I know this is a few weeks old but thought id post it. In no way does this article prove the supernatural elements of the bible but does show of its reliability in its accuracy, even in the small little details.

You can read the complete article Here


Your thoughts?

I hate to rain on your picnic but I find it strange that this appears in a obscure Australian newspaper but not in any mainstream news media .
There has been no mention of it on English TV or in any newspaper.Secondly the British museum has a website on which I have searched for this item without results ,Have a look you may be able to find it

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/explore/...archText=Nebo-S


fullywired

I think this just shows that disregarding the bible (or any ancient text) as pure fiction in irresponsible. This does not prove that the bible is true and accurate, just that it was based on events and people that happened and existed.

No problem fullywired. Your skepticism is appreciated. Here are some other links regarding the tablet

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle2056362.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ntablet111.xml

http://www.newkerala.com/nknews.php?action...ws&id=45733

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART48827.html <<< British museum

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac2_1184102635

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123041
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle2056362.ece
http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART48827.html

Here are a few other links, not too much time to dig, but just a surface scratch.

I would feel better if this showed up in the official "for immediate publication" releases of the BM. If I don't have at least two independent sources I am always skeptical ... professional deformation.

i can attest to that claim. That is a valid response as there are hoaxes that float around.

So... The bible mentioned someone? It doesn't make the bible accurate at all. It's like saying the simpsons is based on fact because tony blair is mentioned and shown. Or Family Guy being based on fact because it mentions tv shows as well as GW bush - which is backed up by south park, for family guy existing.

This hardly makes the biblical history accurate. It's known that much of it is false - take Joshua's (I think it's Joshua) canaan mission, it's pure fantasy. It never existed, and those cities that he fell well... Au = ruin, and all the other cities hadn't even been created yet.

It's also not surprising everyday happenings would be noted down, during the time it was being written. Though, most of it is exagerated.

The links look good but I am still puzzled by the absence of info on the British Museum web site ,I'll keep looking



fullywired

You got me fully. I guess only time will tell us the reason. Supposedly the item had been in the hands of a museum for a while but someone just now was able to interpret what was written on it as the archeologist was one of the few to be able to read that specific language. So this could be the reason and at the same time maybe they are waiting on confirmation from another archeologist that can read the text.

I don't see how mentioning some one who actually existed authenticates the Bible ,after all it does mention Herod and other people that existed .


I have read books of fiction that mention Hitler ,Stalin and others but it still was fiction


fullywired

I find it hard to believe the info that your presenting even though ur not sure of the proper name of the canaan mission. Im interested in links pointing to the remarks and statements youve made in this post. Feel more than welcome to present those to us and if necessary we will open up a new topic for them.

He's correct. The Joshua story has been proven false. The Jews emerged peacefully out of Canaanite society.

Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society--A History of Jerusalem, Armstrong, Karen, p. 23

Sean

I have e-mailed the British Museum about it .I don't know if they will reply or not but I'll keep you posted



fullywired

Im sorry but Karen Armstrong doesnt quite qualify as an archeologist. Being it that she came from a fundamentalist institution at a young age certainly produces a very large axe to grind now that she has found her way out. If you consider her to be the final verdict in determining facts in archeology then I suggest a re-thinking and I see this response as not being a threat to the story

Heres a review on Karen armstrong Here

Also to sean and chokma if you would please present the specific stories of the exodus that have been proven false this would also help me to understand just what directly your referring too...thanks

Hairston

So did you contact Irving Finkel at British Museum? His email address is on the site. The British Museum lists the Cuniform project as one of his projects. He's working on it with Dr. Jursa. In fact, Dr. Jursa seems to be the primary researcher on the case, Finkel is only giving him access to the tablets which really are at the British Museum (along with everything else in the known world. hahahaha). You might Google Jursa and see what you come up with.

I don't think the article is a hoax.

But you're right, I don't see any press releases on the British Museum site anywhere.

I also vaguely recall seeing something about this discovery already being run on the History/Discovery channels. It aired early on a Sat. or Sun morning when they do one of those weekly "in the news" things for a half hour.

Ooops, meant to put the link in where I found that info on the BM site:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/the_muse...ing_finkel.aspx

I'm pretty sure there is no historical evidence OUTSIDE the bible that the exodus happened.. you would think that thousands of people walking around for 40 years would be mentioned somewhere in historical texts other then the bible.. or did they go around saying "shhhh.. we where never here..". Even Egyptian history does not mention this.. which seems strange, considering what a huge roll they played. I don't have time to go looking right now, so can only find one link which is less news and more an essay, but your welcome to scrutinize it. I'll find more later if I get time.

Exodus 1

Personal I think the bible was based on a lot of facts, a few stretched facts and the rest was a MadLib fill in the blank free for all, to make it extraodenary. I can accept the people in the bible existed, and sure, Nebo-Sarsekim was real, and in the bible, that doesn't really mean the whole bible is based on fact. Maybe if the text found recently is properly dated, it could clear up some of the time line problems the bible has.

I dunno, I was rather interested in this story... not because it might validate a Biblical character.... but that future study of the tablets could reveal something really cool... like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon really did exist and where they were located! That would be neat!

Though I respect your views KyrusRose I have to disagree with the lack of extra biblical evidence of the exodus. There is much found during the exodus.

Ill start here with an excerpt from the Institute for biblical and scientific studies:

It seems clear after looking at a number of ancient writers that all the ancient Jewish writers took the 430 or 400 years to cover the time in Egypt as well as Canaan. The Book of Jubilees counted 400 years from Abraham's entry into Canaan. Most of the Jewish writers counted the 400 years from Isaac's birth to the exodus. The actual time in Egypt was only 185 to 215 years according to most writers; however, Midrash Abkhir specifically states 86 years in Egypt (Rappoport 1966, Vol.2, 286-7). Another important note is that most of the Jewish writers pushed the date of the exodus back to about the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos. Joseph would have rose to power just before or during the time of the Hyksos.

Josephus says there are 592 years from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's Temple (960 BC), while Sedar Olan Zutta says 480 years. The best explanation of this discrepancy is the omission of the oppressions in the Book of Judges (111 years). This was a common ancient practice as seen in ancient Egyptian king lists.

Josephus goes into detail quoting Manetho showing that the Jews were in Egypt. He equates the Jews with the Hyksos, and the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose who founded the 18th dynasty (1570-50 BC). Manetho had access to the original Egyptian hieroglyphics that modern scholars do not have. Yet modern scholars today, both liberal and conservative place the Exodus much later, and claim there is no evidence of the Exodus in Egyptian writings. The best explanation is to identify the Exodus from Egypt with the expulsion of the Hyksos for there is no other mass exit from Egypt.

A number of secular writers tell about the origin of the Jews with disdain. Some picture the Jews as leprous. They identify the Jews with the Hyksos who were expelled from Egypt by Ahmose. This expulsion is seen as a great defeat and humiliation, yet the Jews claim a great victory. This scenario is seen in other ancient writings like Ramses II and the war with the Hittites. Each side claims victory. Sennachrib destroyed 46 cities in Judah, yet Hezekiah claims a victory because he did not take Jerusalem.

The early Church Fathers all equated the Hyksos with the Jews, and the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose. The only exception is Eusebius who did not account for overlap of reigns, and omits the years of oppression.

A look at the New Testament gives convincing proof that Paul in Galatians 3:17-18 saw the 430 years starting with the promise to Abraham. The Jews were not in Egypt for 400 years, but the 400 years applied to their sojourn in Canaan as well which was controlled by Egypt. The LXX interprets it this way in Exodus 12:40. In Acts 13:20 it is clear that there are 450 years for the time of the judges, but this does not seem to square with the 480 years from Solomon's Temple to the Exodus, because the years of oppression are omitted. This would place the exodus back to the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.

A look at all the archaeological evidence shows that the best fit of the data is to identify the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC The most important discovery is the Merneptah stele that mentions Israel which forced the revision of a number of liberal theories. Before the discovery of this stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They were now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. This puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus.

The execration texts which date back to at least 1630 BC mention city-states like Jerusalem, Shechem, and Hazor, but no mention of Israel. Another inscription of Khu-Sebek mentions Shechem, but not Israel.

Most scholars will place the Jews, pro-Israelites, or even Jacobites in Egypt at the time of the Hyksos. There are many scarabs with the name "Jacob-El." This seems most likely to refer either directly or indirectly to Jacob of the Old Testament.

The expulsion of the Hyksos seems to fit well with the story of the Exodus. Not all Hyksos were pro-Israelites. It says in Exodus that a "mixed multitude" left Egypt. Although the Egyptians saw the expulsion of the Hyksos as a great military victory, the Israelites viewed this as a great salvation victory for them. This seems similar to other events recorded in ancient history where both sides claim a great victory.

Here is a full page on archeological studies made on the exodus and the source of the excerpt as well. http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Alright I'll remind you that I said "I'm pretty sure" cause its something I've heard a lot from different sources, but never really looked DEEP into, and secondly.. I am way too sick and tired to read all that with any amount of comprehension, I'll do it tomorrow >.<. But if your so into this, look up the plagues too, I seem to remember (but am not sure) that there was some problems with that as well, no records outside the bible again. Could be wrong. dun care enough right now, give me Ny-Quil!

haha ok....Im sorry for the wall of text

O and to add to the mention of the plagues I do recount one thing and that was the nile turning to blood. Look at this: A statement made by John Van Seters when he argued about the dates of the Hyksos "Foreigners have become people everywhere....the Nile is in flood....poor men have become the possessors of treasures....many dead are buried in the river....let us banish many from us....the River is blood" (ANET 1969, 441; Lichtheim 1975, 1:151). This sounds similar to the event of the first plague against Egypt (Exodus 7:14-24). The river is not actually blood, but looks blood red because the Nile is flooding. Some speculate that the rest of the plagues are a result of the Nile flooding. This could possibly have been one of the plagues but I think that its pretty difficult to put supernatural events to the test of archeology, even in the case of the 2600 yr old tablet...It proves the history is right but does nothing for the supernatural aspect of the bible. Though I believe that some of the plagues may have been natural events, I still credit the Lord for the natural events he made possible through his providential will along with the unexplainable supernatural miracles that took place by His hand as well.


Forgot to add my source: Here you can find where I found it under the title "expulsion of the hyksos"

I think the point is not that this find validates the overall "truth" of the bible or any other ancient or religious text. It just means that there is a little bit of fact to the bible that we were not aware of before. It would be no different if we discovered a bit of info from the Koran were indeed factual. Of course there will always be SOMEONE who wants to imply this tidbit of truth means more than that. I suppose there would be a different response if there was a HUGE find that validated a supernatural aspect of religious text, but that's not what happened here.

Personally, this to me is like discovering that there is fact behind the story of King Arthur. Imagine finding a bit of text over a thousand years old that validates a piece of that legend! Maybe a reference to one of the characters described in that legend that was unmistakably that exact character. It would just add a little bit of validity to the story, and make it a little more real to the lovers of that tale.

That's all this should do for those that feel that way about the Bible. It validates that there is some verifiable truth to what is considered by many to be a legend.

the ancient egyptians never recorded military defeats, only victories.

I'm not sure how much you know about Australian society, fullywired, but The Australian is not an "obscure Australian newspaper". It's really a very popular paper.

However, just because it is reported on in the newspaper doesn't mean you are getting all the facts, or even the correct facts. It's a fact that newspapers spin-doctor their stories to suit their agendas. Reports are generally unscrupulous scrounges looking for the next big story, and if there is no big story, they invent it.

That said, it is still an interesting article. As hairston said at the beginning, it doesn't prove that the supernatural events of the Bible are real, but it does prove that the Bible is not entirely a work of fiction, as some have tried to make it out as.

Not just Professor Armstrong, but many others.

Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society--A History of Jerusalem, Armstrong, Karen, p. 23

Forgive me for reposting this ...

... Hebrews were not a separate nation - they were merely peasant Canaanites who were left homeless. They made their residence in the Judean desert, which was part of the Egyptian empire at the time. "Joshua and the Hebrews were not conquerors of Canaanites. They were Canaanites," according to "Ancient Evidence: Joshua and the Walls of Jericho." What separated Hebrews from Canaanites was theology, not genetics: the peasant Canaanite caravan people did not eat pork, they believed in a single God, etc. Other than theology and poverty, Hebrews did not differ from any other Canaanite people. Originally, Hebrews referred to their God by the word "Baal" - which has come to mean "Lord" in the Hebrew language . Baal was the name of one of the Canaanite Gods...

SOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

Ancient Evidence: Joshua and the Walls of Jericho (Discovery Channel, 11/13/2003 at 1 a.m. Also available on DVD and VHS)
http://shopping.discovery.com

World Book Encyclopedia:

Canaanites, pronounced KAY nuh nyts, were a people mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. Most of their land, called Canaan, later became known as Palestine. The Canaanites may have settled in the region about 2000 B.C. They were its chief inhabitants until about 1200 B.C. The Bible says that the Israelites conquered Canaan at that time. However, archaeology and some Biblical passages indicate that the Israelites only gradually became the area's dominant people. Archaeology also indicates that many Canaanite cities were destroyed by the Sea Peoples in the 1100's B.C. The Sea Peoples may have migrated to Canaan from the area around the Aegean Sea.

The Canaanites were a Semitic people related to the Arabs, Assyrians, and Israelites. The Canaanites had an advanced civilization. Their main political unit was the city-state, which consisted of a city or town and the surrounding villages and land. The chief Canaanite gods were El (a creator god) and Baal (a storm god). The main goddesses were Anat, Asherah, and Astarte.--Carole R. Fontaine, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Andover Newton Theological School

AND:

Deconstructing the walls of Jericho

By Ze'ev Herzog

The conquest: One of the shaping events of the people of Israel in biblical historiography is the story of how the land was conquered from the Canaanites. Yet extremely serious difficulties have cropped up precisely in the attempts to locate the archaeological evidence for this story.

Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators' efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.

Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion was bolstered that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua.

The Bible and Interpretation: Old Testament
http://www.bibleinterp.com/Archives/news_OldTestament.htm

... Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, "clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua." What's more, he says, there is an "almost total absence of archaeological evidence" backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon...

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting
http://eunacom.net/Rabbis_Bible.htm

AND:

The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests

By GUSTAV NIEBUHR

Archaeologists working at excavation sites like Megiddo in northern Israel, above, say that no evidence has been found to confirm biblical stories about a united monarchy ruling over a large area from Jerusalem or about the wanderings of the Jews in the desert during the Exodus.

The Bible's account of King David is so well known that even people who rarely crack the Good Book probably have an idea of his greatness.

David, Scripture says, was such a superb military leader that he not only captured Jerusalem but also went on to make it the seat of an empire, uniting the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Thus began a glorious era, later amplified by his son, King Solomon, whose influence extended from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates River. Afterward, decline set in.

Yet what if the Bible's account doesn't fit the evidence in the ground? What if David's Jerusalem was really a rural backwater -- and the greatness of Israel and Judah lay far in the future?

Lately, such assertions are coming from some authorities on Israel's archaeology, who speak from the perspective of recent finds from excavations into the ancient past. "The way I understand the finds, there is no evidence whatsoever for a great, united monarchy which ruled from Jerusalem over large territories," said Israel Finkelstein, the director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University.

King David's Jerusalem, he added, "was no more than a poor village at the time."

Statements like these have earned Finkelstein -- who is leading excavations at Megiddo, a vitally important site for biblical archaeology in northern Israel -- a reputation as a fascinating but controversial scholar. His reports from Megiddo that some structures attributed to Solomon were actually built after his reign have touched off fierce debate in Israel.

Within a larger context, what he says reflects a striking shift now under way in how a number of archaeologists understand Israel's past. Their interpretations challenge some of the Bible's best-known stories, like Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

Other finds have turned up new information that supplements Scripture, like what happened to Jerusalem after it was captured by the Babylonians 2,600 years ago.

In an interview by e-mail from the Megiddo site, Finkelstein said that not long ago, "biblical history dictated the course of research and archaeology was used in order to 'prove' the biblical narrative." In that way, he said, archaeology took a back seat as a discipline.

"I think that it is time to put archaeology in the front line," said Finkelstein, the co-author with Neil Asher Silberman of "The Bible Unearthed," to be published in January by The Free Press.

His reference to past practices can be illustrated by a remark by Yigael Yadin, an Israeli general who turned to archaeology and who once spoke of going into the field with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other.

Many archaeologists, both before and after the founding of the modern state of Israel, shared a similar approach: seeking direct evidence for biblical stories. This outlook was shaped either by their religious convictions or their Zionist views, said Amy Dockser Marcus, the author of "The View From Nebo" (Little Brown), a wide-ranging and engaging book that describes in detail the shift in archaeology taking place in Israel.

The problem with that outlook, she said, is that "you can't help but go in and look at material and interpret material in a certain way." And that, she added, "led to certain mistakes."

In her book, Marcus -- formerly the Middle East correspondent for The Wall Street Journal -- notes that Yadin believed he had unearthed evidence in the ruins of a place called Hazor that corroborated the biblical account of how that Canaanite city had been destroyed. The Bible says Hazor fell to invading Israelites led by Joshua.

But these days, she said, an increasing number of archaeologists have come to doubt that Joshua's campaign ever took place.

Instead, they theorize that the ancient Israelites emerged gradually and peacefully from among the region's general population -- a demographic evolution, not a military invasion.

"And that would explain how their pottery is so similar to the Canaanites', and their architecture, their script," Marcus said.

Finkelstein makes the same argument: "Archaeology has shown that early Israel indeed emerged from the local population of late Bronze Canaan."

In addition, he said, archaeology has turned up no physical remains to support the Bible's story of the Exodus: "There is no evidence for the wanderings of the Israelites in the Sinai desert."

Asked how such conclusions have been received in Israel, Finkelstein replied that they have been producing a "quite strong and negative" reaction. But the anger, he said, was coming not from strictly Orthodox Jews ("who simply ignore us," he said) but from more secular Jews who prize the biblical stories for their symbolic value to modern Israel.

"I think that the young generation -- at least on the liberal side -- will be more open and willing to listen," he said.

Still, considerable disagreement exists among archaeologists on how to interpret many recent finds. And the new theories about ancient Israel are emerging against the backdrop of a raging dispute over the biblical "minimalists," a group of scholars who argue that biblical accounts of early Israel, including the stories of David and Solomon, have little, if any, basis in history.

(This debate was recently fought out in a lively issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review, a bimonthly magazine published in Washington, in which one of the minimalists, the British scholar Philip Davies, wrote that biblical accounts of early Israel were purely theological, not historical. In response, a major critic of the minimalists, the American archaeologist William Dever, wrote that ample physical evidence pointed to early Israelites living in the region's highlands 3,200 years ago, two centuries before the time of David and Solomon.)

But if many archaeologists are far less interested in trying to corroborate the exact biblical accounts than in how the area's ancient history fits into the larger picture of the Middle East, that change of perspective, Marcus said, reflects an intellectual shift among the people doing the digging.

Many current archaeologists, she said, were born in modern Israel and don't need a link to the biblical King David to think of themselves as part of the Israeli nation: "They see themselves as part of the broader Middle East."

Yet while archaeology is challenging some of the biblical narrative, it is also adding to it. At Megiddo, Finkelstein said, he found that the period 2,900 years ago -- the century following the rule of Solomon -- was a far more interesting and powerful time for the Kingdom of Israel than the Bible says...--David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality? (July/August 1998 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review)

Archaeology and the Old Testament
http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm



This is Turkel's apologetic site, not one dedicated to academia. Show me where Armstrong has been discredited by a true Scholar.



NO AI & EXODUS:

Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible. (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24).

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "FAILED TO PROVIDE A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT EVER HAPPENED". Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "THEY WERE SPOTTED AND THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE WITH 600,000 OF MILITARY AGE WEREN'T?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams. (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988)

I provide more tomorrow. A little tired now.

Sean

Put on the helmet, INCOMING!

But yes, that is the trend in archeology. I have a good friend who was brought up as Orthodox Jew and is an archaeologist, who will also confirm that there are hardly any evidence of the first books of the Bible to be found anywhere in Holy Land. And it hurts him more than anybody else not to find any proof.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into that read Sean and thank you for that information. I can accept the decline of the tektonics but I would also like to add that your wiki search didnt help our debates either

I can agree to some extent that alot of data is still missing to put a definite time frame and come up with a definite answer for the exodus but I might add that alot of info you provided is a bit dated. Though im no expert in any sense on archeology, I still like to stay up to date as much as possible. I will post my responses from other articles.

Part of this has been posted but It ties with the rest of the article so you may see some things resposted

It seems clear after looking at a number of ancient writers that all the ancient Jewish writers took the 430 or 400 years to cover the time in Egypt as well as Canaan. The Book of Jubilees counted 400 years from Abraham's entry into Canaan. Most of the Jewish writers counted the 400 years from Isaac's birth to the exodus. The actual time in Egypt was only 185 to 215 years according to most writers; however, Midrash Abkhir specifically states 86 years in Egypt (Rappoport 1966, Vol.2, 286-7). Another important note is that most of the Jewish writers pushed the date of the exodus back to about the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos. Joseph would have rose to power just before or during the time of the Hyksos.

Josephus says there are 592 years from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's Temple (960 BC), while Sedar Olan Zutta says 480 years. The best explanation of this discrepancy is the omission of the oppressions in the Book of Judges (111 years). This was a common ancient practice as seen in ancient Egyptian king lists.

Josephus goes into detail quoting Manetho showing that the Jews were in Egypt. He equates the Jews with the Hyksos, and the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose who founded the 18th dynasty (1570-50 BC). Manetho had access to the original Egyptian hieroglyphics that modern scholars do not have. Yet modern scholars today, both liberal and conservative place the Exodus much later, and claim there is no evidence of the Exodus in Egyptian writings. The best explanation is to identify the Exodus from Egypt with the expulsion of the Hyksos for there is no other mass exit from Egypt.

A number of secular writers tell about the origin of the Jews with disdain. Some picture the Jews as leprous. They identify the Jews with the Hyksos who were expelled from Egypt by Ahmose. This expulsion is seen as a great defeat and humiliation, yet the Jews claim a great victory. This scenario is seen in other ancient writings like Ramses II and the war with the Hittites. Each side claims victory. Sennachrib destroyed 46 cities in Judah, yet Hezekiah claims a victory because he did not take Jerusalem.

The early Church Fathers all equated the Hyksos with the Jews, and the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose. The only exception is Eusebius who did not account for overlap of reigns, and omits the years of oppression.

A look at the New Testament gives convincing proof that Paul in Galatians 3:17-18 saw the 430 years starting with the promise to Abraham. The Jews were not in Egypt for 400 years, but the 400 years applied to their sojourn in Canaan as well which was controlled by Egypt. The LXX interprets it this way in Exodus 12:40. In Acts 13:20 it is clear that there are 450 years for the time of the judges, but this does not seem to square with the 480 years from Solomon's Temple to the Exodus, because the years of oppression are omitted. This would place the exodus back to the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.

A look at all the archaeological evidence shows that the best fit of the data is to identify the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC The most important discovery is the Merneptah stele that mentions Israel which forced the revision of a number of liberal theories. Before the discovery of this stele scholars placed the date of the exodus and entry into Canaan much later. They were now forced to admit that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah. This puts a terminus ante quem date of 1210 BC for the exodus.

The execration texts which date back to at least 1630 BC mention city-states like Jerusalem, Shechem, and Hazor, but no mention of Israel. Another inscription of Khu-Sebek mentions Shechem, but not Israel.

Most scholars will place the Jews, pro-Israelites, or even Jacobites in Egypt at the time of the Hyksos. There are many scarabs with the name "Jacob-El." This seems most likely to refer either directly or indirectly to Jacob of the Old Testament.

The expulsion of the Hyksos seems to fit well with the story of the Exodus. Not all Hyksos were pro-Israelites. It says in Exodus that a "mixed multitude" left Egypt. Although the Egyptians saw the expulsion of the Hyksos as a great military victory, the Israelites viewed this as a great salvation victory for them. This seems similar to other events recorded in ancient history where both sides claim a great victory.

The evidence from the Sinai shows little occupation during the Late Bronze Age which is probably due to the expulsion of the Hyksos, and when Ahmose marched to Sharuhen, and besieged it for three years. The Middle Bronze Age destructions seem to fit well with the conquest of Canaan by Joshua.

Egyptian topographical lists are key in showing who and where people lived. The oldest list is from Tuthmosis III which names "Jacob-El" and "Joseph-El" as cities in Canaan. It is paramount to understand that cities were named after an important person or god. This seems to be clear evidence that pro-Israelites were in Canaan at this time (1481 BC).

During Amenhotep II's reign (1453-1419 BC) there is a list of prisoners that mentions 3600 'apiru, and 15,200 living Shasu that were taken as prisoners from Canaan. Some of these were probably Hebrews.

In the temple of Amon in Soleb (Nubia) there is a topographical list from the time of Amenhotep III (1408-1372 BC) That gives the name "Yahweh of the land of the Shasu" (Giveon 1964, 244; Redford 1992, 272; Astour 1979, 17-34). In the ancient Near East a divine name was also given to a geographical place where the god was worshipped (Axelsson 1987, 60). This is the first clear extra-biblical evidence of the name "Yahweh." Also named are "Asher" and "Joseph-El" which indicates that the Hebrews were in Canaan at this time.

In Seti's first campaign (1291 BC) There is a battle with the Shasu which is pictured on the Karnak reliefs (ANEP 1969, fig. 323-9). The tribal chiefs of the Shasu are gathered on the mountains of kharu (upper Galilee) to fight the Egyptians. It seems that this general term "Shasu" is referring to the Hebrews who lived in the mountain ranges of upper Galilee at this time.

In Ramses II's topographical list (ca.1275 BC) the place-name "Jacob-El" (#9) appears again (ANET 1969, 242; Simons 1937). The first appearance was in Thutmose III's list. This means that this city of Jacob has been around for two hundred years. Another interesting name that was found is yhw which is "Yahweh" in Hebrew (Horn 1953, 201; Giveon 1964, 244).

It seems abundantly clear from all these topographical lists concerning Canaan that the Hebrews were in Canaan at this time, but they did not use the name "Israel" until there league of tribes was well formed by the time of Merneptah.

The El Amarna letters describe the troublesome Hapiru that were taking over the land of Canaan. This seems to fit well with the Hebrews during the time of the judges. The word "Hebrew" probably came from the word "Hapiru."

In Ugaritic texts one of the most interesting personal names is ysril which equals "Israel" in Hebrew (Gordon 1965, Text 2069:3; Glossary #1164). While this is not referring to Israel as a nation it does show the use of this personal name in the Late Bronze Age. Another interesting name is yw (CTA 1 IV:14; Herdner 1963, 4) which may be identified with "Yahweh" in Hebrew. While one of these names alone is not conclusive, yet when all of the personal names and place names are considered, there seems to be abundant evidence for the Hebrews living in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.

Therefore the best explanation for all of the archaeological evidence seems to be that Israel is a confederation of Hapiru tribes in the hill country of Canaan, that formed the nation of Israel in the Iron Age. Originally, Abraham was part of an Amorite migration south into Canaan from Mesopotamia which continued down to Egypt climaxing in the Hyksos rule. The exodus is to be identified with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose (1570-50 BC; Frerichs and Lesko, 1997, 82, 96). Then they wandered in the wilderness being included among the Shasu, and caused the fall of MBIIIC cities in Canaan (the conquest). The Conquest was not total but just in the highlands for Egypt controlled the lower lands and coast. They were called Hapiru (from which the name Hebrew originates) in the Amarna period (time of the judges) until their league was consolidated into 12 tribes which became the nation of Israel in the Iron Age.

This paper has shown that most of the ancient writers equated the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC Most ancient writers put the Jews in Egypt for 215 years or less. According to most ancient writers the 430 years in Egypt was taken to start with the promise to Abraham, and the 400 years from the birth of Isaac. Others begin these years with Abraham's entry into Canaan. All of the ancient Jewish and Christian writers considered in this paper took the 430 or 400 years to cover the time in Egypt as well as Canaan. Biblical writers also agree with these ancient traditions, and the archaeological evidence reinforces these views.

Edit: Almost forgot my source Here

Also on Jericho and AI


The ancient city of Jericho is identified with Tell es-Sultan. The first large scale excavation was by Sellin and Watzinger from 1907 to 1909. The next major excavation was directed by Garstang from 1930 to 1936. Garstang believed that the fourth city was destroyed by Joshua just after 1400 BC A third major excavation was done by Kenyon between 1952 to 1958. She challenged Garstang's date by insisting that the fourth city double walls were from the Early Bronze Age. Jericho was mainly abandoned during the Late Bronze Age, but the Middle Bronze Age was violently destroyed by fire. Kenyon states: The date of the burned buildings would seem to be the very end of the Middle Bronze Age, and the destruction may be ascribable to the disturbances that followed the expansion (expulsion) of the Hyksos from Egypt in about 1560 BCE (Stern 1993, Vol. 2, 680). Could these disturbances be the Israelite conquest? Both Kenyon and Garstang agree that the Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho was destroyed as a result of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. There have been many proposals to solve the time of Joshua's conquest. Courville cuts out over 600+ years by equating the end of the Early Bronze Age with Joshua's conquest around 1400 BC (1971, 151; Bimson 1981, 119). On the other hand Aardsma adds 1,000 years between the book of Judges and I Samuel (1993; Wood 1993, 97). Rohl has subtracted 300+ years from Egyptian history, and James also lowers Egyptian chronology by 250+ years (Rohl 1996; James 1991). One that has been influential in the public is Velikovsky's radical views that deletes 800+ years from history (1950; 1952; Newman 1973, 146-151; Yamauchi 1973, 134-39). Bimson (1981) only lowers the chronology by 100 year, but there is no need to be adding or subtracting years. Equating the Exodus with the Expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt solves this problem. All the archaeological data seems to fit Biblical chronology when this is done, except AI which is highly controversial.

AI has been located at Et-Tell by Albright. A brief excavation was conducted here by Garstang in 1928. A second excavation was done from 1933 to 1935 by Marquet-Krause. A third excavation was conducted by Calloway sponsored by the American Schools of Oriental Research from 1964 to 1970. The major problem here is that AI was destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age, and was abandoned until the beginning of the Iron Age, yet Joshua is said to have destroyed it (Stern 1993; Zevit 1985, 58). There are several explanations for this. Livingston locates AI at Khirbet Nisya, yet there is no clear evidence for this (Bimson and Livingston). Yadin interprets the Bible etiologically here (Shanks 1988, 64). It explains how the ruins of AI got this way according to the writer. Millard believes that the villagers would only use Et-Tell as a stronghold when under attack (1985, 99). The name "AI" means "ruin," so AI was destroyed earlier, but reused only as a fort. This seems to be the best explanation

Source

And the walls.. come tumbling tumbling! Sorry I can't keep up anymore.. and my computer can't handle that much text!! have fun guys.

Very welcome.



The WIKI article is quite sound and is an excellent, objective resource for information--unless the article is flagged.



May I ask what information you consider dated, friend? I think the oldest article I provided goes back to 1988.



Again, the source you cited is, as far as I can tell, an apologetic site. I noticed it offered "Christian counseling" which no academic site would dare do. Academia and faith must be kept separate.

... And archaeology surprisingly reveals that the people who lived in those villages were indigenous inhabitants of Canaan who only gradually developed an ethnic identity that could be termed Israelite.--The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman, p.98

AND:

... The Merneptah stele refers to Israel as a group of people already living in Canaan. But we have no clue, not a single word, about early Israelites in Egypt; neither in monumental inscriptions on walls of temples, nor in tomb inscriptions, nor in papyri. Israel is absent --as a possible foe of Egypt, as a friend, or as an enslaved nation. And there are simply no finds in Egypt that can be directly associated with the notion of a distinct foreign ethnic group (as opposed to a concentration of migrant workers from many places) living in a distinct area of the eastern delta, as implied by the biblical account of the children of Israel living together in the Land of Goshen (Genesis 47:27).--Ibid, p. 60





Concerning biblical history ... It is important to remember the following:

... Yet it is not historical accuracy that the Bible means to emphasize, but what may be learned from the "events" which "transpired" in the past. This point has been perceived with great perspicacity by Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, who entitled his work on Jewish history and memory Zakbor, "remember!" which is taken from the biblical injunctions to remember particular events, such as the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt (Deut 5:15 and often elsewhere) or the attack of the Amalkekites upon the Israelites (Deut 25:17). One passage, "Remember the days of old" (Deut 32:7), even seems to suggest the importance of remembering the past in general. Concerning these passages, Yerushalmi wittily remarks,

"The biblical appeal to remember thus has little to do with curiosity about the past. Israel is told that it must be a kingdom of priests and a holy people; nowhere is it suggested that it become a nation of historians."--Creation of History in Ancient Israel, Brettler, Marc Zvi, p. 136-7

Most kindly,

Sean

"Again, the source you cited is, as far as I can tell, an apologetic site. I noticed it offered "Christian counseling" which no academic site would dare do. Academia and faith must be kept separate."

I get this alot here at UM. Being it that it takes an amount of faith to stand in agreement that there is no god with complete proof then we must remove atheistic archeologists that appear on most "academic" websites with their "biased" remarks as well . No christian archeologist or scientist qualifies as "academia" because they have faith that there is a God and put their faith in a book while atheists, agnostics, and diests qualify as "academic"....could it be that a website is only "biased" when it contradicts our belief system? Now i see a great difference between a fundamentalist christian that clings to every discovery as a "fact" of proof for the bible but when you have a christian taking an unbiased approach exposing both errors and truths of the bible they automatically get removed as a credible source because of their beliefs?

So I guess its safe to assume that anyone labeled a "christian" is biased in their comments and discoveries but a group of atheists or agnostics with an ax to grind qualify as "academia" because they are more respectable and "unbiased"...please .....

If Christian apologetic material was correct, it would appear in standard HS/collegiate textbooks. There is a reason such material found on TK et al is absent from said texts. The material is simply not correct. As mentioned, Historical Method and Devotion Method must be kept separate so that an objective course of fact-finding can be pursued by the exegete. Mixing faith and scholarship is akin to mixing oil and water. It will yield invalid results. History, as a discipline, requires stringent methodologies so that valid and truthful findings can be achieved. History, as a discipline, requires it. As the well-known collegiate text An Introduction to the Bible states:

Approaches to the Bible

Some students enter a college course on the Bible with a prior knowledge of its content, perhaps having studied it to enrich their personal faith. This approach may be called the devotional or spiritual approach to Bible study. Several features typically characterize this approach. First, it assumes that the Bible does or may have relevance to one's personal spiritual life. For such students the Bible may be referred to as “the Word of God” or as a “living” book. In this approach the key question one brings to the Bible is “How do these texts bear upon my faith?” This question assumes the Bible's relevance, and students attempt to discern how the Bible “speaks” to them. Second, such students read the Bible from a stance of commitment to the Bible's authority as a reliable guide in matters of faith. The Bible functions as their source of religious truth. Third, the devotional or spiritual approach may tend to ignore the context or historical setting of the biblical texts in the ancient world. The text and the reader are all that is necessary to discern the Bible's present relevance for faith. Fourth, people who use this approach often come to their study with an attitude of deep reverence and prayer, asking that God's Spirit lead them in their study. This approach to Bible study is simple, uncluttered, and uncomplicated. It requires neither formal training nor academic study. Millions of devoted Jews and Christians over the centuries have found inspiration through such study.

Although many devout believers study the Bible in this fashion, this approach has limitations. First, the books of the Bible were not written as chapters in one unified narrative, as anyone who attempts to “read the whole Bible straight through” quickly discovers. The Bible emerged from the history of the Jewish and early Christian communities and does contain the originating “stories” of these faiths. But books of poetry, law, proverbs, and letters are intermingled with historical narrative. Furthermore, the books of the Bible are not arranged in chronological order, and in some cases events are told several times and in different ways. Without an understanding of the special nature of this “book,” the Jewish and Christian stories often become a series of isolated and confusing incidents that are tied together loosely at best.

A second limitation of the devotional approach is that persons who read the Bible apart from its historical contexts run the risk of misunderstanding its texts. For example, some biblical texts justify the killing of noncombatant women and children in battle, prohibit women from having leadership roles in the synagogue or church, and advise that one should remain single rather than marry. A careful reading of the passages in their originating contexts may lead a contemporary reader to understand them quite differently today.

Third, without analytical study one is less likely to understand the idioms, colloquialisms, and cryptic references that often occur in the Bible. The symbolism of Daniel 7–12 or Revelation is difficult to understand without scholarly guidance. A devotional reader strains to discover what is meant in these books by “the little horn,” “the whore of Babylon,” “the dragon from the sea,” or the number 666.

Fourth, a subtle danger of using the devotional or spiritual approach alone is that a student may come to the texts with preconceived notions that will distort the interpretation. For example, an uninformed reader who assumes that the Hebrew prophets were primarily foretellers of the future will misunderstand the role and contributions of these important figures.

Since the eighteenth century, an alternative approach to the study of the Bible, called the critical approach, has developed. (“Critical” in this usage does not mean “negative” but refers to an analytical and objective approach, which will be further explained in the following chapter.) Because chapter 2 will formally introduce this approach, this chapter will introduce only two of its general features in regard to how it differs from the devotional method. First, the critical approach emphasizes the understanding of the texts in their original settings. It asks such questions as: “How was the text understood in its original context?” “How did it function for its early hearers?” “How do its literary form and literary setting affect our understanding of the text?” Second, the critical approach makes no assertion about the inspiration or spiritual authority of the Bible, although it by no means obviates or weakens such claims.

The critical approach has at least three advantages. First, it does not imply or require a faith stance. Any inquirer, whether a believer or not, may study the texts and become conversant with Jewish and Christian origins. Second, the critical approach imposes none of the claims of either Judaism or Christianity upon students outside of those faiths. Third, at the same time it may assist persons of faith who seek to enrich their understanding of the Bible. Acquaintance with the original settings of the texts can provide a fruitful basis for the interpretation and application of biblical teachings. This approach need not be a threat to faith. If one's faith is to be based upon the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, it is essential to understand what those writings actually teach.

The critical approach to biblical study, the one taken in this volume, can benefit all students who seek an understanding and appreciation of the origins and development of early Judaism and Christianity. The following chapter will explain this approach to biblical study in more detail and summarize its methods and conclusions.

Chapter 2--Methods and Tools for Studying the Bible

Communication, both written and oral, is a complex process in which the receiver constantly tries to analyze and understand the meaning of the message from the sender. Interpretation is a necessary task because the meaning of words and phrases, either oral or written, is not always self-evident. The reader or listener, using certain clues and prior information, formulates an opinion on the meaning of a particular message, then continually refines or corrects that understanding as new information is gained. This process of explanation or interpretation, particularly when applied to the study of written documents, is called exegesis. The term “exegesis” comes from a Greek word that means “to lead or bring out”; thus, to exegete is to bring out the meaning of a text.

The scholarly study of the Bible is an attempt to systematize the process of asking questions of the text. It is a way of helping the reader gain a better understanding of the biblical writings. Biblical exegesis is necessary because misunderstanding can occur in reading biblical texts just as it does in other forms of communication. The possibility of misunderstanding is even greater with biblical texts, however, for three reasons. First, a great cultural divide separates the Western reader from the world of the ancient Near East. Second, a time gap as great as three thousand years or more separates the modern reader from the writing of some of the biblical texts. Third, the special status accorded the biblical writings by many individuals makes the interpretation of those texts more difficult. Many individuals regard the Bible as a sacred text, as Scripture. This status means that people often ask questions of the Bible that are not asked of other writings (What meaning does this have today? What authority does this text have?). It also means that many people approach the Bible with presuppositions or assumptions different from the ones with which they approach other literature. The individual who considers the Bible a source of religious authority is apt to interpret the text differently from the individual who does not view the Bible as religiously authoritative. All of these problems point to the need for a reliable, informed approach to the study of biblical literature that is appropriate for all inquirers.

Types of Biblical Criticism

Biblical scholars use certain tools and methods to assist them in understanding biblical literature. Their approach to the study of the Bible is known as critical study of the Bible, and the various methods are known as criticisms, such as textual criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, or narrative criticism. Results from the scholarly use of these methods have increased our knowledge of the Bible and have provided the source materials for the writing of this textbook.

The words “critical” and “criticism” are often misunderstood. To study something critically does not mean that one takes a negative approach to the subject. Rather, to study a subject critically is to examine it carefully, analytically, and as objectively as possible in order to make well-founded and intelligent judgments about it. Art critics or literary critics are not individuals who disparage works of art or literature; they are people who appreciate the value of these works, try to assess their meaning, and attempt to share informed judgments with others. Likewise, biblical critics are persons who study biblical literature, using critical methods to understand the texts, and then share insights and information from their studies with others. Biblical critics are not attempting to destroy or alter the message of the biblical texts; on the contrary, they are seeking to understand these ancient writings.

The following discussion intends to provide a basic understanding of the most common approaches used by biblical scholars in their study of biblical literature. This discussion does not cover all approaches; other approaches are also used. The following methods, however, are the major ones used by biblical scholars...--An Introduction to the Bible, Musser, Donald and Reddish, Michell and Fant, Clyde, p. 20-24

Respectfully,

Sean

How can some one not be biased if he or she believes to be true the very thing they are investigating even before they start .What "axe" to grind have agnostics or atheists ,there is no organization to defend or beliefs to protect,it matters naught if they are wrong .Whilst Christians have a lot to lose if they are proved wrong because then their whole life has been a waste of time and lets not forget that religion is big business ,especially in the US,it's easy to understand the fundamentalists frantic scramble to climb on board the "Intelligent design " boat."What's the old saying "turkeys don't vote for Christmas"


fullywired

Good point hence the reason why atheist already presuppose that supernatural doesnt happen, the bible is mythology, etc. yet you dont seem to notice your doing quite the same thing that the christians do that you never fail preach too. Its pretty much beating a dead horse and everytime someone presents information that contradicts someones belief system or lack thereof they pull out the "biased" card trick. Its getting really old and just seems as a ploy to throw off the subject or to discredit the opposing belief system. If there is truth out there, I want to know it even if it destroys the grounds of my faith but just remember one thing...not everyone is out trying to manipulate evidences to match their belief systems, no matter what one believes.

an opinion is biased by nature, so i agree. i understand that its hard to hear an opion or view an aspect of something that conflicts with your beliefs. but honestly, dont come on a discussion forum and expect everyone to agree. i havent read the previous posts, so im not trying to point anyone out.

evidence either matches your beliefs, or it doesnt. i personally, being a student of christianity, dont see the conflict with that and the world around us.

I'll put it another way ,If you were brought to trial accused of murder would you like a jury that already believed your guilty without hearing the evidence or one that was going to hear the evidence then decide . I submit that agnostics and atheists have examined the evidence ie "the Bible " and found it wanting and unbelievable.I would like to think your looking for truth but some times I wonder



fullywired

There may not be an organization to protect but there is pride to protect.

I think you'll find money takes precedence above pride in this world



fullywired

To my observation, greed and pride are neck and neck for the photo finish. It'll be pride, though.

But that didn't address my point.

Atheists may not have a collective organization with a leader and a money-making plan to protect, however, individual atheists have pride to contend with as a possible deterrent to approaching the idea of God unbiased.

Pride in intellect, pride in being right, pride in having "all knowledge" which makes a person feel like a god.

I did not say all atheists are arrogant, I did say that not all atheists are as unbiased as they think they are. And I gave what seems to me the most obvious example of what an atheist has to protect, because it strikes me as being fair since we mentioned what IYO believers have to protect. And I said it since the conversation seemed to be about what makes believers biases or unbiased vs. what makes non-believers biased or unbiased (disclaimer lest I be accused of bashing, attacking, or going off-topic).

Speaking for myself .Pride doesn't come into it . I confine myself to total disbelief it the bible and I think you'll find that most of "atheists " feel the same way .Where pride comes into that I fail to see

fullywired

Sorry, I have to disagree for the most. We'll go back to the winston churchill quote on this one

you've ducked the question


fullywired

"I'll put it another way ,If you were brought to trial accused of murder would you like a jury that already believed your guilty without hearing the evidence or one that was going to hear the evidence then decide . I submit that agnostics and atheists have examined the evidence ie "the Bible " and found it wanting and unbelievable.I would like to think your looking for truth but some times I wonder"

And im not going to ask a loaded question like that either. Your presupposing that all christians are naive, stupid and should be excluded from all academia because they disagree with your views and opinions. You state your point very clearly that only agnostics and atheists have the final say and authority in all manners of research. No sir I will continue to duck such a falacious question and have no further reason arguing or debating with a close minded individual such as yourself.

Have a good day

You are reading a lot into the post that isn't there .All I said was I didn't believe in the bible .and tried to explain in simple terms why I didn't like some sources ,Why you are getting on your high horse I don't know .you have certainly missed my point completely.I am always open to unbiased evidence


fullywired

Nice try

Meaning What??????

ive seen your responses to anything that reinforces the biblical account. You dont have to ask me meaning what.

I am talking about the response to the last post are you moving on to other threads??



fullywired

Im responding to your last post and anything else you post elsewhere.

Its funny seeing your responses to anything christian. To stay in this thread its funny your the first person to reply to the original thread putting up the huge sign saying sorry to rain on your parade but the article from which you received this information is not well known, therefore its probably of little significance. Then when you were exposed to more data reinforcing the actual article (not the evidence) then you said it doesnt matter because it doesnt justify much of anything in the bible (im not referring to the supernatural). And moving onto other threads I dont think ive seen many if any positive responses to any threads created by christians (i mean some as some christian threads are absolutely rediculous) that reinforce their view even if the data points in the right direction. Forgive me if ive quoted you incorrectly but this is how you seem to present yourself about 99% of the time.

I agreed with you that the links were unbiased.I would remind you that this is Spirituality vs Skepticism forum your posting in ,so expect to be challenged on your statements as I expect mine to be challenged .If you don't want this to happen I suggest you stick to Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs, where you can post virtually unchallenged .there perhaps you won't take umbrage so easily



fullywired