PROOF OF GOD

Hi, The exact year?How do youy arrive at that date?Are you sure you shouldnt be talking about 'hares' rather than hairs.Brian.

HI WT, My reply was asking what the exact date was, and how do you arrive at that date?Maybe I should have been clearer:How do you know that the 'exact' date of the Exodus given in the pyramid is accurate? What external evidence do you have that confirms the accuracy of the claim you are making?Velikovsky came within seven years of what?Brian.

Well it will need to be a pint because the litre is full of sh*t!Brian.

Hi WT,A few questions for when you come back on-line: Yes, that is the one I was talking about. That's because Velikovsky used 1 Kings 6:1 to date it, unfortunately he was more like 207 years out. Yes indeed we do. The date I propose in my dissertation is the mid 13th century BCE, in line with all the main scholars involved in the debate. A 15th century Exodus hasn't been pursued for decades. Well I know what evidence I base my dating on, what evidence do you have to suggest a mid 15th century Exodus? Do you?Brian.

Hi WT, Here is a summary of the reasons for a 13th century Exodus. PLease keep in mind that I am not saying there was an Exodus, only that IF it did happen, then this date is the most likely.If you want to discuss any of the evidence a little more, then let me know.Brian.

Hi WT, I don’t believe that it happened as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, there is no good reason to. There is nothing to stop this, but if they want to have any credibility they have to say why they think my rendition is biased, and provide examples to support this. There are many conservative Christian scholars who have had to change their opinions about the Enslavement/Exodus/Conquest narratives in view of the huge amount of contrary evidence. The most famous is William Albright, he was a conservative protestant theologian/Archaeologist (although he described himself as an orientalist and he didn’t have any formal archaeological qualifications), who, in the first half of the 20th century, believed that he had found more than enough evidence to support the Bible’s version of events. However, as improved archaeological technologies and improve dating techniques developed, Albright had to alter his views, he ended up claiming that there were two phases of conquest, one a peaceful settling of nomads, the other a military conquest at a much later date. The same has happened with all the so-called ‘maximalists’, I cannot think of a solitary maximalist who supports the Bible’s version of events 100%.I have no idea what Dr. Scott’s approach would be, I have no idea what evidence he would use to support whatever conclusion he would arrive at. What I do have is a familiarity with the evidence and all of the popular proposed ‘models’ of Israelite origins in the last 100 years or so, and I have serious doubts if Dr. Scott, or any other scholar for that matter, can harmonise the available archaeological, anthropological and textual information into something that support the Hebrew Bible’s version of enslavement, Exodus and conquest. This is not to say that Dr. Scott couldn’t do this, maybe he could, but the main protagonists, the people who have worked on the excavations in Palestine and Egypt all agree that the Hebrew Bible’s version of events cannot be supported by the available external data. The only disagreements are over the degree of accuracy of the Bible narratives, but even the staunchest Bible supporter would not argue for an Exodus as described in the Book of Exodus. I totally agree, it isn’t humanly possible to know absolutely everything about the history of the Church, or everything about all the debates on every issue that has been raised about Church history. This is why I believe if you do not have the time to start at grass roots level that you should read the work of people who specialise in a particular area that interests you. On a personal level, I became interested in this subject while studying the Old Testament under Prof. Keith Whitelam, although I had a good background knowledge of the Bible through being a Christian for around 20 years. But once I identified an area that really interested me, the historical origins of ancient Israel, I read as much of the material as I could that was written by the main scholars involved in the subject, for and against. I have the feeling that Dr. Scott’s scholarship is spread over a very wide range of subjects, it is difficult to be an expert in a wide range of subjects, and very few people manage to gain a worldwide reputation as a leading authority in more than one area, although some people do. Dr. Scott is not quoted anywhere in any of the mainstream literature as either a leading archaeologist, a leading biblical scholar, or a leading anthropologist, I am not saying he isn’t competent in these areas, I am only saying that if you wanted to any particular person’s word as being gospel about Ancient Israel’s appearance into the world stage, then maybe you should read the work of people who specialise, Dr. Scott is not a specialist in this area. Well there are Christian scholars involved in the debate that have also spent their lives studying the Bible, I believe it would be more beneficial to read some of their works. If you would like me to recommend a few just let me know. But all you are doing is taking Dr. Scott’s interpretation of the evidence, and you are allowing Dr. Scott to do your thinking for you. Relying on only one source is not really that good a way to decide things, you have no idea what information Dr. Scott leaves out, and it may be important information that negates a lot of what he says. This approach is entirely your choice, I personally wouldn’t dream of taking only one scholar’s word for anything. This is hardly an open minded approach to the subject, in fact, it puzzles me why you would even bother looking for any evidence at all for any of the biblical narratives as you have no intention of changing your mind. So why bother even engaging in any debate if you are not prepared to accept any negative evidence? Again, this is entirely your choice, it just puzzles me. Don’t you have to be in possession of as much evidence as you can get your hands on before making a conclusion. Coming to any conclusion should involve looking at arguments for and against a subject and then deciding which body of evidence is the more plausible and convincing. Approaching a subject that you have no intention of looking at in a critical way is pointless. I wouldn’t put any great faith in these gimmicks WT, that’s all they are. This is quite some time WT in our short history, and it doesn’t help the pyramid theory at all. But this is in dispute, there are many scholars who say there was no exodus at all, and the one common denominator is that the biblical exodus did not happen, and only that some other exodus may have. The Bible is wholly incorrect regarding the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of Canaan, its narratives do not belong to history, only ideology. The pyramid does absolutely nothing to corroborate anything in the Bible; no one has ever shown that there was a group on Egypt who referred to themselves as ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Israelite’, no one has ever shown that a massive group of millions up and left Egypt one day, no one has found anything at all of the time in the wilderness despite a camping at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years by 2-3 million people, in fact, Kadesh-barnea only begins to show signs of habitation in the 10th century BC, so the evidence is totally against the biblical narrative yet again. That’s all any one’s conclusions are WT, even Dr.Scott’s. If you really want me to critique thse two links I will, but would there be any point in me doing so? I do have very limited time on my hands so I would only critique these links thoroughly if it would make any difference to you. As I have no idea what his interpretation is based on, it would be difficult for me to comment on his work. This is a meaningless statement without any supporting examples. This is absolutely fine, just don’t be surprised to discover that what you believe to be true has been debunked by people using a more realistic approach. But you appear to only take Dr. Scott’s word for anything, he is not the ultimate authority on everything scriptural and archaeological, in fact, I have never seen him quoted in any mainstream archaeology/Old Testament journals or books. You are of course welcome to hold Dr. Scott as a leading light in your life, but I prefer to read a whole range of scholars who are actively involved in the debate.Brian.

Hi WT, I was devastated at the sudden death of my mother when I was 14, I lost interest in many things, I asked a lot of qustions and didnt receive any satisfactory answers, the comfort I had felt from Jesus was not there anymore. This is obviously a very condensed version of events, the outcome of my rejection of God took about 6 years.I did remember, and I still have fond memories of rushing into the church hall on a cold sunday morning for Sunday School, the stories were great (they still are), I also have great memories of Bible studies with my good friends, I actually still go to church now and then, I was there about a month or so ago listening to a talk from John Mackay the 'creation scientist' guy, it was an enjoyable evening. I am unsure of what I will be studying in the future. In scotland the leading universities only allow you to study for a ph.d if you have a masters degree (at least the divinity schools require this anyway)and at the moment I have about 3 months to go of a Master of Theology degree by research, the topic being ancient Israel's origins. However, I have become more interested in the archaeological side of things and as a result I have decided to begin a master of archaeology degree starting in september this year. The application has been accepted, but I can delay it if I wish and I may delay it for a year. If I achieve both master's degrees I will then have a choice of Ph.d's to study for in 2006. It is my long term aim to lecture on the subject of the social world of ancient Israel and/or syro Palestinian archaeology, I realise it may take another 4 or 5 years but I am happy to wait.I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow, I have a few things to do.Brian.PS, thanks for understanding my time restraints and your kind decision for me to forget the critique of the links.

Hi WT, I am afraid that this means that Dr. Scott’s mind is closed. You cannot begin an historical investigation with a conclusion and then look for the evidence, this is not an objective stance, all he is doing is to interpret the evidence to fit whatever his preconceived notions are. When I was a Christian my faith was in a loving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with some collection of ancient literature. The Bible contains a lot of symbolic language, a great deal of it cannot be taken literally, so does it really matter that the Bible is not 100% accurate in everything it says? Is this the Hyksos expulsion? I think you need a great deal more background evidence before the Exodus can be established as a true event. An event of this magnitude would have widespread results. What you will be looking for is information about Ain el-Qudeirat, it has been identified as the site of ancient Kadesh-Barnea. Feel free to either ask anything either here or in an e-mail, if I can help in any way, I will. It’s a pity you wont be online as much, but congrats on the job advancement. Yes, but what the scriptures say and what is actually true, don’t always mean the same thing, but I realise the stance you take on this, I personally cannot approach any subject in this manner, but we are all different. This is hugely convenient though, and all it really does is to offer a get out clause when any difficulty arises, any claim, however absurd, can be explained away by Satan. Ah back to interpretation, the problem with this is we never know for sure whose interpretation is right, Satan covers up the truth doesn’t he? What is to stop Satan from misleading the person who interpreted this reference in that that they have, how do you know Satan hasn’t misled them to keep the true interpretation from us? There is only one very ambiguous reference to the ‘House of David’ outside of scripture, and it can be found in the Tell Dan Stele. This is surprising when we consider the claims made for David in the Bible. Also, no evidence outside of the Bible for Saul or Solomon, or any of the Judges despite huge claims made for them in the Bible, but again if we are putting that down to Satan then we really cannot trust anything we encounter, or anyone’s interpretation as Satan could be interfering. It is a great excuse though isn’t it?Brian.

Hi Trixie,I checked your profile for an e-mail but there isn't one there, I was wondering how you are keeping after your op, everything well I hope?Brian.