This will prbably be the biggest thread ive ever make since a long time. So after research i found out that the Exodus account is not history as well .Like cannan at the time was a aprt of Egypt . Plus there are no accounts of so many slaves migrating. It makes me question as to if all the Old Testament is just allegory or symbolical.What do you guys think?The link thats mostly shaped my opinion .
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_there_no_evidence_of_the_Exodus
There is plenty of archeological evidence for the Exodus. The problem is that most people date it wrong.The Exodus did not happen during the reign of Ramses II (the only reason they date it to this period is because one of the cities built is called Ramses but earlier it uses states that Joseph and his family settled in the land of Rameses before Ramses was built showing itâs being used anachronistically), it happened during the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The city of Rameses is referred to anachronistically regarding the area the city was built upon like referring to colonial New Amsterdam as New York. There was an older city underneath it, I forget its name, where the remains of large amounts of Semites from Canaan or Northern Syria are found to have lived. These are the Israelites of the Bible. Theyâve also found Josephâs palace and a very large bust of Joseph wearing his many colored coat. See the documentary âPatterns of Evidence Exodusâ for more information.
If you read the article it makes a point thats that wasnt the case . But ill check it out
To say something is just allegory or symbolic implies that the original authors and audience understood it to be a fictional story meant to teach through parallels or that elements of the story really represented something else in reality. There are parts of the Old Testament that make use of symbolism and allegory (mostly in the prophets), but neither is an appropriate âgenreâ to apply to the Old Testament as a whole, especially not the narratives of Israelâs history. So, no I donât think that is what the authors intended or what the audience understood.
The history books of the Old Testament were clearly intended to present the history of Israel. Their conventions for telling history differed from our own and they were less interested in preserving bare objective facts for posterity. They were interested in preserving an identity-shaping narrative that told them who they were and who their God was. So, it was acceptable to take some license with âfactsâ to make the story more âtrueâ to the fundamental aspects of their theological narrative. This is different than fiction intended to parallel a different story in order to teach (allegory) and it is different than symbolism (where images stand in for or represent something in reality).
Yes but history and archeology tells us otherwise. And i cannot see how for example Egypt beign sin or evil having the Isralites(Gods people) as slaves.Then God frees his own people for that slavery.Why it couldnt be that?
That could be a good example of alegory
What do you mean âtell us otherwise?â History and archaeology tell us that not every number or event recorded in Israelâs history is an objective fact. They certainly donât tell us that everything in Israelâs history is made up and totally fictional. There is historical and archaeological corroboration for a good deal of it.
I would be glad if you read the link posted above. Theres no account showing slaves migrated from Egypt to cannan .
I realize that without reading your link. My point is that just because events and numbers in the biblical history donât line up with objective facts doesnât change the biblical genre to something else, like allegory. It just means the authors had other intentions than accurately communicating bare facts.
I am sorry but as a physicist, this treatment of history as if it were a hard science is a source of some hilarity to me. To be sure it reminds me of the objections of creationists to evolution that we cannot directly see the past. But the problem with the creationist objection, that there is such overwhelming evidence from so many different sources, doesnât quite apply in the case of history, which looks far more like a gigantic house of cards built of too little hard evidence and way too many assumptions.
Isnât it just a competition between different sources which are just as human and likely to be biased, not only about what actually happened, but even what people consider to be significant enough to write about. To me it seems an awful lot like assuming that everywhere that a filming camera in some documentary isnât pointed must be an empty space void of things, people and events. LOL
That "hole " in the OT in my opinion disregards all of .(The Exodus narative) It is a major flaw. Like what was the intention of writting that IF NOT to write actual events or an allegory. The anwer to this,.No reason
In my understanding the Exodus event was historical but as to when I havenât set much of a date but I do believe the Hebrew occupation of the land coincides with the invasion of the Sea Peopleâs as after the Sea Peopleâs invasion is when the Jews pop up in history. But thatâs just my understanding of it.
To give the Hebrews a sense of being called by God for His purpose. Also to help hold the people together during the exile in Babylon. They were Godâs special people after all.
What? That doesnt make sense. So he wrote a lie to show them that they are Gods people? If not then it is an allegory?
I really enjoyed âCross Vision,â by Greg Boyd, about the OT historicity and violence. You might want to read this Book Review: Cross Vision by Greg Boyd
Also, I appreciated this discussion on inerrancy and volence here: Inerrancy and mass slaughter
Thanks for your discussion!
Reading only one side and concluding that it is correct is a bad methodology. You should read David Rohlâs book, Exodus, in which this Egyptologist argues that it is real. Rohl is an agnostic, not a Christian. He does, however, think the Bible is a good history book. Rohl argues for a slightly different chronology than the guys above hold to and voila, everything falls into place. If one hasnât read this book then one is only half informed.
You mean the guys on the link i posted?If youre speaking of the middle kingdom hypothesis i think they state that it is not the case and present arguments for that
Yep, and you obviously havenât considered data from the other side. They have found what certainly looks like Josephâs palace. if you have any interest other than holding onto the views of the above link you might look at thishttp://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2019/12/has-josephs-palace-been-found.html. It is on finding something that sure as heck looks like Josephâs palace. with 12 graves outback, and the biggest had a statue of a Semite in a multicolored cloak. Here is a reconstruction of the statue. BTW, Joseph asked that his bones betaken back to the promised land. The big tomb is the only tomb missing bones. Grave robbers donât take bones, they are worthless.
If this is Josephâs palace then it moves the exodus back .
As to your claim that your link says there is no evidence for the Middle Kingdom view, it took me a while to find Barry stating that there was no evidence. I gather that his mere breath through Barryâs lip stating the sky is purple would be enough for you to agree that the sky is purple. Just because someone says something doesnât make it true. I am offering you some archaeological evidence counter to what Barry says, and you seem reluctant to go look. I canât help it if you wonât look. But the data wonât disappear if you donât look, it will just be you refusing to look at something.
I found a good defense of the Middle Kingdom view in Muyiwaâs answer. Would have been better with pictures.
But here are some quotes. Of the statue above, Bietak, the excavator, said:
3. From the chapel of Tomb F/I-p/19 no. 1 came fragments of a colossal seated statue (about twice life size) of an Asiatic dignitary with a red mushroom-shaped coiffure, holding a throwstick at his shoulder. The figure was deliberately smashed. Such a statue is unthinkable for the time of the 12th Dynasty. It was in the time of the 13th Dynasty that Asiatics such as 'Amusahornedjheryotef (see above), Ameniâamu,27 Khendjer (Von Beckerath 1964: 49- figs. 51, 238-39), and probably others rose to high posi-tions and even to the kingship. (considered here a sign of dignity)
Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age Author(s): Manfred Bietak Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 281, Egypt and Canaan in the Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), pp. 27-72, p. 349-51 http://www.academia.edu/download/41037228/Bietak_Basor_281_1991_Egypt_Canaan_in_the_middle_bronze_age.pdf
The statue was found in 1986 but not studied in detail until about 2000 when Robert Schiestl did a Ph.D on it. The large statue of this non-egyptian Semite is very unusual and must have been a man of very high honor:
"Larger than life size statuary of non-royal Egyptians in the Middle Kingdom is very unusual, but rare examples do exist throughout the 12th Dynasty, both from tombs and from temples. They seem to be limited, however, to families of highest ranks. In the late Middle Kingdom nonroyal statuary can become quite small in size (VANDIER 1958, 255, 271, 284), as represented by the statuette from tomb l/19-Nr. 1 of stratum d/1 (BIETAK 1991 b, Abb. 12). On the other hand, most examples of non royal larger than life statuary date to this period as well." p. 136 (PDF) Robert Schiestl, The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt, in: Egypt and Levant 16, 2006, 173-185 | Robert Schiestl - Academia.edu
According to the Bible, 70 people went into Egypt. Rohl writes:
âThis community of Semites numbered a hundred or so, at most, in its initial phase, with perhaps twenty houses. The Book of Genesis tells us that seventy souls arrived with Jacob to settle in Goshen, so this seems to fit the archaeological picture. As time passed, during the long reign of Amenemhat III, the palace of Joseph in Area F was built over the demolished remains of his fatherâs house, and hhis elder brothers were buried in the family cemetery to the rear of he vizierâs palace. On Tell A, the village rapidly expanded as the Hebrews multiplied.â David Rohl, Exodus, Myth or History, (St. Louis Park, MN: ThinkingManâs Media 2013, pâŚ123
The original houses upon which the palace was built were of Semitic style, like found in Harran where these Semites originated from. The palace was built on top of them. Then there is this about the Semitic population of Avaris, which by the way might be an Egyptian corruption of Eber ish, which would mean Hebrew Man.
âThe mass graves of Avarisâlocated at the end of Proto-Israelite Stratum G-0were Quickly followed by an abandonment of the Asiatic quarter of the city (on the main tell next to Ed-Daba village)âall approximately at the time of Dudimose according to the New Chronology. The Semites simply gathered up their belongings and left. Archaeology cannot tell us where they went⌠but the Bible does.â David Rohl, Exodus, (Thinking Man Media, 2015, p. 136-137
They have also found rings which say âJacob Chosenâ. A critic of this interpretation asks questions but doenât even attempt an answer, as if none is possible:
"The Austrian team excavating the site found nine scarabs (beetle-shaped amulets) bearing the name of a Hyksos called Jacob-Her dating to ca. 1700 BC. Jacobovici, of course, surmises that this is Josephâs father Jacob. He further contends that these are âseals worn by Josephâs court officials.â If the scarabs are connected to the high official Joseph, then why is Jacobâs name on them? Jacobovici does not explain. In reality, Jacob was a common Semitic name and in this case probably belonged to a prominent Hyksos leader or businessman. In addition to the nine examples at Tell el-Daba, three Jacob-Her scarabs were found in Israel: two at Kabri, near Nahariya, and one at Shiqmona, near Haifa (Bietak 1997: 115). " Debunking 'The Exodus Decoded' - Associates for Biblical Research
Note, they accept that these rings are there.Here is a picture:
Lawyers always tell themselves, donât ask questions unless you know the answer. Rabbit Michael S. Bar Ron wrote:
"Ankhu is the core of the Egyptian name of Joseph recorded in the Torah, Zafenath
Pa`aneaḼ (the Z is a ׌-ᚣadi, pronounced as a sharp S), as it would most likely have
been pronounced: Zatenaf Pa-ankh, according to Dr. Kenneth Kitchen. This
meant âHe Who Livesâ. According to Rohl, it would have meant "The One Who
Lives".9 The Torah relates that the pharaoh was awed by Jacob, Josephâs father
(Gen. 47,8). Considering how the pharaoh witnessed the dramatic reunion
between the vizier and his father (who had given Joseph up for dead for so many
years), it is particularly fitting that he would name his vizier, "The One Who
Lives". Rabbi Michael S. Bar-Ron, THE SEAL OF JOSEPH IN HIS PALACE AT TELL ED-DABA, December 29, 2017, 11 Teveth 5778 Beth Midrash Ohel, Moshe Beit Shemesh, Israel, p. 5
Pharoah had a vizer named, âthe man who livesâ Donât all men live? Isnât it odd that Jacob thought his son was dead, yet he still lived! No, we canât believe that because that might make us have to rethink things about the Exodusâ timing.
So why would the ring have Jacobâs name on it? Well, contrary to the Bible archaeology guys, Jacobovici did answer. Wonder why they didnât correct their critique? Jacobovici has a great explanation:
"In Genesis 49:24 it refers to God as âthe Mighty One of Jacobâ. In the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sota 36b.) the rabbis slightly shift the emphasis when referring specifically to Joseph. There, they called Josephâs father, âthe Mighty One, Jacobâ. In other words, the Biblical tradition refers to Jacob in near divine terms and declares that he is Godâs chosen one*. In Genesis 47:10, it is Jacob that blesses Pharaoh and not the other way around.** This idea is encapsulated in a formula that is still repeated everyday in the Jewish prayer service. Itâs a quote from Psalms 135:4. The formula is âGod selected Jacob as his Own, Israel as His treasureâ. In Hebrew â and this is very, very important â the first part of the formula is stated this way; âYakob (i.e., Jacob) Bahar (i.e., He chose)â. In other words, if you were the Biblical Joseph, you would not declare yourself to be a âson of Godâ, but a son of Jacob who is âchosen by Godâ. You would then have only one formula available to you:* â Biblical Josephâs ring â found! | Simcha Jacobovici | The Blogs
Pharaohâs ruled because they thought they were Gods, It is easy to win an argument the way bible archaeology did, claim your opponent didnât have an answer and if he does, ignore it as if it doesnât exist.
âAs supreme ruler of the people, the pharaoh was considered a god on earth, the intermediary between the gods and the people.â Pharaoh - World History Encyclopedia
Joseph could not even be a minor deity in the Egyptian pantheon so he chose to be the son of the one God Chose, Jacob. This kept him from being viewed as a in any part divine. That is the answer that Bible Archaeology didnât even bother to try to research.
Their other thoughtless question is why are they found in Israel? I would call this the Che Gueverra effect. Someone famous like Joseph and Jacob will have their stuff, their image or their rings copied so people can gain status. think of all the murderous Che Tshirts that are sold!
Nick, I would certainly not just believe something because Barry Turner says so. Do some research, but that, of course, is up to you to decide if you really want to become knowledgable or take the easy path and just be a believer in what he says.
I mean those guys were professors right?So i took their word as true since they know more. I mean there was a woman in the site that stated and defended her view that the Exodus narative was a collection of stories trough some periods of time. Anyway will look up your answer in a bit .Thanks again.Happy easter although late!!!
Happy Easter to you, or happy resurrection day as a friend who also lived in China prefersâit brings more âclarityâ. Anyway, I have learned long ago, far too many people have their own agenda, so check everything, even what I put out. I can defend what I put out, but check anyway. I have been known to make mistakes. lol
My mother, by her actions raising me and my siblings, gave me a big distrust of all authority. I try to check everything that I can, and everything that I write about.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
