evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom

I think what is in dispute is when they both became Kingdoms. Israel didn’t become a Kingdom until Saul became King, which, if true, would be around 1050 BCE.The problem, which hasn’t been addressed yet, is the Bible’s claims that Edom was a kingdom long before the 12th century BCE.If we again mention the biblical chronology of the Exodus, we see that it places the Exodus at around 1446 BCE (1 Kings 6:1), we also learn that the Exodus group allegedly encountered the king of Edom in Numbers 20:14: Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying:
"This is what your brother Israel says: You know about all the hardships that have come upon us.The problem is, this encounter occurred before the end of the 15th century BCE, by biblical chronology. However, it was shown beyond all doubt that there was no Kingdom of Edom (or Moab) before the 13th century BCE.The Rabbi Nelson Gleuck, whose quote: It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. (Glueck Nelson, 1969 Rivers in the Desert: History of the Negev.: Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, page. 31.is frequently taken way out of context on creationist websites, has stated that:” Had the Exodus through the southern Transjordan taken place before the thirteenth century BC, the Israelites would have found neither Edomite and Moabites who would have given or withheld permission to traverse their territories” (Glueck. 1940, The other Side of the Jordan ASOR, New Haven, page 146)So, we can see that the great archaeologist and fundie scholar Glueck has debunked the possibility of Moses’ group meeting the King of Edom.We can also see that people who use Glueck as a source to prove that the Bible is to be taken literally, really haven’t done their homework. Could you be confusing Moses with Joseph, who is said to have risen to a very high rank?Genesis 41:41-45So Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and men shouted before him, "Make way !" Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

​

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt." Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt. Dictionary.comKingdom: A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign. It is possible that the Esau fable was produced to defame the Edomites.Brian.

That's what the archaeological evidence demonstrates. There is no good reason to believe that there was a kingdom of Edom during Moses' time. I'll keep an open mind on the subject, but at the moment there's no evidence to support the biblical account.Glueck was a real fundamentalist, intent on proving the Bible true, it was his excavations in the transjordan that led to this conclusion. There is no sign of any kingdom of Edom, or kingdom of Moab before the 13th century BCE. This is a simple, cold, hard fact. But, there is nothing to be found before the 13th century BCE at the areas of Edom and Moab, so it does contravene the Bible. If the Bible was true and accurate, where is the evidence of settlements in Edom and Moab?No one is saying that Edom and Moab were never kingdoms, we are saying that the biblical chronology is incorrect.The apache analogy is invalid and irrelevant because there is evidence of settlements, there are no pre-15th century BCE settlements constituting a kingdom of Edom, or Moab.The very best that inerrantists can do is to say that they have no evidence of a Kingdom of Edom during the time of Moses, but it may just be that the evidence has not yet been found, even given that Glueck extensively excavated the area.Brian.

Sure, without any problem.Remember that some digs in Palestine (jericho for example) have remains going back 10 000 years. We aren't talking about nomads, we are talking about a kingdom, complete with settlements, which cannot be found at Edom or Moab in the 15th century BCE. I am claiming there is no evidence of settlements at that time (15th century BCE).The thing with historical/archaeological enquiry is that you need to justify your inferences, Binford calls it 'inference justification'. No archaeologist has ever provided justification from the evidence to infer that there was a kingdom of Edom in the 15th century BCE.Historical research requires that the person claiming the existence of something has the burden of proof, in this instance they would have to say "we know there was a kingdom of Edom during the 15th century BCE because........"There is no evidence, at this time, that a King ruled over the area of Edom during Moses' time.Brian.

How do you know this John?I keep asking you to provide evidence to support many claims you make, but you keep blanking these requests.I am not asking you just for the sake of it, I genuinely wish to know how you know that the new settlements in the hill country were Israelite, I ask this because it is an unusaul claim to make.So, how do you know that Israel established their kingdom around 1020, is it based solely on the Bible or do you have external evidence? I'd really like some support for this as well, because the amarna letters do not descibe the 'Apiru this way.What is your source for raiding parties of Shasu?Brian.

You have heard of negative evidence?When Cohen excavated Kadesh-Barnea to virgin soil and found no evidence of settlement there before 10th century BCE, does this mean that there is a possibility of 2.5 million Israelites camping there before this date?Negative evidence is a big part of archaeology, and it depends on the plausibility of what is being claimed. For example, it is unreasonable to expect archaeology to provide evidence for the existence of Abraham, but it isn't unreasonable to expect to find the remains of human activity in an area where huge numbers of people were said to have lived.Regarding the Kingdom of Edomand Moses' encounter we are told that:Numbers 20:20-21:Again they answered:
"You may not pass through."
Then Edom came out against them with a large and powerful army. Since Edom refused to let them go through their territory, Israel turned away from them.Now Israel had a fighting force of 600, 000 men, so the Edomites must have had an incredible amount of soldiers for Israel to crap itself.So, the old 'absence of evidence' apology is very strained in this instance. I am going on Glueck's findings and he excavated extensively in the area of Edom and found nothing before the 13th century BCE.Also, you do not need to excavate the entire area because it isn't everywhere that is suitable for a settlement. The last bastion of the fundy Arach, I am surprised at you.The thing is with archaeology, we have to decide what is it we can 'reasonably' expect from it. In this case, it would be unreasonable to expect the biblical version of Israel's encounter with Edom not to have left at least a fingerprint in the archaeological record. Huge armies are not nomadic, nomads as far as the ANE is concerned were in the main pastoralists. Huge armies did travel across the ANE, but nothing anywhere near the size of Israel's army has been reported.Pharaoh's army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men.? (Mendenhall 1958: The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26 Journal of Biblical Literature, 77, pp. 64-65)Egypt never had an army anywhere near the size of Israel's, and Israel was concerned about the size of the Edomite army!It is just a little too much of a stretch not to expect any evidence of settlements that would be home to the Edomites, if the biblical claims are true.But don't fall into the 'absence of evidence' trap. Negative evidence is a valid argument.Brian.

So, it is based entirely on information from the Bible and you have no external confrimation? Am I correct here? Do you have ANY proof, absolute or not? Okay, a feeling is all well and fine, I'd say that a high percentage of historical hypotheses begin with a 'feeling'. However, what do you have to support this 'feeling' that would persuade someone that you were on to something?For example, these new settlements in the hill country, what is it at these settlements that make you feel that they were Israelite? Is there any new material culture there? Is there a break in local material culture? In short, what is it at these sites that suggest they were Israelite settlements? Well, this is the thing, all you did was just say they were raiding Palestine, how do I know if you are correct or not?Take this example:Sethos I mentions Apiru attacking a local city from mt. Jarmouth (1300 bc) he responds to these attacks and brings back some of these Apiru as slaves. Also, during his reign he responds to raiding Shasu along the via maris.This is nothing more than you just 'saying' something. I am not saying that what you present is untrue, but where was it said, can I go examine it for myself? IOW, do you have a reference? But, weren't the 'Apiru in the Amarna Letters simply local mercenaries hired by the local cheiftans who were trying to expand their territory? The way you described it (and I cede that I may be misreading), it sounds as if there were parties exclusively of 'Apiru randomly attacking kingdoms in Palestine.Brian.

Bible claims there were:Exodus 12:37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Yes, but just like any other logical argument its validity depends on its premises.For example, we haven't found any evidence of humans living on Mars yet, but that doesn't mean humans haven't lived on Mars.But, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement, which is a pisser for the fundies. I'm crap at it myself, I think the sensible head kicks into play.Brian.

Jericho and Ai were never occupied at the same time, and theres no destruction level at either c 1250 BCE.Brian.

Callaway says it (Et-Tell) is the only site in the region that could possibly be Ai, although others, such as Albright have suggested alternate cites, even though these do not support a 15th century conquest either.Personally, I think the battle of Ai is fictional, or to be more accurate, and aetiology. The name Et-Tell means 'the ruin', the name Ai in Hebrew means exactly the same, seems quite straightforward to me. We have a site called the 'ruin' and a town in the Bible called the 'ruin', so why look elsewhere? Probably because of the fiasco of his carbon dating naivety. The fact that no mainstream journal will touch it speaks volumes because they do examine papers before accepting or rejecting them. I don't think there is any way to extend the period of the Judges to 600 years, it means adding to the narratives we already have. There are far too many artificial numbers and conflicting information in Judges for us to make an exact guess.I prefer a fictional Judges period. The Bible's version of the conquest of Canaan is a myth, it simply didn't happen regardless of which date is proposed for it. There is no way to harmonise the extant archaeological evidence with the Bible account.If the claim of a conquest was found in any book other than the Bible it would be accepted as myth by now. Nice to meet you.Look forward to reading more.Perhaps we could examine one or two arguments for your posts later on, they are a bit long to discuss in their entirety.Brian.Edited by Brian, : added carbon dating instead of 14c

Bible and Spade IS a fringe journal.Its articles are not peer reviewed.The very name sums up everything that was bad about the early years of excavation in Palestine.Wood may be a Ph.d, but have you ever critically analysed some of his stuff.Bimson is equally poor. A self proclaimed fundamentalist who makes very basic errors in almost everything he writes.If I were you, and wished ot gain a good background knowledge of archaeology and the Old testament, I'd stick to Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Biblical Archaeologist, BASOR, Israel Exploration Journal, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, and something along the lines of Vetus Testementum.The arguments in B an S have been refuted so many times that mainstream scholarship is just bored with them, that's why Wood finds it difficult to get published in reputable journals. David Rohl began a Ph.d in 1990, I don't think he has gained it yet, I could be wrong.Kenneth Kitchen is now actually an Emeritus professor and lectures at Liverpool University. He's been a leading personality in the debate for decades.He is also a big critic of Rohl's and has declred that Rohl is 98% rubbish.Peter James is in the same class as Velikovsky, a nutball. Asiatic does not necessarily equal Hebrew. Do you have a city wall to go with the 1550 date?Could I suggest that you perhaps focus on one or two arguments at a time, the posting of large amount of information isn't really compatible to a satifactory debate.Brian.

I never said that at all, I just asked a simple question. Do you have evidence of a city wall in the 1550 destruction level? I'm not mistaking anything. Could you provide a reference or two? Such as? And this means? You don't owe me anything. I know their 'work'. Neither will reading B and S. Good. So why are you entertaining the comic book B and S?Let me guess, you are a Christian who thinks the Bible is the inerrant word of god?Brian.

What evidence do you have of 'Israelis' in Palestine during the 16th century BCE?Brian.

'Advanced' in the 16th century BCE?Archaeology doesn't show destruction at all the cities mentioned in the Bible, that's what the entire problem with the biblical account is. Well at least the Joshua 'conquest', of course the Book of Judges gives a different version. Really?What about Jerusalem (Josh 12:10), or the lack of evidence for any destruction at Hebron (12:10), or Jarmuth (12:11)only Late Bronze II - Early Iron I occupation, or the lack of any destruction level at Tirzah (12:24).Isn't Lachish (12:11)a problem? And occupation at Eglon (Josh 12:12)is ambiguous.Do you have a 16th c destruction level at Gezer (12:12),Debir (12:13),Arad (12:14),Bethel (12:16), Aphek (12:18),Achsaph (12:20), Taanach (12:21),Kedesh (12:22), Jokneam (12:22), or Dor (12:23)?Geder (12:13) has not been excavated, neither has Adullam (12:15), Tappuah (12:17),Hepher (12:17), so how do you deduce there's a destruction level thereHormah (12:14)is unidentified, as is Libnah (12:14),Makkedah (12:16), Lasharon (12:18), Madon (12:19), Shimron-meron (12:20), and Goiim (12:23). No, it isn't good evidence. Good evidence is cold hard artefacts, of which there is very little to support the Bible. Israel isn't mentioned in 1400 Palestine. The first non-biblical mention of Israel as a people is in the Merneptah Stele, although even that isn't certain. Evidence please? Dear God you have a lot to learn. If I wrote a letter now and mentioned that Robert the Bruce was King of Scotland in the 14th century does that mean my letter was written 600 years ago?Also, is there any non biblical sources that confirm Jabin as King of Hazor? It was a Canaanite city at the end of the 13th centuty BCE, so how does this fit with the 1550 date?Hazor was occupied after 1300 BCE. You haven't heard of oral traditions?Brian.

The point of my post was to highlight that "this Read any good archaeology dictionary on Palestine.All the cities are located and described as destroyed in 1550 BCE (except Ai, which could be a number of small sites aside from Et Tell)." statement is false.You claim that ALL cities are located and described as destroyed in 1550, but you have provided evidence that falsifies this statement.For example, you do not have a destruction level at Ai, even if it isn't at Et-tell (which is almost certainly is)you still don't have an alternate site, so your claim is blatantly wrong. But the towns that you have found do not provide an end to the local material culture.You have also went from ALL cities showing evidence of destruction to just two, and even those are ambiguous. This is a common 'apologetic' for the lack of evidence to support the conquest, and it is an invalid excuse.The Book of Joshua claims that the Israelites killed all the inhabitants of many cities, so we should expect to find a gap in the material culture of these cities, a gap we do not have. You do not have a 1550 destruction of Ai, you keep saying this despite knowing there is no evidence of a settlement at Ai, be it Et- tell or anywhere else. And the evidence to support this is what exactly? What happened to the 600 000 men of fighting age that left Egypt, they would be more than a match for any army. How could this happen if Joshua had killed all the local populations? The Biblical chronology places the conquest about 1400, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 suggests a 1446 Exodus. Which contradicts the Joshua account. At that time Joshua turned back and captured Hazor and put its king to the sword. (Hazor had been the head of all these kingdoms.) Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself. How could Hazor survive if eveyone in it had been put toi the sword and the town razed to the ground?I think it would be easier to focus on one or two towns at a time, posting reams isnt ideal.Brian.Edited by Brian, : formatting errors

What was Callaway doing at Et-tell then?Ah, so if one site shows abandonment at the end of MBA that HAS to be Ai?Brian.