Evidence for an Israelite Exodus (?)

There is evidence that non-elite Canaanites abandoned their city-states and fled to the hill country for a more egalitarian way of life. I don’t know about being averse to pork but the Israelites, except for the prophets, loved idols. They didn’t give up idolatry until their return from captivity in Babylon.


For posterity’s sake, I thought I would link to a few resources that documented Wyatt’s fraud.



Dang, I remember that now from grad school – lazy memory; I should fire it and get one that’s more effective.

That’s a great resource! It’s interesting to see how adeptly they tip-toed around the fact that the carbon dating measurements were just clumsily sloppy, ignoring established procedures and the added ones set down for the work, putting the criticism in nice neutral language.

You mean archaeologically? It’s become clear that Solomon was real, though the extent of his kingdom is debated. David is still on the “we don’t know” list, though there is now evidence that there was a royal house of David. For Saul . . . personally I doubt there will ever be evidence for him; he didn’t even have a capital so there’s no knowing where to even look.


Whoa, that’s worse than I imagined! I always knew there was something fishy about him, but buying things and passing them off as discoveries?!? I’d want to tie him to a chariot wheel and throw him in the Red Sea!

1 Like

Of course there’s always “How much of the extent stated is allies and vassals?” issue for any ANE realm.

Thank you, T_aquaticus ! I had assumed that most people knew about Ron Wyatt and his fraudulent ways. He’s even worse than I thought. His scams are a bit like the abuses of the relic cult–claiming to have body parts and stuff from various saints. Martin Luther used to wonder why 18 of the 12 apostles were buried in Spain alone!

I liked his sarcastic comment on how if all the “wood from the True Cross” got put together it would make a cross taller than St. Peter’s. Of course he was neglecting something he well knew, that relics of the Cross were actually splinters carefully attached into a larger piece of wood, but that would have ruined the ‘punchline’.



I’m curious about your thoughts about this. The KMT is in the Levant area, so this means Yisrael is part of the KMT area, meaning increased land and no borders?

Thank you for your question!

Kemet (or KMT) means black land, that is the land in Egypt that was irrigated by the Nile. The land on both sides of Kemet was called Desjret, meaning red land, the land of Seth (= the desert).

According to some definitions, Kemet is in the Levant.


But Kemet is only the land irrigated by the Nile, so Israel is not part of the KMT area.

1 Kings 4:21

And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life. (NIV)

From a free to read academic article:

“Biblical rhetoric about Solomon’s empire shares some significant features with Egyptian royal ideology of territory. Both the Egyptians and the Israelites seem to have thought of their national boundaries in three zones: a well-defended “internal zone” of primary settlements, an “outer zone” of economic interests; and finally an “ideological zone” that was generally not controlled militarily, but rather an idealized expression (indeed an exaggeration) of royal power.”

Zone 1: Inner/homeland Zone 2: Outer/economic Zone 3: Ideological
Solomonic Israel “Dan to Beer-sheba” Tel Hadar (?) to N. Negev Wadi of Egypt to Euphrates
Thutmosid Egypt Tjaru to Elephantine Byblos (?) to Napata Kurgus to Euphrates

Biblical Claims About Solomon’s Kingdom in Light of Egyptian “Three-Zone” Ideology of Territory

My favorite hoax is the Noah’s ark hoax of 1993. A nonbeliever, George Jammal, decided to have some fun and showcase how gullible some creationists are. He got some wood from the railroad tracks and then treated it by frying it on his kitchen stove in a mix of blueberry and almond wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour barbecue sauce and teriyaki sauce. to make it look old. He claimed the wood was from Noah’s ark in Turkey. (He had never been to Turkey). He pitched his story to the Institute for Creation Research. They fell for it! Eventually Sun International Pictures made a film about it and it was shown on CBS: The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark

Jammal left plenty of clues that this was a hoax.

Read about it here:
Admitting ‘Noah’s Ark’ Hoax : Television: A man who claimed on a CBS special to have located the ark now says it was a setup.



Saul was king of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, and David was of the tribe of Judah. When did David become King of Judah? Or was David King of Israel?

How come I never hear from the Benjamin tribe online? I only hear from the Jews online.

I didn’t go that far into how connected the tribes were when they were brothers.


Ideology of the Thutmosids’ Territory

How come they call this New Kingdom?

What were the nation economic of interests, and how did they keep track of the economics?

How did Egypt exercised strong and consistent military control? Were there anyone who escaped the military, and if caught, what happened to them?

@ivar I understand I asked what is a New Kingdom

I see here there’s zones.

Solomon’s Kingdom

Biblical rhetoric about Solomon’s empire shares some significant features with Egyptian royal ideology of territory. Both the Egyptians and the Israelites seem to have thought of their national boundaries in three zones: a well-defended “internal zone” of primary settlements, an “outer zone” of economic interests; and finally an “ideological zone” that was generally
not controlled militarily, but rather an idealized expression (indeed an exaggeration) of royal power.

I’m looking up word rhetoric
effective or persuasive speaking or writing

Solomon is who?

So Solomon is David’s son

I did notice that the sons were affected by their fathers, yet one son escaped the effects. I wonder why. Was it one of them who pleaded with God and that caused the son to escape consequence? Which was the son who escaped the consequences? Was it Jesse, David, or Solomon? Remember the father pleaded how?

So the outer zone shown of Egyptians and Israelites shown the economic of interests more for impressing. I wonder what that outer zoon looks like, any showing agricultures for impressing? Or would that be to fragile to use agricultures to impress?

Says: from the article you shared: outer zone that was largely dedicated to ensuring the nation’s economic interests

It says here actually it’s Zone 2: Outer/economic. So that would be the middle zone. As it says, Tel Hadar to N. negev Byblos to Napta

(1) an inner zone of primary habitation identi-
fiable both in archaeology and texts; (2) **a flexible **
economic zone without much textual support or
ideological significance; and (3) an ideological
zone that maximized the ruler’s claim on his region,
to the point of exaggeration.

It still doesn’t explain what was the economics to impress

Well, that was fun. I’m forming my questions to explore, and in this case, I’m asking what was in zone 2 that both Israelites and Egyptians used as economics to impress; maybe it’s there where trading happened as well; what do you think?

And the other question was, which father pleased so their son escaped consequences, and how did that father pleaded and hear God?

Did this also ever happen with the Egyptians that a father pleaded so their son escaped consequences, because it happened with the Israelites?

How can you believe in the bible as a means of salvation if the eyewitness evidence it produces that you say is true, also has those same writers saying that creation, the flood, destruction of sodom and gomrah, the resurrection of Christ, and the second coming are real events?

If you are remain consistent and claim that the belief you have is credible, you have to accept all of what those writers state…not just bits and pieces of it.

Even Christ is quoted in the gospel of Luke speaking about the literal flood and destrcution of sodom and gomorah. If youre trinitarian, then that would be God Himself making those statements.

Luke 17: 26Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28It was the same in the days of Lot: People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But on the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

If you believe the Gospel, given to us by the witness of Christ, why do you refuse to believe what Christ also says about noah and lot living through historical events? I mean Christ really lived right? you believe that eyewitness, you believe he was raised from the dead. Science tells us Christ is dead in the grave. He was crucified of that there is external evidence outside the bible. he cant possibly have been raised from the dead…there is no scientific evidence he was raised from the dead. In fact, we have eyewitness testimony in the bible from the roman soldiers saying they fell asleep and the disciples came and stole his body whilst they slept! Now do you still believe in salvation?

See thething about faith is that the gospel is the whole narrative, not just the resurrection bit.

James says “faith witbout works is dead.” Works is directly related to the Old Testimant commandments by most Christians. this means Christianity is the whole dice, not just one side of it.

Both. David was the king of a united Israel (that included Judah) - He’s the one who united them. [I guess Saul had already unified Israel prior to David’s rule.] Then after the disastrous policies of Solomon’s son (not listening to his wiser, older counselors who had cautioned the king about oppressing the people), there was a rebellion, and after that Judah split off from the rest of Israel and there were two different kingdoms. (I think Judah may have included a lot of Benjaminites). Anyway - short story would be that after that, Israel (Northern Kingdom - which was 10 of the tribes) was the first to fall and go into exile, but Judah (Southern Kingdom - 2 tribes - Judah and Benjamin) followed later. So in the diaspora Jews intermingled, intermarried quite a bit, and maybe some tribal identities were pretty much lost or just merged; and the name “Jew” basically would be identified with (came from) Judah. Of course in New Testament times, there were some tribal identities still around and used (Paul identifies as a Benjaminite) - and in the Jesus’ birth story I think we hear of some Levites. And of course Christ himself being of the tribe of Judah. But it would be interesting to know how many different of the twelve tribes still have any separate identity or anybody who identifies that way today. Even in the New Testament, if I’m not mistaken, we’re not told what tribes each of the twelve disciples identified with (if any). Maybe it was more a specialized Pharisee thing (pedigree and all) to know your lineage back to some certain tribe.

This was a quick answer till someone more knowledgeable weighs in with corrections.

[Always fascinated me how the 12 tribes were a bit ‘fluid’ over the periods of both testaments. E.g. the ‘twelve tribes’ in the book of Revelation are not the same 12 that Moses and Joshua presided over and divided the land among. Gone from the Revelation list is Dan. And in Dan’s place (so that there are still 12) we have one of Joseph’s sons listed: Manasseh, and the whole tribe of Joseph also listed. It could be in other lists we just see Joseph split into two tribes (of his two sons): Ephraim and Manasseh. So … the “twelve tribes” - or at least those who survived enough to carry some particular tribal name forward, were not always exactly the same.]

1 Like

So on the flip side…
You know about the 40 year Pilttown man" hoax that secularists fell for right?

Its far worse of an embarrassment than what happened to CMI.

I dont personally follow all.scientific discoveries…my faith isnt dependant on science.
I base my faith on the entire bible narrwtive and its internal and external consistency.

If there are additional external evidences found, thats great, but they do not prove God, all they do is add to the already existing narrative…nothing more.

The point is, some evidences will be proven false, but overall the narrative remains consistent…even when it comes to creation, the flood, and the resurrection of Christ. None of these three can be proven scientifically…secular science tells us they are all false.

I would argue not a soul here can show scientifically that Christ was raised from the dead. Even the bible tells us, the only eyewitnesses to his tomb on the sunday morning claim that his body was stolen whilst they slept on guard duty!

I want to ensure i add that in spite of the huge negatives above…i love God, im a lousy Christian, however, i believe in the gospel with all my heart. I have faith all of the biblical narrative is true…thats all that really matters to me.

One specific instance that I am aware of for modern family connections is the last name Cohen, which is the traditional last name for the priestly line. Interestingly, all men of the last name that have been tested share a y-chromosome genetic marker dating from about 1200-1300 BC.

1 Like