The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

If you don't mind the interuption, I would like to ask a few questions about the original post.I. Which Egyptian timeline is being used?
II. How many records do we have of any other slaves the Egyptians might have had?
III. Do we have any records which refer to the building of the city Raamses?
IV. Are we sure that there were not any earlier Phaaros called by that name?
V. How many garrisons did the Egyptians then posses and how strongly were they manned?
VI. Can archeologists expect to discover such a campsite when the Israel's maintained their very strict laws of sanitation and when they never needed a new change of clothing (Deut. 29:5)?
VII. Have you ever read the verses between Deut. 1:46 and 2:14?
VIII. How long did the Israelites camp in Ezion-gaber?
IX. Could the camp sites inhabited by the Israelites have been places which had names but were uninhabited by any but wandering bands?
X. Are we sure that Edom never attained statehood before the seventh century BC?
XI. Who ruled Edom during the time that the Israelites were wandering?Finally, I also have a rather minor and simple question for judge.
What date is given in Acts 13? I have read the chapter several times and have yet to find it.

More Questions...I. Which archeological timeline did they use?
II. How many records of Egyptian life do we have that were written during the period that the Hebrews were in Egypt?
III. Then it follows that you do not know who built the city of Ramesses, or why it was built. Do you possibly know whether the city currently refered to as Ramesses is the came one that the Hebrews built?
IV. Acoording to which timeline? What about generals or statesmen?
V. How far apart were these garrisons placed?
VI. Let me break this one down a little further.
a. How did you arrive at the number of 2 million?
b. Do you know how long the Israelites stayed at each location during their journey?
c. Can they hope to find evidence of passage when the Israelites' diet consisted almost entirely of manna and when they had strict laws regarding excretions?
VII. Then are you already aware of that fatal error within the book in question?
VIII. How then do can archeologists say Israel never dwelt there if they are not even aware of the length of occupation?
IX. There are places in America which have names and yet are not occupied, could this have also been the case for some of the sites that Israel travelled through?
X. Can you provide supporting evidence?
XI. Can you provide supporting evidence?

quote:

---

I would suggest to you that peppering a thread with (often pointless) questions is a rather poor substitute for discussion, especially questions of the form: "Can you provide supporting evidence?".

---

I am sorry that you feel that way. If you would show me which of my questions you view as pointless, I would be more than happy to reveal to you my reasons for asking that question. For the most part though, I have asked questions for one of two reasons?First, I am not as familiar with the evidence and reasoning behind modern archeological opinion as I would like to be, so I have asked some questions in an attempt to locate and analyze it. Brian Johnston has presented several texts which I will be looking up. Perhaps they will answer the questions that I asked for this reason.Second, many who discuss the differences between the Bible and archeology do so out of ignorance of the Biblical text. I have asked several questions simply to guage the biblical knowledge of those participating in this discussion.For instance, the opening post of this discussion states, "The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai." This is simply not true. However, rather than make unnecessary accusations, I chose first to verify whether the participants were familiar with the passages in question. From the answers which I have received, I must conclude that they are not. I must also conclude that if the initial post accurately represents the views of Israel Finkelstein and if he is as knowledgable about the Scriptures as he claims to be, then Mr. Finkelstein is somewhat prone to lying in order to prove his theories. The verses between Deuteronomy 1:46 and 2:14 state that the Israelites did not remain in kadesh-barnea for 38 years. In fact, Numbers chapter 33 lists 41 places that the Israelites inhabited between leaving Egypt and crossing Jordan. Mr. Finkelstein has either lied about his knowledge of the Bible, or he has lied in attributing to it claims which it has never made.Along the same lines, many opponents to the Bible are unfamiliar with the diet and hygiene which was maintained by the Israelites during their wanderings. Exodus 16:35 states that "the children of Israel did eat manna forty years." According to Leviticus 11:35 we know that the Israelites used ovens and ranges to prepare their food not fire pits. Exodus 15 and 17 tell us that they were not dependent on natural sources of water. A casual reading of the Pentateuch will reveal many such statements that must be considered when one attempts to compare archeological records with the claims of the Bible.

quote:

---

You've already stated that you're not up to date on modern archeological findings, and yet you accuse this man of 'lying'?

---

Please notice the format of the accusation. I stated that Mr. Finkelstein lied about the Bible. I am not in a position to make the same accusation regarding his archeological finds, but I have provided certain proof that the initial post on this thread attributes to Mr. Finkelstein a lie about the Bible.

quote:

---

It's one thing to argue that an author is misinformed or incorrect, or that perhaps you don't agree with his position, but it's quite another to accuse the author of lying. You have demonstrated no basis for this absurd accusation.

---

Mr. Finkelstein claims to know the biblical account of Israelite history. He even refers to specific biblical passages in his books and articles. However, according to the first post on this thread, Mr. Finkelstein claims that the biblical account allows for a stay of thirty-eight years in kadesh-barnea. As already stated, this claim is false; the biblical account presents no such allowance. Thus, "Mr. Finkelstein has either lied about his knowledge of the Bible, or he has lied in attributing to it claims which it has never made."

quote:

---

A sidebar question: If Finkelstein's (apparent) thesis that the biblical Exodus story is mostly fictional in that there exists no supporting evidence in its favour is correct (and he is not alone in this opinion), would your world come crashing down? Would your faith be shaken to it's core?

---

Faith that can be shaken is no longer faith.

quote:

---

why is it impossible for them to have lived in and around Kadesh Barnea for 38 years?

---

This is the verse which has been used to support the idea that Israel spent 38 years at Kadesh-barnea. However, that idea can not be found in this verse. In fact, the verse states just the opposite. Please notice the two phrases, "come from Kadeshbarnea" and "come over the brook Zered." The 38 years in this verse refer to the time between Israel's leaving of Kadeshbarnea and their crossing of the brook Zered. Their time spent at Kadeshbarnea is not included in those 38 years.

quote:

---

Calling someone of Prof. Finkelstein’s stature a liar before you have seriously looked into his claims is not really a Christian thing to do, I hate to remind you of bearing false witness.

---

If something contradicts the truth it is a lie regardless of the stature of the person stating it or of the number of people supporting it. Truth is not determined by public opinion. If a lie is being used to support a proposition, then it is the responsibility of those who are aware of the truth to reveal the presence of the lie.

quote:

---

Seriously, can you look at this and in all honesty say that you know more about the Hebrew Bible and archaeology than Prof. Finkelstein?

---

No, but I can say that Mr. Finkelstein is no less capable of lying than anyone else is. I can also say that recognition of a lie is not dependent on one's having studied that lie more than the one proclaiming it. On the contrary, if one is aware of the truth, the lie becomes self-evident.

quote:

---

It is clearly accepted by the vast majority of scholars, and for a substantial length of time, that there is a tradition of a 38 year stay at Kadesh-Barnea.

---

The majority has been wrong before. The number of people in favor of a position does not necessarily make that position correct.

quote:

---

Also, there isn't a single respected scholar who takes the Bible's account of Ancient Israel's origins as being of any use in reconstructing Israel's origin.

---

Likewise, the number of people opposed to a position does not necessarily make that position incorrect.Also, I am sure that we would differ over the term, "respected scholar." Those whom you respect may not be the same that I respect. Nevertheless, the presence of respect also does not make one's position correct.

quote:

---

The Bible, in this area of research, is now a secondary source, it is simply too self contradictory and makes too many impossible claims to be of any use to the modern historian.

---

That is a very interesting conclusion. Would you be willing to tell us how you arrived at it, especially in regards to our current topic? Perhaps you culd provide a list of those contradictions and impossible claims which are relevant to this discussion.

quote:

---

Anyway, Professor Finkelstein told the truth when he wrote about the 38 year stay at Kadesh-Barnea...I hope this clears this 'problem' up, if not, and you would like more evidence, then just let me know.

---

Forgive me for my confusion, but I do not understand your reasoning behind these statements. I do not remember any evidence given to prove the validity of Mr. Finkelstein's position. You did present evidence of the acceptability of his position by certain people, yet that does not prove validity. Yes, Mr. Finkelstein's position is highly accepted, but we must be careful not to equate popularity with validity. If you have evidence of the validity of Mr. Finklstein's claims please do present it.