Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 106 of 142 (407380)
06-26-2007 12:24 AM


Where is the archaeological evidence?
If all these Hyksos were expelled from Egypt around the end of the Middle Bronze Age or early Late Bronze Age then where is evidence of their appearance in Palestine?
Actually the Palestinian population declined by about that much, not increased?
Avaris was occupied by a primarily urban population.Manfred Bietak said that one could not exclude minor nomadic element in the city and especially outside it, but these were mostly urbanites.
Where is the archaeological evidence of such an intrusion into Palestine of city-dwellers?
James Weinstein (a minimalist) said this as a possible explanation for the Exodus narrative
...is to be found in the abandonment of the Asiatic occupations at the eastern delta sites such as Tell el-Maskhuta and possibly Tell el-Yahudiyah.Those occupations, which seem to have been less Egyptianized than urban Avaris, saw a decline or abandonment about 1600 B.C. or shortly thereafter.......Perhaps the inhabitants of some of these sites... pastoralists and agriculturalists ... may have wandered back to Palestine, to merge with similar groups living on the fringes of urban Canaan.
Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence
p96-97
Tell el-Maskhuta has been proposed by many (even minimalists) as a strong candidate for Pithom.
Weinstein made the point that this abandonment in the eastern delta was before the termination of Jericho in other writings.
Avaris was captured in 1521 BE.
There doesnt seem to be 100% clear knowledge of exactly where the Hyksos people went (I would assume they dispersed throughout Egypt in other cities) after 1521BCE.
Donald Redford
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times
p 129
....when Avaris finally capitulated, it too was burned and abandoned 11 The remnants of the Hyksos regime--what happened to Khamudy and the royal family is uncertain--fled across the Sinai and holed up in Sharuhen on the seacoast south of Gaza.Presumably the majority of the Asiatic community in the eastern Delta retired eastward also, if they had not already done so.
...
11 see M Bietak, Avaris and Pi-Rameses .... Other sites, such as Tell el-Yehudiyeh and Tell el-Maskhuta were presumably also abandoned about this time..
Redford seems to assume that the lack of written records showing many Asiatic slaves in the early 18th dynasty Egypt proves that the population didnt remain.
I just cant see any evidence of a drastic change in material culture in Palestine in the early Late Bronze Age (1550-1500), so I exclude an intrusion of 100,000 urbanites.
Perhaps the Semitic pastoralists populations that vanished around 1600 (or later) in Pithom (and perhaps some from around the region near Avaria which is close to Rameses) and other towns entered Palestine though the population of pastoralists& nomads is tough to measure archaeologically.Both in Egypt where they left and palestine where perhaps they entered.
Perhaps the most visible archaeological evidence is the clearing of Pithom since the pastoralist population seems to pre-dominate.But in more urban towns, the exodus of pastoralists wouldnt leave much of a dent in the visible archaeological record.
As for the urban people living in Avaris,my assumption it that the Asiatic people were largely Egyptian in many cultural ways and intermixed well.
Donald Redford then mentions the devestation in Palestine at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (dated typically to end around 1550BCE), and that there isnt any written evidence to support a view among many archaeologists "....amounting almost to an unquestioned tenent of faith, that it was the Egyptian armies of Ahmose that effected this devestation".
Redford adds
ibid. p 138-139
The Egyptians of Ahmose's time were notoriously inept when it came to laying siege to, or assulting, a fortified city:Avaris defied their attempts for more than one generation, and Sharuhen for three years.Even sixtyyears later under Thutmose III the medium-sized fortress of Megiddo held out for seven months.Morever, there is virtually a total absence of that type of significant evidence that would point to large-scale operations and an extended presence of Egyptians in palestine under Ahmose:there are no names of governors, no Egyptians in Palestine under Ahmose: there are no names of resident governors, no Egyptian artifacts found in excavations, no extensive deportation of Asatics who later turn up in Egypt.
...
But if the Egyptians did not do it, who infact is responsible? First , it ought to be noted that the facile assumption that the end of the MB IIC co-incides with the expulsion of the Hyksos should not be allowed to effect the argument at all.One might, with equal justification, argue for a date before Ahmose ascended the throne...
Redford mentioned that the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine could have been as late as the campaigns of Thutmose III in 1457BC.
Redford mentions many destryoed towns in Palestine and also says "Transjordan was sparsely populated in MBIIB-C, but even the few sites for the most part terminate at the close of IIC".
The Egyptian empire of Thutmose III never destroyed towns. William Shea and Kenneth Kitchen have made that point strongly and convincingly.
Redford called the lack of evidence "maddening"
ibid
p138
This gap in our written sources is doubly maddening in view of the upheaval attested in the archaeological record.
Though Redford (a minimalist) didnt hold the view at the time of this book writing in the early 1990, some internet sources indicate that he has indicated a view that the Hyksos as proto-Israelites destroyed many sites in around 1500BCE and that Moses lived around the later 16th century.
(more coming)
But as to other mainstream archaeological views ......
Anchor Bible Dictionary
Hyksos
James Weinstein
340-348
F. End Of the Hyksos Period
......Ahmose besieged and plundered Avaris ...... the area was largely abandoned until the end of the 18th Dynasty....
Son of Abana text reports that, after the taking of Avaris, Ahmose besieged and plundered Sharuhen....Many other towns in S Palestine were destroyed and/or abandoned at the end of MB III or early in LB1.Dever(1985) , Weinstein(1981; fc.), and the majority of palestinian archaeologists attribute most or all of the devestation to the Egyptian army, while Redford (1973; 1979a 1979b: 278, 286, n 146: 1982: 117), Shea (1979) , and Hoffmeier (1989) deny that the Egyptians were directly responsible for these events
Bietak later(1992 Anchor publication quoted above) joined the Ahmose-skeptics and attributes the Middle Bronze Age Palestinian destructions to 1457 campaigns of Thutmose III.
George Ernest Wright fiercely rejects the Ahmose skeptics
The Bible And The Ancient Near East
Essays in honor of William Foxwell Albright
ed George Ernest Wright
1962
p.106 MIDDLE BONZE II.....
...
p 110
.....has been proved.The period ends during the 16th century when the Egyptian reconqust of the country apparantly destroyed every major city.As will be observed from the line drawn for ca. 1550 B.C. in Chart 6, the initial Egyptian reconquest was rapid, and the destruction of "Hyksos" cities in Palestine was not a gradual process scattered over a century.
Well, if Wright shows a chart then thats good enough for most people! Heaven forbid we disagree with the honor of Albright.The conclusions of Albright, Campbell, Bright, Wright, and Dever must carry the day.
Dont disagree!
As for the more competent (at times) Weinstein
Even he admites that the evidence is shoddy for an Ahmose Conquest
(Urk. IV:4 , 14-15, ANET: 233)
The only specific mention of a Palestinian town in any text of this reign occurs in the autobiography of one of Ahmose's naval officers, Ahmose Son of Abana: "Then Sharuhen was besieged for three years. Then his majesty despoiled it."
....
There is only minimal evidence for Egyptian military activity in Palestine proper after the reign of Ahmose; until the reign of Hatshepsut, most of the Egyptian campaigns seem to have been directed towards Syria
So much for evidence of military activity beyond Sharuhen.Hans Goedicke made the point that the priority of Ahmose would have been to re-establish control over Nubia.(The End Of The Hyksos in Egypt p37-47 in book title Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A Parker)
Donald Redford has made it clear that the Egyptians were simply too weak to lay seige to large cities after fighting the Hyksos.
Weinstein has tryed to make a point that there were large amounts of Hyksos scarabs in sites destroyed and thus it would indicate a justified Egyptian conquest of the natue that would be required to justify the terminal Middle Bronze Age destructions c1550.
Piotr Bienkowski made a point in refutation of Weinstein
Bienkowski
Jericho In The Bronze Age
..of the 17 sites he lists as definitely destroyed at the end of the MBA, only 4 yielded Hyksos scarabs
That is a devestating responce.The Hyksos CLEARLY didnt control those sites, and even the ones with scarabs only indicate trade-relations of some sort.
Anyway, there is some question as to when the MBA ended, but most would place the Hyksos "expulsion" back to Palestine near the start of the Late Bronze Age just after (or right during) the MBA termination.
Where is the hugh population increase and material culture change that an urban population numbering in the 100,000 range would clearly demonstrate?
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by John Williams, posted 07-04-2007 12:34 AM Nimrod has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 107 of 142 (408505)
07-03-2007 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
05-25-2005 8:51 AM


quote:
brian
MULTIPLIED AND GREW EXCEEDINGLY MIGHTY, AND THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH THEM.
Yes, we are all familiar with the Exodus myths. So, if the land was filled with them then why is no one posting any direct evidence of them in the other thread?
The use of the term myth has lost all credibility. Why would you call a stat which is devoid of any motive as 'myth'? There is nothing remarkable in a tribal community of 70 becoming 3 million in 4 centuries, nor is there any reason to falsify these numbers. The 3 million is still a small figure for a nation. What you have overlooked here is we have credible narratives throughout, describing a background, and what is the world's first bona fide cencus on record, with genda and age breakdowns, names of tribal heads and many other figures. This makes it very credible and the very antithesis of a myth.
You have also selectively disregarded the listing of ancient egypt's diets and cultures - given for the first time - and is authentic and contemporaous; two cities mentioned as built by the hebrews, actual names of pharoahs and their families and preists; and that egypt's wealth was measured by her slaves: is that all myth too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 05-25-2005 8:51 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 9:26 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2007 9:06 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 116 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2007 9:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 108 of 142 (408506)
07-03-2007 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by John Williams
04-21-2007 6:26 PM


Re: Exodus Myth
quote:
JW
New Kingdom Egypt, over 3,000 years ago, had an estimated population of between 3 and 4 million. Canaan at this time may have fluctuated around 100,000 to perhaps 300,000 during the early iron age.
More relevent is we have an egyptian 3200 year manuscript which boasts of a war with Israel and defeating her. It is, aside from verifying actual historicity, an indication that these two nations reached some parity.
The canaanites were vanquished when Israel was in Egypt. Weakened by a regional famine, the original non-hebrew canaanites were destroyed by invading tribes who assumed themselves as canaanites. Joshua confronted a people different from the canaanites who lived side by side with the Israelites previously - thus they phrase, 'WE WERE AS GRASSHOPPERS IN THEIR EYES' - meaning this was a different race from the original canaanites. This made the returning israelies the only surviving canaanites, and evidences the exaggerated guilt-factored hatred of the Pretend canaanites upon seeing the israelites return.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John Williams, posted 04-21-2007 6:26 PM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 7:31 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 114 by John Williams, posted 07-04-2007 12:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 109 of 142 (408512)
07-03-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 6:35 AM


IamJoseph.....How do you justify ...
...your stated belief tht the world was created around 5750BCE with the archaeological record.
Your dates would place the flood at around 2100 BCE and the Babel event around 2000 or even later.
You seem to hold to a Conquest date of around 1500 BCE.
So, in 500 years , all of world history and pre-history happened in time for the exodus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 6:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 9:16 AM Nimrod has not replied
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2007 9:23 AM Nimrod has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 110 of 142 (408521)
07-03-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Nimrod
07-03-2007 7:31 AM


Re: IamJoseph.....How do you justify ...
quote:
nimrod
your stated belief tht the world was created around 5750BCE with the archaeological record.
I never stated any belief the world was created 5750 BCE. This is a pervasive misconception upon the OT. It only applies to speech endowed humans.
quote:
Your dates would place the flood at around 2100 BCE and the Babel event around 2000 or even later.
You seem to hold to a Conquest date of around 1500 BCE.
So, in 500 years , all of world history and pre-history happened in time for the exodus?
I don't understand the Q

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 7:31 AM Nimrod has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 142 (408523)
07-03-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Nimrod
07-03-2007 7:31 AM


Re: IamJoseph.....How do you justify ...
No, he's made up his own interpretation of the Bible and his own ignorant pseudoscience to back it up.
You've gotta give him marks for effort.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 7:31 AM Nimrod has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 142 (408524)
07-03-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 6:21 AM


Would you like to post something that you can prove is true?
Only you've made up so much dumb stuff that you're losing credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 6:21 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4999 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 113 of 142 (408655)
07-04-2007 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Nimrod
06-26-2007 12:24 AM


Re: Where is the archaeological evidence?
Well, is there any archaeological evidence that Amenhotep II brought back 89,600 prisoners from Canaan to Egypt around 1420 BC? Certainly a number so large would have some hard evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Nimrod, posted 06-26-2007 12:24 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Nimrod, posted 07-06-2007 9:49 AM John Williams has replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4999 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 114 of 142 (408660)
07-04-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 6:35 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
Yes I am aware of the Merneptah stele.
As far as I know, the Canaanites were a culture who've always been intermingled with foreign peoples, Amorites, Hurrites, Hittites, who often settled in the land, not to mention their vassalage to Egypt for roughly four hundred years.
The reference to 'WE WERE AS GRASSHOPPERS IN THEIR EYES' is a allegorical comparison of size and strength. Infact, this is refering to a S. Canaanite tribe named Anaq, which likely corresponds to the "ly-Anaq" (people of Anaq) mentioned in the 19th century BC Egyptian Execration texts. The Bible account has them ruled by three leaders, Ahiman, Sheshi, and Tolmai. The Execration texts list three leaders of "ly Anaq", Akirum, Erum, and Abi-Yaminu. The names are certainly Canaanite, as Akirum is an early version of the name Hiram.
What this shows is that a Canaanite tribe called Anaq, was known to exist from as early as 1800 BC and as late as the invading Hebrews claim to have conquered them. This infact is a reverse of your statement that the Canaanites were effectively replaced by invaders. Certainly not all were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 6:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 9:52 AM John Williams has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 115 of 142 (408723)
07-04-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 6:21 AM


The use of the term myth has lost all credibility. Why would you call a stat which is devoid of any motive as 'myth'?
A myth:
quote:
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:
The Exodus is a myth by the definition here (American Heritage dictionary). The Exodus isn't a 'stat', but it contains 'stats'. Most myths do contain information pertaining to numbers or:
You have also selectively disregarded the listing of ancient egypt's diets and cultures - given for the first time - and is authentic and contemporaous; two cities mentioned as built by the hebrews, actual names of pharoahs and their families and preists; and that egypt's wealth was measured by her slaves: is that all myth too?
Indeed, myths do make reference to all of these things. See the mythology set out in Homer for more details. You seem to be sensitive about the word 'myth' because its informal usage has come to mean 'false or made-up story'. The term myth is still used to mean something quite different in academia, where it retains its 'credibility'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 6:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 10:11 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 116 of 142 (408724)
07-04-2007 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by IamJoseph
07-03-2007 6:21 AM


whoops, firefox crashed during posting.
Edited by Modulous, : double post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by IamJoseph, posted 07-03-2007 6:21 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 117 of 142 (408729)
07-04-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by John Williams
07-04-2007 12:58 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
quote:
JW
Well, is there any archaeological evidence that Amenhotep II brought back 89,600 prisoners from Canaan to Egypt around 1420 BC? Certainly a number so large would have some hard evidence.
How do you mean - 70 souls went down to egypt - some 3M went out with Moses: what's the 89,000 about?
quote:
Yes I am aware of the Merneptah stele.
As far as I know, the Canaanites were a culture who've always been intermingled with foreign peoples, Amorites, Hurrites, Hittites, who often settled in the land, not to mention their vassalage to Egypt for roughly four hundred years.
The stele is overiding and hard proof of a text's veracity - notwithstanding the myth chants so boldly displayed by obvious mythical comprehension stadards.
quote:
The reference to 'WE WERE AS GRASSHOPPERS IN THEIR EYES' is a allegorical comparison of size and strength. Infact, this is refering to a S. Canaanite tribe named Anaq, which likely corresponds to the "ly-Anaq" (people of Anaq) mentioned in the 19th century BC Egyptian Execration texts. The Bible account has them ruled by three leaders, Ahiman, Sheshi, and Tolmai. The Execration texts list three leaders of "ly Anaq", Akirum, Erum, and Abi-Yaminu. The names are certainly Canaanite, as Akirum is an early version of the name Hiram.
Yes, the anachim were giants - very unlike the original canaanites Israel lived with before Egypt. These canaanites confronted by Joshua spoke no hebrew: an anomoly, placing Hebrew in a mysterious origin category. Not a single Hebrew scroll (or any alphabetical books) was ever found in canaan or phoenecia - even for a 1000 years after israel emerged. My thesis is that canaanite and phoenecia were not the prototypes for hebrew as given in all those google sites: I think its the other way around.
quote:
What this shows is that a Canaanite tribe called Anaq, was known to exist from as early as 1800 BC and as late as the invading Hebrews claim to have conquered them. This infact is a reverse of your statement that the Canaanites were effectively replaced by invaders. Certainly not all were.
Og was from the anachim tribe, and a foreigner in canaan - he lived with Abraham, and is said to be the only survivor of the flood: he clung to the boat and survived. The canaanites Israel knew and lived with were close - they even inter-married. Contrastingly, the exaggerated hate of the new canaanites evoke a guilt factor, as with seeing the witness of a murder return. The original Canaanites knew and respected Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not have denied Israel a return to their own motherland. There is a clear mirror image of this episode in today's history with the Pretend Pals, where israel's entire history is deemed a zionist myth, displayed with the Pretend canaanite exaggerated angst of 'come, curse me israel' (Numbers). Israel existing is an affront to many it seems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by John Williams, posted 07-04-2007 12:58 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 07-04-2007 10:01 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 126 by John Williams, posted 07-06-2007 12:31 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 142 (408730)
07-04-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
Og was from the anachim tribe, and a foreigner in canaan - he lived with Abraham, and is said to be the only survivor of the flood: he clung to the boat and survived.
My troll alarm suddenly went off.

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 9:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 10:22 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 119 of 142 (408732)
07-04-2007 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Modulous
07-04-2007 9:06 AM


quote:
modulous
Indeed, myths do make reference to all of these things. See the mythology set out in Homer for more details. You seem to be sensitive about the word 'myth' because its informal usage has come to mean 'false or made-up story'. The term myth is still used to mean something quite different in academia, where it retains its 'credibility'.
So what your saying is, yes - the Israelites did dwell with ancient egypt in the date described - but certain factors are exaggerated or mythical? If so, this issue cannot be adequately dealt with unless a coherent reason is given how the Israelites were able to record the names of generations stemming 2000 years of the past of the egypt dating? Bear in mind that all the names, places, dod's and dob's of the genrations of Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Esau - are athentic and a scientifically validated record: names per spacetime is the single most tool used by archeologists to confirm discoveries. How is it possible to perpertrate such a feat? And why not a single contemporanous record of disputation from egypt or any of the surrounding nations?
My understanding of a verification is that if the surrounding details are authentic and vindicated - the overall report is credible. Secondly, unlike other candy-coated scriptures, the OT does not shy away from displaying every negative and failing of the israelite: it seems these would be the first on the chopping block?
There is another issue here. The world at large has an indisputable motive to negate the OT - this is because both christianity and islam have spread a false and self-serving account the last 2000 years in their chruches and mosque sermons, while making their core doctrines as dependent on those reports. Just as muslim youth are subjected to false historical teachings - the same syndrome applies to christians also. There is subsequently a powerful agenda to negate the OT and israel's history. If a million stats in a report is credible - a single grey area will be picked up - and the king kongs will beat their chests!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2007 9:06 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2007 11:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 142 (408734)
07-04-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Chiroptera
07-04-2007 10:01 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
quote:
chiro
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
Yes! But without any option. Care to submit any other alternatives? To put it better, the OT introduced the premise of Creationism - and everyone had a go - but could not topple humpty dumpty. And what would science have proved - even allowing it every success you want to? At best, science could move the enigma further back - then come bang on against it again.
Science is vested against creationism for very logical reasons: grants, fear, ridicule. Ultimately, Creationism is the most scentific premise there can be - there is no alternative to it. No one has mentioned any - they just bash the OT as a proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 07-04-2007 10:01 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024