The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.'

Hi, I brought it here in an attempt to focus on the topic, and, since I have provived a few referenced articles throughout the thread I thought that you may habe liked to comment on some of them. The articles I cite are all peer-reviewed academic works by the leading scholars in the field. I thought you may have been interested. Well as far as I am aware this is the first time you mentioned the name of the newspaper, if i missed the reference to it in a previous post then I apologise. However, surely you must know that newspapers do not give an indepth analysis of every story that appears in its pages?The reason I cannot dispute this particular claim is because you have posted nothing at all to support it, the links that you did support actually undermined your argument.What have I been doing all these years reading BASOR, BibArch, JSOT, IEJ, JBL, NEA, SJOT et al? I should have been reading the Dutch newspapers!Come on Jester, if you want to learn about Syro-Palestinian archaeology you read the dedicated materials, not an article by a non-specialist in a newspaper. You missed the sarcasm here. You wanted me to provide references just as you did, and you references undermined your argument, thats why I said 'No thanks.' Allied of course to the fact that I know very little about biology or any other science for that matter, I know my limitations, I know that I should stick to my own area of study, you should follow my example. Well I was a Bible believing Christian for around twenty years, kind of puts your paltry six months into mediocrity. I have since changed almost all of my beliefs in regard to the Bible, so I guess that makes me more open-minded than you as well. Good grief! The references you supplied didn't support your argument, I said the article was LIKE an April Fools Day joke, and I have never said there was a lawsuit, there isn't a lawsuit, it is in your imagination, read the articles you asked me to read! This isnt what I said at all, what I said was I wouldnt do what you had done and that was to search for negative information and post as positive information for my argument. You provided links that you thought supported your case and they clearly do not support it. They NEVER mention a lawsuit BEING filed, only that it was being thought about.And I am not forcing anything on anyone, you are free to believe what you want, as are other readers, however, if I see you posting something I know to be explicity untrue then surely I am duty bound to respond? I did consider your point, until about two words into the article when I realised the article supports my point!Also, why would I believe a mainstream newspaper against a whole plethora of archaeological journals and surveys, theological journals etc? If your main argument for an Exodus from Egypt is a Dutch newapaper article over 3000 years after the event then there really would be no point in debating, but surely you can do better than a newspaper article? You provide quality references and I will take you seriously.Also, I dont see where I have ever insulted you. No I don't, in fact, I am only interested in the truth, thats why I have looked, and still look, at all angles of the 'Origins' debate. How do you think I have got through courses at universities, do you think I could get through by not providing balanced essays and exam answers?I have my conclusions that are based on a wide range of research, not only on one side of the topic.[pq] It is really a sad and border mental problem when you think that everyone that has different views than you is ill informed, or ignorant, and when you refuse to seek information that challenges your own views. Sad, but end of discussion. [/qs]I am afraid there is only one person who has shown any kind of borderline mental problem, and that is the one who posts links to sites that he claims supports his arguments but on reading the articles in question they actually say nothing in support of his arguments.It is also pretty silly to say' There was an Exodus, a Dutch national newspaper had a story about it'!Take care Jester.Brian

There's a game show on NPR called "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell me" that has a segment where three people each relate a story from the news of the past week, except that two of them are making up their news item. The contestant has to decide which is the true story. This story about the exodus lawsuit would be hard one for anyone to believe. I'm not surprised people reacted skeptically.But isn't all this about the magazine article irrelevant to whether the exodus really happened or not? I think it's a fascinating publicity tool for the people involved, quite obviously so since it made the newspapers, but as far as historical and scientific circles go it's a non-issue. There's a rule in the Forum Guidelines about this kind of behavior:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 09-17-2003]

Essentially the point is that Jester wants to claim that there is a lot of new evidence behind this lawsuit.http://EvC Forum: Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt -->EvC Forum: Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

quote:

---

He fails to mention that the research I speak of is so recent that it made CNN and MSNBC within the past two weeks, and he won't mention it or acknowledge it becasue it weakens his case.He then states..."Archaeologists are no longer even contemplating a biblical Exodus group either, or an enslavement of the Hebrews, or a desert wandering, and it is even highly unlikely that there was ever a united monarchy.".....totally disregarding the recent evidence supplied to the
International Court in the Hague, by the Egyptian government, as the basis for a lawsuit. They, the Egyptians, presented documented copied of scrolls, with detailed accounts of the gold and properities the Jews took when they left Egypt The basis of the lawsuit is they are demanding this gold and properties back. The exodus of the Jews has some documentation, or it would not have made it up to the International Court, as the are laws of evidence and procedure to follow to get there, I presented this to Winace, but his dismissal was " Anyone could file a lawsuit", showing a complete lack of understanding on how the International Court works and accepts cases, but it was put on disregard as it doesnt fit his theory , the same as Brian, here. This story was also carried on CNN.

---

Note that his original sources were supposedly CBS and MSNBC - American news sources from the "impoverished media" that supposedly doesn't carry the story he attributed to them.Note that he was responding to Brian who simply commented on the current views of the archaeologists working in the region - this is supposed to be major NEW evidence (if that were the case it would merit far more attention than this plan to file a lawsuit has gotten)Add to the fact that NONE of the sources he DID provide mention that a lawsuit has even been filed, none states that there is any source of significant evidence other than the Torah (which is clearly stated to be the basis of the case), none even states which court might hear such a case - and the International Court is not hearing this case nor is it pending.My best guess is that Jester jumped to completely erroneous conclusions based on misreading some source - probably CBS or MSNBC (although neither seems to carry a full story) and everything since has been a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that he was wrong. We certainly have no reason to believe that any of the sources he has claimed support him in fact do so - since he has implicitly or explicitly misrepresented every source that has been checked we certainly cannot trust him on those claims which cannot be checked.

I just noticed that Jester mentioned the King Hezekiah's Tunnel Inscription and how it is confirmed as historically accurate.It will come as no surprise that Jester has again jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. The inscription that he was on about was found at Siloam in 1880. The inscription was found at a place where two groups of workers met when cutting their way under Jerusalem and preparing the tunnel leading water from the Gihon spring to the pool at Siloam .But in reality, the inscription says nothing about who constructed it, when it was constructed or even why it was constructed. Granted, most scholars have traditionally related this inscription to the reference in the Old Testament, 2 Kings 20:20, to King Hezekiah's rearrangement of the water system of Jerusalem, most likely on the eve of Sennacherib's attack on Judah in 701 BCE.But this is an assumption, there is no way to link for certain to an Hezekian origin of the Siloam inscription, a good case can be made of course for it being so but the inscription itself, does not tell us this. It is only a secondary source, which in this case may be right but which can also be wrong, nobody can really say on the basis of this anonymous inscription whether it was Hezekiah or some other Judean king from the eighth or seventh century who constructed the tunnel. As it stands, it is the only clear example of an inscription from either Israel or Judah commemorating a public construction work. As such it is a poor companion to similar inscriptions, not least from Egypt and Mesopotamia. Neils Peter Lemche The Israelites in History and Tradition SPCK, London 1998, page 47.Anyone making this claim for Hezekiah's tunnel olny expose themselves as sponges that soak up anything that even remotely support their case, personal research isn't even a factor in their world.I have to emphasise again that this could be support for Hezekiah's tunnel, but there are doubts so it should not be stated categorically that the Bible is correct here.Brian.

An excellent series of posts, Brian. You've obviously done your homework. Congratulations.

Cheers Orion,Good to see you again.Brian

Brian, I have a proposition for you regarding a possible collaborative effort regarding book publication. If you're at all interested, please contact me at orion9@inreach.com.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. Thanks for directing my attention toward it, Orion.(I'll bet you a quarter Ez wouldn't even click on the link.

That seems like an excessive generalization. While I agree that conclusions should be in all cases tentative and open to further evidence, those who draw reasoned conclusions from a preponderance of evidence hardly warrant such an epithet. Given: I am curious as to the basis for, and weight to be given to, these doubts.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 10-19-2003]