Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

What science are you talking about?Also, my view of history is perfectly in line with mainstream academic history. But I dont reject everything, where do you get that idea from? There really is no end to your ignorance. Of course Jerusalem is a Hebrew name since it appears in the Hebrew Bible, but Jerusalem is not the original name of the city. What do you think the Urusalim of Abdi-Heba is in the Amarna Letters? a soveriegn nation in Jerusalem? Not much of a nation.You keep avoiding my questions, and all it is doing is demonstrating that you do not know what archaeology or history is. You should maybe take a course or two and come back when you have some idea. Did I deny this? This is just ridiculous. Do you think there is no debate about these things between scholars literally as we speak?I posted references, probably from scholars you havent even heard of, and you still keep denying the facts. AsI keep telling you, it is precisely these 1000s of artefacts ('relics' really is a very poor choice of word) that show up the problems with the Hebrew Bible's accounts of the past. As I aske dyou very politely, why not tell me where I am going wrong? In my explanation about archaeology and the Merneptah Stele what exactly is it I have presented that is incorrect? Instead of just bluster, why not actually point it out and tell me where I am going wrong? What science are you on about, I don't recall posting any scientific evidence.So, some example of my errors would be appreciated, it would help to prevent me making similar errors in the future.Brian

quote:

---

Of course Jerusalem is a Hebrew name since it appears in the Hebrew Bible, but Jerusalem is not the original name of the city. What do you think the Urusalim of Abdi-Heba is in the Amarna Letters?

---

This is denial. The point of another name being applicable before David is irrelevent. All places have previous names, but this does not negate the established history of Jerusalem by that name. Your negation and deflection from the issue is unwarranted.

quote:

---

There was a sovereign nation here till 70 CE.

​

a soveriegn nation in Jerusalem? Not much of a nation.

---

Jerusalem was the capital of a sovereign nation called Judea. Yours is a denial of history.

quote:

---

There are no second thoughts about the discoveries of steles

​

This is just ridiculous. Do you think there is no debate about these things between scholars literally as we speak?

​

I posted references, probably from scholars you havent even heard of, and you still keep denying the facts.

---

There is dispute about the moon manned landing and 9/11 too!

quote:

---

The Stele says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the religious practices of Israel, nothing about where this Israel came from, and nothing about later Israel.

---

Why should it - they were at war, not in appraising of each other's history. Nor did egypt give decriptions of religions of others.

quote:

---

what Lewis Binford calls 'inference justification'. Now if we take the Israel of the Stele to be our Israel, then you have to provide justification from other evidence to support your interpretation.

---

There is a other evidence. The stele is only important because it connects with a written document, which is in turn backed by a thread of continueing writings and discoveries. It does not get any better than this even for much more recent periods - unless you found an equivalence of this elsewhere? In any case, if more evidence is found, which will no doubt happen, you will demand more and find other reasons to reject it. We don't even know the dates surrounding the factors in the NT or the Quran - which is 2000 years later!

quote:

---

Now if someone wishes to place the Biblical Israel in Palestine at the end of the 13th century BCE then, for me, they need to provide some evidence of something uniquely Israelite in the archaeological record. Unfortunately, IMO, no one has provided any evidence of israelite material culture in Palestine during the 13th century BCE, so this weakens the argument.

---

Such discrepencies are common in such ancient periods, and are outside the main trust of the evidence. The correct datings of the stele or some other factor may be imperfect - it is not a kill factor, and that is why these finds are accepted by the majority of archeologists. The OT is the most scrutinised document, and also the target by most rejectors of religions, and compounded by other competing religions with a contradictory doctrine. But it remains one of the very few ancient writings with widespread evidence. Because the writings are so volumous, covering many periods and lands, subject to wars, invasions and lootings - there are more potential issues here - but its main trust is vindicated.

quote:

---

If we apply the claim that the Israel of the Stele is our Biblical Israel, then as far as the Biblical texts go, at face value, it causes huge problems with the accuracy of the claims made in the Bible.

---

It does not. There is more historical perectption by this generation about canaan, than by egypt at this time. Think why.

quote:

---

Some examples are, the Bible claims that the Exodus was in 1446 BCE, this is during Thutmosis III's reign where Palestine was a province of Egypt, it makes Pithom and Rameses anachronistic, and it falsifies the Biblical Conquest of Canaan which claims that forty years after the Exodus the Israelites began a military campaign that conquered the whole of Palestine in 5 years.

---

The names pithom and rameses is first recorded in the OT, as our some 25 ancient egyptian names. The dates are not in dispute, but its exactness variable and still deliberated - this is an evidence of authenticity in itself, because of a host of impacting factors also in dispute, but relating to the same vicinity of history. Here is an example of the intense deliberations about the pharoah when the hebrews were exiled there, no where more argued than in Israel:Tel Dor
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/index6.htm

Iam, i asked you before why egyptians would refuse to record (or erase) the events with israel and you said "Maybe because Israel represents a failure for the Pharoahs?". My question is - now I know that they did record failures - why would israel be any different together with other?

This is becoming tedious. So let's take it a step at a time and perhaps you can see where you are going wrong, and why people in the science threads are experiencing the same problems with you that I am.Now, I write that: " Now if we take the Israel of the Stele to be our Israel, then you have to provide justification from other evidence to support your interpretation.Then you reply with "There is a other evidence. That's it, That is your entire rebuttal!What I would like to see is some of this 'other evidence' that you are on about.So, what is this 'other evidence' that you have?Once you provide this we can move onto the next point.Brian.

you failed to answer my question. there is no difference, it's the same grammatical structure: {event y} before {event x}. it's not a difficult point -- something has to happen before it's written about as a past event.let me make this even more simple, using a famous example. if you found a coin with a date marked on it, and the date was "4 BC" what would you think of it? uh, no. yes, it refers to a nation. did i question that? i don't believe i did. and it doesn't say "there were no kings in israel." it says "before any king ruled israel."shall i diagram the sentance for you? let's throw out the word you're getting hung up on, "before." see that basic subject of the clause? "king." the verb -- "ruled." direct object? "israel." king rule israel.the author wrote with knowledge of kings in israel. and wrote about it in the equivalent of past tense. because, to him, it was common knowledge that israel had kings. it was to his audience too. this is not phrased as prophecy (and even saying such would be a misunderstanding of what prophecy even is). this is phrased as an off-hand, casual remark.this is not a contrived reading. this is reading they used to teach it in schools. let me stop you right in the middle here. you're still making the same mistake. "before." "before" there were kings in israel. the author has knowledge of kings in israel. ok, look. if you don't believe the above is anachronism, how about we talk about this simple point that you seem to rather pointlessly be going off on: the "nation" of israel.at genesis 36, where we find this verse, jacob's (israel's) house is himself, his two wives, his two wives' servants, dinah, and his 12 sons. that's a grand total of 17 people. now, if we want to argue for a simultaneous timeline (as the edomite kings are basically esau's grandchildren) we should count jacob's grandchildren too. that number (and detailed list) is given ten chapters later, in genesis 46, as 70. this at the point that the hebrews go into captivity in egypt.now, i wouldn't call 70 people "a nation" let alone 17. in fact, we don't even have a nation of israel until after the book of judges. so if the author is indeed refering to a nation -- it's yet another anachronism from author who did live in a nation. and this is not "i will make a great nation from you, abraham." yeah, no, try again. at this point in time, israel had none of that -- israel had 12 sons, a daughter, and four women. not the sort of group that needs a king, and they did, they had israel himself. it's a large family, yes, but still a small patriarchy.now, the people reading the book might wonder why edom had kings before they did. again, "did" past tense.

---

what? no!failing marks for you. i'm not convinced you've ever even read the book -- first this bit about the single most common idiomatic way to refer to the nation of israel not being repeated (it is some 500 times or more! you can't read a section of the torah of any length without seeing it!)and now this? no, jacob was born. he just wasn't dead yet. this is contemporary to jacob. and jacob's new name "israel" isn't given in exodus, it's given in genesis, only four chapters before this point. and this too! saul was the first king of israel. he was rejected, and david took his place. david was the "great king" but saul came first.

---

jerusalem existed before king david! jerusalem was first conquered by joshua. but jerusalem existed even before joshua. or moses. or even israel the person.it goes back to at least genesis 14 -- contemporary to abraham. have you even read genesis? or joshua? or samuel? what a strange question. lots of people, lots of places, over at least 200 years, maybe more like 500-700 years.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

i agree, that is suspicious indeed. how does a city that existed at the same time as the very first person called "hebrew" acquire a name in the language his decendents would speak?this means that either the entire joshua story (which you apparently haven't read) is a fabrication, or that they are using the name anachronistically. ie: it wasn't called "jerusalem" then, but something else in some other language, and they gave it a new name -- but refer to it in their stories by the modern name.this would be like saying "nebuchadnezzar built a ziggurat in ur, which is in iraq." the city of ur is indeed in iraq today, but it wasn't when the ziggurat was built.so take your pick -- made up stories, or anachronisms. also no true -- they were absolutely NOT sovereign under roman occupation. they were allowed a lot of freedom to do as they pleased, even having their own king -- but because the king answered to ceaser, they were not sovereign. there was a war between israel and itself years before that, resulting in two countries. israel was destroyed by assyria. assyrian and judah were occupied by babylon. the war didn't last a single year, it lasted the reign of the last three kings of judah. it ended in about 586 bc.

---

quote:

---

first this bit about the single most common idiomatic way to refer to the nation of israel not being repeated (it is some 500 times or more! you can't read a section of the torah of any length without seeing it!)

---

This factor was never related to the issue; that Israel was called a nation was. It is also true that Israel status became a nation officially, regardless of the terms children of jacob being repeated.

quote:

---

and now this? no, jacob was born. he just wasn't dead yet. this is contemporary to jacob. and jacob's new name "israel" isn't given in exodus, it's given in genesis, only four chapters before this point.

---

You are wrong. The passage is narrated retrospcetively by Moses, as is Adam's story. The OT is not texted chronologically but contectually - and this is the correct way.

quote:

---

and this too! saul was the first king of israel. he was rejected, and david took his place. david was the "great king" but saul came first.

---

It does not apply. Only that Israel had no kings when the OT was written and contexted, during the life of Moses, applies.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

i agree, that is suspicious indeed. how does a city that existed at the same time as the very first person called "hebrew" acquire a name in the language his decendents would speak?

---

The name Jerusalem, which appears over 500 times in the OT, was established by Abraham, by connecting two Hebrew words. It was established as the Capital by David. It never existed before - with that name.

quote:

---

this means that either the entire joshua story (which you apparently haven't read) is a fabrication.

---

Its not a fabrication. It is followed by real history: this became a sovereign nation 200 years later under king David. The war of deborah and the battles of Samson occured in the Judges period - less than 100 years after Joshua.

quote:

---

also no true -- they were absolutely NOT sovereign under roman occupation.
There was a war with babylon in 586 BCE.

---

It was sovereign till the Roman invasion, which accounts for a 1000 years. The babylon invasion represented a 70 year absence only. Lets hope your science is not vested on similar assumptions!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

you failed to answer my question. there is no difference, it's the same grammatical structure: {event y} before {event x}. it's not a difficult point -- something has to happen before it's written about as a past event.

---

I won't waste any more time on grammar here. My position is the OT grammar is correct and the highest example of it than anyplace else. I suspect you guys are clinging to desparate improvised straws which have no credibility.

israel is not a nation at this point in time. israel is a person at this point in time. it is an anachronism. i am wrong about what? i pointed out that you were mistaken about matter that anyone can freely look up and confirm. would have preferred verse numbers? i'll go find them if you want. from memory the name israel is given in chapter 32 of genesis. we are talking about a verse in chapter 36. genesis 32 ≠ exodus. well, no, it's not. and that is exactly what this verse proves. it's told retrospectively, yes -- i'm glad you acknowledge this basic point of common sense. some people seem to think adam was writing down the events of his life as they were happening.but the verse could not have been written by moses, who had no knowledge of israel having kings. the verse could only have been written by a person who lived after king saul. uh, no, that's exactly the opposite of what this verse proves. they wrote about having kings -- so it was written after they had kings. get it?and your point is still demonstrating great unfamiliarity with the OT. you probably meant "torah" but the OT was certain written and compiled after israel and judah had kings. heck, there's a book called "kings" that is so long it won't fit on a single scroll.

---

your point isn't even internally consistent with itself.but let's look at an example. david set up jerusalem, conquered for the second time, as the capital of israel (and then judah when "israel" split off). but let's look at the first (somewhat unsuccessful) invasion:

quote:

---

Jos 15:63 As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.

---

"jerusalem." if it never existed before, by that name, why is called by that in joshua? if it was only called "jerusalem" after david, when must this verse have been written? what about this one:

quote:

---

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

---

not the same place? not the same god?

quote:

---

Psa 76:2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.

---

think again. salem = zion, the holy mountain of the most high god, yahweh. what is jerusalem, named during david's time, doing in genesis. when must this verse have been written? you apparently don't read MY comments either. you said they were sovereign until 70CE. i said "they weren't when they were under roman rule." roman rule extends at least until or past 70CE (i'm not terribly familiar with the history of palestine past the first century). they were under roman rule when christ was born. they were under roman rule in 70CE when they rebelled, and the romans burnt down the second temple. your statement is is just flat out wrong. they were NOT soverign until 70CE.these are not assumptions. this is history. get a book.better yet, read the bible, which contains a lot of this stuff. had you read the gospels, where christ is handed off to roman officials, and executed on a roman tortured device at the command of a roman prelate, pontious pilate, you might have known this.

---

apparently, we're the ones wasting our time. you, on the other hand, could use a lesson or two on grammar, and basic reading comprehension. i could point out a few places the grammar is not the best. want one? i've got a thread on the very first of the bible brought on largely by discussion with you. i'll warn you, however, the discussion is 95% grammar, and 100% of that so far is in hebrewyou have no qualification to make any comment about the grammar of the bible when you cannot understand the grammar in translation, let alone having the ability to read any of the original. you suspect. come back when you have a little more knowledge of the language of the bible, or at least have learned to read english. because until then, all you have is suspicion. not knowledge, not an argument, and certainly not credibility.

---