Well, I'm pretty much done with this thread. I'm confident that I did my part.
Thank you for your input Lysimachus, it was invaluable.
No matter how astounding these discoveries may be, it isn't going to convince a skeptic who is so set against it.
What you have to remember is that we don’t all view the same material in exactly the same way. A basic factor of archaeology, as you will find out if you go on to study it, is that many archaeologists can look at the same material and come up with completely different interpretations. I personally cannot get excited about these ‘finds’, or indeed the complete hypothesis. One reason why is that the hypothesis is essentially using arguments that, at various times throughout the last century, actually looked like good arguments for a period of time.
One of the arguments that got my alarm bells ringing was the claim you told us about where the video says that the Amarna Letters were one of the greatest proofs for the Israelites in Canaan. This argument did look very strong for a short time, but no-one has used this argument for about 70 years, this shows the level of research Moller has done. The most outstanding factor of this whole thing is that anyone takes it seriously.
..even though they are unwilling to admit that the beliefs of which they rely on are much less as far as evidence is concerned.
My beliefs have nothing to do with mainstream historical and archaeological methodologies. This hypothesis is not a mess because of my beliefs, it is a mess because Moller hasn’t done his homework and it only looks good to people who are unfamiliar with the topic.
When it comes to archeology, concrete evidence does not exist, and no matter what topic of archeology it may be, you will ALWAYS find one who will disagree.
Archaeology doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, what it is excellent at doing though is to disprove a hypothesis. In regard to ancient near eastern history, all artefacts are mute and are always interpreted by using texts that the archaeologist believes relates to the find, this is why ‘biblical archaeology’ is dead, it died in the 1970’s with the rise of ‘New Archaeology’. New archaeology forced the ‘Bible archaeologists’ to re-evaluate their methodologies, no longer could they simply claim that such and such a find supported the biblical texts. They had to now evaluate the artefact on its own merits rather than simply applying it to the Bible. If you look at all the great biblical archaeologists, William Albright, Nelson Glueck et al, you will find that they all abandoned bible inerrancy, they all had to reinterpret the biblical narratives as the archaeological evidence does not support them. Even Glueck who is quoted all over the Net by Christian websites as saying no archaeological discovery has contradicted the bible had to reinterpret the Bible to fit the artefacts. Textual criticism, archaeology, and history have all proven that the biblical account of the Exodus and related events did not happen as the Bible claims.
They may have happened in some other way, but forget the Bible as a history book, it is a book of faith, don’t make it into something it wasn’t written for.
One example is Creation Vs. Evolution, what this very forum is about. The subject in itself is an unending debate. It swings back and forth back and forth...and one day it looks like the evolutionists are in the hole, the other day it looks like the crationists are in the hole.
Don’t confuse the two disciplines, the Bible hasn’t been taken at face value by biblical archaeologists for over one hundred years, they always reinterpret the text to fit the find because it doesn’t work unless they do this.
So to me, to say "you must provide concrete evidence" is totally unfair.
We are asking for the evidence that you base your conclusions on, I say that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II are father and son, I provided contemporary inscriptions to support that, tell me exactly what have you provided to support your claim that they are the same person, because as far as I can see all we have been given is Moller’s opinion.
What I am providing however are archeological discoveries to "reconsider" the Biblical account from an objective approach, and admit that there may be more historical accuracy associated with it than you think.
But 90% of what you have posted has been dead for decades.
The ‘Apiru are not the Hebrews.
The ‘Apiru didn’t invade Canaan
The Amarna Letters do not tell of an invasion.
Tell el-Dab’a does have Egyptian remains.
The pharaohs are different people.
Thutmosis and Amenhotep are personal names not titles.
The 1446 date is impossible when viewed against the archaeological evidence.
The Gulf of Aqabah is too far away to be the crossing.
The ‘Hebrew house’ argument is unsupported.
I don’t know where to stop, all these arguments are not taken seriously by any archaeologist today, this is why Moller isn’t taken seriously, the real archaeologists have better things to do then wate their time on something that has been flogged to death throughout the 20th century.
For me, the chariot wheels are a masterpiece discovery. Critics fail time and time again to find a genuine explanation for their apperance.
Including you and Moller. Mollers explanation is a fantasy, his background subject matter is so amateur that no one will take it seriously. Since his knowledge of ancient near eastern history and archaeology is so poor, if a scholar were to read the ‘scene setting’ , the background information he uses to support his hypothesis, they would put it in the bin after the first page.
One day you will here "oh...Ron Wyatt planted them!"...another day you'll here..."no...you see...there were cargo ships in the area that dumped things overboard"....another day you'll here..."those are bicycle wheels!"...and yet another day, you'll here..."oh...those were Assyrian chariot wheels" (but no explanation how they got randomly scattered in a straight line across from west to east.
Well since no one has seen the 8 spoke wheel and it has suddenly disappeared (rather careless), do you blame them?
If you guys only knew how silly you sound trying to scrounge around and find loop holes.
Lysimachus, there’s only two people sounding silly here, and that is the two who don’t know how to support an argument, who don’t know what a critical approach to a subject actually means. The silly people are the ones who do not look into the background material first before claiming these silly things.
I know this may sound harsh, but I have to be honest. When God appears in the clouds of glory, people like you will be the first to wail and say "I knew it all along, I just didn't want to accept". What I'm trying to do here is prevent that from happening, but unfortunately, I've run out of breath. I will leave you to your decision.
I have to be harsh as well. You have to keep your fairytales out of historical research, they do not belong there. If you want to keep using God as a reason for anything then study theology or philosophy, I can guarantee you if you use God as an interacting agent for any hypothesis if you ever study history or archaeology at a academic level, then your tutor will fail you. God’s alleged interaction is outside the realms of historical research, we cannot examine God to see how he done things, we cannot analyse Him, miracles do not belong in history or archaeology departments.
Anyway, onto you and Buz’s continued cognitive dissonance.
I testify to what Buz has said. He clearly referenced your argument.
The explanation you give however shows that you really didn’t understand the post, or didn’t read it, or it went over your head.
There is nothing "in-depth" or mysterious to discuss here. Yum Suph was a name used for the entire Red Sea, including the main body, Gulf of Suez, and Gulf of Aqaba.
Yes there is nothing in-depth, the Red Sea cannot be the sea of the exodus, plain and simple. It has no reeds, it doesn’t fit in with the itinerary of Numbers 33, and it is far too far away from Egypt to be the sea of the Exodus.
Moller even quotes from Kings and shows that the word in Hebrew for the Gulf of Aqaba translates as "yum suph".
Yes, I have referenced this and given a full explanation. I explained every reference of Yam Suph in the post you were supposed to have read. That yam suph means Red Sea is not in dispute, but it has to be read in context. The Sea of reeds suggests that there were many reeds in the sea in question, the Red Sea (modern day) contains no reeds whatsoever.
Period. Nuff said.
I agree, nuff said. Moller’s almost total ignorance of everything involved in the origins of ancient Israel debate is only reinforced by this further piece of erroneous research.
For the Red Sea to have happened at Suez is beyond reason and human comprehension.
Agreed, that’s why no one is saying it happened there. If you had read the post surely you would have read that the yam suph is believed to be inside Egypt, who in my post suggested that it was at the Gulf of Suez?
It would have been insane, does not fit the biblical criteria, nor does it fit the biblical geography,
Neither does the Gulf of Aqabah for that matter. But, somewhere near the Bitter lakes, lake Sirbonius makes perfect sense.
nor does the bottom of these waters fit any possible crossing terrain (swampy and marshy),
You mean God couldn’t have dried up the swampy and marshy sea bed?
nor does it even make sense seeing that Pharaoh's army could have just gone around the Suez northern lakes,
No one is saying that they did. The Bible EXPLICITLY states that the sea crossing was at least three days before the Israelites arrived at the Red Sea. The Exodus group turned back before they left Egypt.
NOR does it make sense because Goshen (nile Delta--richest, most firtile land of the country) was up in the North. The Israelites would have had to go WAY south into Egyptian territory and then turn east toward the east coast of Suez. That makes no sense at all. Why not just cross on dry land straight into the Sinai Peninsula?
Well you have basically disproven Moller’s Gulf of Aqabah crossing. You are right, it doesn’t make sense and it is insane. If you look at a map you will see that the Gulf of Aqabah hypothesis is even more insane. Look at your reasons for rejecting the Gulf of Suez.
1.
It doesn’t make sense because Goshen was up in the North.
The Gulf of Aqabah is much farther south than Suez, and about 80 miles farther east!
2.
The Israelites would have had to go WAY south into Egyptian territory and then turn east toward the east coast of Suez.
The east coast of Suez would be the side that they arrived at after the crossing, not before. But the Bible doesn’t claim they crossed the Gulf of Suez and neither does any scholar that I know of. Have you actually looked at a map and compared the position of Aqabah and Suez, there are far more problems having a crossing at Aqabah I can assure you.
3.
Why not just cross on dry land straight into the Sinai Peninsula.
The same can be said for the Aqabah crossing, it isn’t that far from the northern tip! But if you read your Bible you will find out why they have to cross a sea, Yahweh tells us why.
So, when you state that a crossing the Gulf of Suez (which no one is claiming) makes no sense at all because it is too far south and they have to turn to the east, then you surely have to say that the Gulf of Aqabah is even more insane as it is farther south and father east. Will you accept your own criteria for eliminating Suez and apply it to Aqabah, bet your last dollar you wont, there will be some excuse for ignoring YOUR criteria.
Common Sense + the Archeological remains leave little mystery to this grand puzzle.
There really isn’t a puzzle anymore, the Exodus is a dead issue.
It has been solved, and critics worldly scholars will continue to deny it time and time again.
It was solved a long time ago, it didn’t happen, and you haven’t produced anything to make anyone alter their views. In fact, this hypothesis has only strengthened my stance, when two amateurs (sorry Paul if you aren’t) can rip this hypothesis to shreds, expose such a poorly constructed claim,what do you think the professionals would do? Why do you think people like Kenneth Kitchen or anyone of hundreds of Christian archaeologists are blanking this nonsense?
We have a saying in Scotland that sums up Moller’s hypothesis very well ‘
It looks like a dug’s dinner’. Translating it shouldn’t be a problem.
Brian.
This message has been edited by Brian, 07-07-2004 09:44 AM
™ Version 4.2