanic area from which it came.

Rock samples from the summit of Jebel-al-Lawz was brought back for "future laboratory analysis" but, so far, no one has seen that analysis. It was supposed to have been arranged for geologists to look at these rock samples and create a report, verifying the claim that the summit of Jebel al-Lawz is unusual and likely the result of a supernatural influence. Researchers are interested in seeing the lab analyses but, not at all surprising, these reports have remained unavailable for independent verification. Given these facts I believe the rocks at the summit of Jebel al-Lawz will turn out to have been darkened by natural processes and not because a supernatural fire burned them. Just call me cynical.

See what I mean, Mazzu. Your "evidence" is a joke. And I'd really like to read what others who may have read through this thread so far have to say.

EDIT TO ADD:

Want some more, Mazzu? I'm more than happy to pick apart your "concrete evidence" for the Exodus that you provided in your first post. Wyatt was (he's dead now) a Seventh Day Adventist. Another Adventist, William H. Shea of the Adventist Biblical Research Institute, a group of biblical scholars located in the world office of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Silver Spring, Maryland, has written of Ron Wyatt,

Ron is an SDA [Seventh Day Adventist] nurse anesthetist in Nashville, TN, with a strong interest in various archaeological projects in the Middle East. Some of these projects have some validity to them and others do not necessarily have any factual basis to back them up...

...A...project that Ron is working on involves the place of the crossing of the Exodus and the location of the traditional Mount Sinai. The vast majority of biblical scholars have placed that crossing of the sea at the head of the Gulf of Suez or across one of the bitter lakes across the Isthmus of Suez. Ron, however, prefers to put the crossing of the sea on the other side of the Sinai peninsula, crossing the Gulf of Aqabah and going into Arabia (jebel el Lawz) for his Mount Sinai. He provides two sorts of evidence for this. For one thing he says that he has discovered chariot wheels on the floor of the Gulf of Aqabah which for him came off of Pharaoh's chariots. I have seen the photographs of one of these chariot wheels and it does not look like an Egyptian chariot wheel. It looks more like an Assyrian chariot wheel of the ninth or eight century BC, not an Egyptian one of the fifteenth century BC The difference is that the Assyrian chariot wheels were thick rimmed and the Egyptian chariot wheel is very well preserved, better than one would expect for 3,000 years on the sea floor.

Ron has picked out Jebel el Lawz in Saudi Arabia for his Mt. Sinai, in part because it lines up with his crossing point and in part because there are carvings on the rocks there. None of the rock drawings are definitive, however, and thus there is no definite demonstration that the Israelites were there. I have finally seen the photographs of this place published in a book and did not see anything distinctively Israelite there. In addition such a site requires a tremendous stretching of the Israelite route, does not have any good site identifications along the way like the Sinai site does, and ignores the fact that an Israelite inscription from the period of the Exodus has been found in the traditional Mt. Sinai area in the Sinai peninsula. It may be that the site in Saudi Arabia may be archaeologically interesting or significant but that does not prove it to be the biblical Mt. Sinai.

So even one of Ron's own church members dismisses his "evidence" as hogwash. But wait! There's more! Another Christian site has dedicated itself to exposing the frauds of Ron Wyatt. Take a look around http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

How does it feel to have your "concrete evidence" thrown right back at you as a momentous failure, Mazzu? I'll keep going if you want me to....I've got plenty of "concrete evidence" against Ron Wyatt and his supposed "arkaeology".

This post has been edited by skepticguy: Mar 8 2005, 02:27 PM

[BBJai]

You have no evidence to back up nothing.....My claims are accurate, if theyre not soo me picture or a photograph of your evidences...

im sorry but u must have misunderstood what i meant... i would NOT need evidence to prove you wrong.... *sigh* i guess u didn't understand what i was saying then... i dont blame u tho cos it is quite philospohical... no worries tho...

also....

Mazzu_x wrote

There is simply no solid historical or biblical evidence that will definitely establish a date for the exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historical evidence of the exodus itself.

...... Mazzu.. YOU HAD THIS AS AN ARGUMENT TO BACK YOURSELF BACK BUT THEY ACTUALLY GO AGAINST WHAT YOU SAY... IT IS YOU THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!..... WHY DID YOU USE THIS HUH??? DID YOU READ IT PROPERLY BEFORE USING IT HUH??? EHHH??? ANSWER ME !!!!!!!!!.... super baka!!

This post has been edited by BBJai: Mar 8 2005, 04:20 PM

[shiro]

tsk, tsk...Well sinces its 2 against 1, I will add a member to this debate, Cuong.

Actually, it seems to be 2 against 0, seeing as you have yet to post an original thought.

Stop leaning on Google so hard.

This post has been edited by shiro: Mar 8 2005, 07:32 PM

[SacOfMentos]

I don't know about the English Bible being so concrete. There MAY be some misinformation on the translation, from Hebrew/Aramiac/other language to English.

I'm not saying that the Bible is false, I'm just saying that the Bible doesn't apply to everyone who believes that it is real.

There are not that many ways to show real proof of what is and what is not. I can post something here, and some people can believe it or not. Just because you think you have evidence, that doesn't mean that it actually is for someone else.

There are many things in life that no one can comprehend everything. There's too many infinite factors that play in a role in our lives, we do not even begin to imagine.

I'd bet Cuong, who is a Christian, can realize that not everyone has to believe in the religion he is, or any other religion. Just respect people who they are, and they'll probably do that same for you.

[Mazzu X]

^THAT i can agree with, at some point..Part is though SacofMentos...these kids dont know how to even present good evidences....look that them, they hide behind their false gods, their idols. For what? Just so they can face God in judgement and be pleaded guilty....Im telling you, i can bet that out of everyone in this forum 95% of you will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you died or leave here.

As for me, Ill be with the Most High God...and looking down at you, while you look up to me wishing that you hadnt refuse me....What you trying to do, to prove me false..you cant....No matter how hard you non-believers try you will always fail to disprove the Holy Bible, thus simple because science keeps validating the bible time and time again....so either way is more like mazzu infinite pts. non-believers 0.

Well again its up to you guys, dont blame God or me if you end up being in the second death, for it was your choice....you refuse, you lose.

The End of the World is approaching, everything is going according to plan. Its not too far now. Well since you guys cant believe what im saying or as SacofMentos said, cant comprehend anything, I guess Ill take my leave with a victory. Otherwise what you guys are doing is making false statements, lies thought of by your master, satan. But we shall see what happens when the Vanishings occurs. Then well, Let us just say that we told you so.

Until then live your life as you please, no one is forcing you, But everyone will see the Most High and bow down to Him...as the Almighty God that He is.