For those who want proof of the exodus

[Heat]

It's on net flix.

Where it fucking belongs.

Even the History Channel doesn't run shit like that.

I wouldn't be so sure..

[Minimalist]

The History Channel is run by morons.

[Drich]

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/news/mn-50481

But did the Exodus ever actually occur?

On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words.

"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.

Wolpe's startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archaeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided.

Fuck you, drippy..... and your douchebag friends.

Wolpe was the second guy they interview in this movie old sport, so as to get his full perspective, and not just some old cogers take on what was said.

what else you got?

[Minimalist]

I've got a whole load of historians and archaeologists and all you have is a stupid fucking old book of bullshit you asshole.

The Merneptah Stele was created in 1208 BC. On line 27 it says "Israel is destroyed it's seed is no more". This is the only mention of Israel in the ancient Egyptian texts

Actually what it says is that "Ysirir" was destroyed.....  It is indeed the only mention of Ysirir in the entire corpus of Egyptian literature but the thing is that no one knows what "Ysirir" means.  Flinders Petrie speculated in 1896 that it was "israel" because it sounded similar.  The bible-thumpers tried that same technique with the "apiru" which they convinced themselves meant "hebrews" too.

But it didn't.  Donald Redford tells us that the Egyptians referred to Canaan as "the land beyond the sand."  Doesn't sound much like "Israel" at all, does it?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Wolpe was the second guy they interview in this movie old sport, so as to get his full perspective, and not just some old cogers take on what was said.

what else you got?

What do you mean, "what else you got?"

They've explained the numerous problems with the entire archaeological record, and with the narrative itself, that this new version "alternate timeline of the Exodus" presents. They've explained that the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field, many of them Israelis who would have every reason to want to confirm the Exodus and Conquest actually occurred (since that's partially the basis for the claim of the modern nation upon that land), is that no such thing as described in the mythology actually happened. They've explained that it doesn't fit with the pharaohs listed in the story, nor does the record of the pharaohs contain any examples of that fit the narrative. 

Briefly, a guy named Woods contended that he had discovered evidence that Jericho was destroyed near to the date the Exodus must have happened in order to fit the timeline correctly, but it was based on a piece of charcoal that was mis-dated due to a calibration error at the British Museum, which was later fixed and a proper date applied that was over 150 years earlier, at a time when the Exodus could not have happened. Others (primarily Aardsma, Rohl, and Stewart) have tried to advance the "missing millennium" hypothesis and other sorts of "push the timeline back" ideas to account for this, but were soundly shot down by fellow experts in the field, not only on archaeological grounds (such as when you examine other cities mentioned in the story which did not exist anywhere near the older timeline proposed) but also because of the above-mentioned conflicts with that hypothesis... yet apologists continue to push these ideas as the basis of an entirely new mythology about the Exodus.

Face it, the story was made up, post hoc, to give a unifying Origin Story and identity to the people who had been taken by the Babylonians, resulting in new "ancient" texts cobbled together out of other stories... the "scars" from the editing are plainly visible to modern scholarship. The simple fact is that we have no evidence for anyone following the "Abrahamic covenant" (based on lack of pig bones in refuse pits at dig sites, one of the ways they identify Israeli settlements among the Canaanites) prior to 1200 BCE, and most experts consider the Israelites to have been one of a number of nomadic tribes (what the Amarna Stele calls "Apiru", or wanderers) in the Canaan hills, who eventually called themselves the Isra-el (means "triumphs/prevails with God") who settled into more-permanent habitation and gained power in the vacuum briefly created by the arrival of the Pelasgians (Sea Peoples) and the attrition wars between Egypt (who then owned Canaan) and the Hittites to the north. According to Silberman, "Thus, the founding fathers of the Israelite nation can now be seen as scattered groups of pastoralists living in small family groups and grazing their flocks on hilltops and isolated valleys in the hill country of Canaan." The whole concept of an Exodus and Conquest were made up later, as nation-building propaganda by the priests, centuries after the stories were supposed to have occurred-- we know this because they mention cities that were not even extant at the time, but were well-settled by the time of the Babylonian Exile.

As Yoda might say: More research, and not just from those who pre-agree with the conclusions you seek, I would recommend.

[Drich]

Good then you shouldn't have any problem referencing the proof directly instead of pointing us to a documentary film. Where's the proof?

I'll have to watch it again to get the actual tablets and papyrus names... Or you can watch the documentry. Which again was the purpose of this thread. to provide a resource for those who truly wanted evidence all in one place..

Again no. True Documentaries record and present evidence. Commentaries posing as Documentries provide little evidence. Commentaries build on the word of "experts" to try and establish truth/the truth they you want you to hear by relying on a Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Documentaries tend to provide verfiable primary/secondary source material. this film provides such evidence, and uses experts to simply read what is written, or attest to the fact of what they themselves dug up/found.

No they don't. Most documentaries compile all the "evidence" they have for just one side of an argument, and then present their conclusion based on their selection of evidence. Basically - they make "History Porn".

again you are describing a commentary dressed as a documentary.
An inconvenant truth is a great example of a commentary dressed as a documentry. where very little actual evidence is provided and it almost completely relys on expert testimony.
In contrast to say a true documentry on the american revolution that cites, dates times, historical records and news papers.

No this film provides serveral points of evidence that systematically and chronologically account for the assimilation of the semetic tribe/family of Joseph, the 7 years of plenty, the seven years of drout, the accumilation of wealth Pharaoh accumulated from the drout, Joseph's house, his tomb, the tomb of his siblings, the rise and growth of the semitic tribe in the goshen region, it documents their well being, and sudden decline/near starvation for several hundred years in the skeletal remains/Slavery, it provides a papyrus list of Jewish slaves, egyptian documentation of the plagues, then sudden abandonment of the semetic city, the fall of egypt and the fall of the cities in the promise land.

That list isn't proof of anything.

are you just being dishonest or do you simply not know any better? I said the film cites evidence that proves the chronology of the events lists as they are found in the bible.

That 'proves' the bible chronology is correct.

Provide the actual evidence please. Not claims that this or that happened. Even your list doesn't correlate with the Bible - "sudden decline/near starvation for several hundred years in the skeletal remains/Slavery" - where in Exodus does it say that the enslaved Hebrews were being starved? Not only does it not say that in Exodus, we know that Egyptians didn't mistreat slaves in the way you think they did.

again sport the purpose of the thread is to provide a resource for those who want to know the truth of egyptian history and how it relates to the exodus. I said in the OP I am not looking to have a debate over content. I am simply show casing what this film provides.

We know there were Semites in Egypt in the 13th century BC, that's nothing new at all. Egypt welcome foreigners to live and work in their land. But there's no evidence of Egypt ever enslaving an entire nation of people such as Israel,

again according to the biblical account as well as the archaeological evidence the Semites lived in the goshen region for longer than the united states was a country. So technically these people were egyptians. Not foreginers. That is the reason God thinned the herd in the desert! Because the generation leaving egypt were far too Egyptian to love and care for what God was planning on giving them. They had to relearn who they were, and forget 300+ years of egyptian indoctrination.

and furthermore the Bible clearly says they were made to do forced labour, and slaves in Egypt could not be made to do forced labour unless they were convicts. The Bible description of harsh Egyptian slavery is wrong, and it's exactly the kind of propaganda you might expect a rival nation to invent about their perceived enemy.

again the people in the Goshen region were indeed held as prisoners. and I believe it is call the Brooklyn Paprus that contains the names of several hundred semetic slaves of the middle kingdom. 1/2 of which a jew/hebrew only names.

ah, no. The only problem that is identified is the time line. Egyptologist think that egypt is several hundred years older than what it is. The problem that the movie brings up? the dark periods in which Egyptologists simply guesstimate how long egyptian soceity was lost between it's 3 main dynasties.

Again, in those three periods of time we have Absolutly NO records at all from eygpt. (what we know are from historeans and other empires) we do not know what when on nor for how long in 3 seperate instances that went on from 150 to 1000 years really lasted. It's not like we have recorded history from the first kingdom all the way to the New Kingdom. we have these 'intermediate' periods where egypt was splintered and ruled by local tribes, different countries, and we are only guessing at how long those tribes actually ruled between Empirical rule under a single pharaoh.

The "Established wisdom" of "main stream egyptology" is simply a collection of egg heads who all agree/will not question the established popular time line that accounts for the dark periods as if they were actually set in stone like the rest of egyptian history. which again is not based on proof but more Argumentum ad populum. Those who believe the earth was flat also enjoyed majority consensus for a very long time as well. And they like the egyptologists had no more 'proof' to go on other than conventional wisdom told them.

Which again is meaningless, simply because the bible does not set book ends on the events here. These same egg heads who say the exodus did not happen are the same one who set it in a time frame where if it happened it had to happen in a time where the evidence does not support it...YET If said egg heads were honest, they could simply look 3 or 4 hundred years back and find not only does the archaeology support the exodus but also established history!

Okay, firstly I said that the Rohl has a completely different timeline accepted by most other Egyptologists. Your assertion as fact that "Egyptologist think that egypt is several hundred years older than what it is" is wrong. That's just a theory put forward by Rohl which challenges the majority view of Ancient Egyptian chronology, however it is not supported by very many scholars in the field. So you can't just claim that Rohl is right and every other professional Historian and Archaeologist is wrong.

I absolutly can, because the matter being discussed is based on opinion. We have absolutle no hard evidence that states egypt is a fixed age. why? because of three intermediate periods/egyptian darkages where history was lost.
All anyone can do is guess on how long these time spans lasted, based on guess of what was known to be going on in the world at the time.

It's guess work all of it. It would be one thing if the majority of egyptologists had a solid timeline from the old to new kingdom and 2000 years of solid history, but the oppsite is true. we at best can only guess at 1/2 of what is known because we have little more than tatters and rags to tell us what is going on in what some estimate could be 1000 years of historical silence.

"The 'Established wisdom' of 'main stream egyptology' is simply a collection of egg heads who all agree/will not question the established popular time line ..." - that's just not true. History is constantly revised and Egypt is no different. You never, ever get 100% agreement from any serious historian on all aspects of history. And their conclusions are based on evidence, not on "wisdom".

Yeah, that's call sarcasm. I can honestly say I see absolutely no wisdom in how the academic structureof main stream Egyptology works. What was show cased in the video is how high ranking well respected (atheistic) Scholars reacted when confronted with undisputable evidence of slavery, and of the ten plagues. I won't spoil it, but their was alot of umm-ing and uh-ing and huffing and puffing bout the legitmacy of a authenticated, documented and dated tablet and papyus. These guys simply get paid to toe the line of the guys they follow digging things out of the sand.. and when the guys digging in the sand get it wrong so do 10 other experts... It takes an effort beyond an act of congress to get them to repeal or amend anything their fellow egg heads all agree on.

This is history told Ad populum.

I don't care when the Exodus happened, Drich, if it happened.

then why have this conversation?

If you found that the Exodus did in fact happen, say, in 2200 BC then that's great. Then I'd ask were there 600,000 people counting the number of men of fighting age involved?

Yes

And then I'd ask you why does the Bible make it clear that the Exodus happened in c. 1250 BC?

Again it doesn't. the bible does not bracket or place book ends on the exodus. Jewish tradition does.

And then I'd ask why does the Bible claim a grand conquest of Canaan when Egypt controlled the Canaan land up until the 9th century BC?

two things, we are speaking about a late middle kingdom exodus, at the end of the exodus places Egypt in their 2nd dark period. at which time the canaanites and the Philistines ruled canaan which again is in accordance with scripture. Not egypt.
http://www.britannica.com/place/Canaan-h...iddle-East

The Merneptah Stele was created in 1208 BC. On line 27 it says "Israel is destroyed it's seed is no more". This is the only mention of Israel in the ancient Egyptian texts - and there are a lot of Egyptian texts, way more than the the 22 scrolls of the Hebrew Bible, yet Israel is mentioned only once. By contrast, the Hebrew Bible mentions Egypt hundreds of times (at least 645 times). So then Drich, why does Egypt never mention Israel, if it's so important back then, except for this one time?

Duh... Because again Israel was not an actual country Egypt would be able to recognise until they took the promise land well after the exodus. Well after the hebrews became a nation it's neighbors could identify with.

Durning and before the exodus Egypt was a nation so obviously it gets mentioned in hebrew text, but as far as egypt goes the semites living in goshen area semetic egyptians, so why would they be identified as Israelites several hundred years before israel became a nation? That would be like saying everyone of latino decent in miami is not an american, and for the rest of America to identify them as being of the city nation of miami or a "my-hammie-an" Just because a minority group lives in your country and may even speak a different language does not mean they are all automatically kept and held as a captured people/nation. remember the Semites of goshen were living there several hundred years, and archaeology has found up to 20+ towns in that region all of whom have semetic building and traditional clues about them.

this is what I mean by main stream egyptology doesn't even yield to common sense. It looks for a name of a nation hundreds of years if not thousands of years before the nation existed, and then look for the same nation after the evidence says these people left egypt, and because the historical record does not identify them with the name they took after the exodus in small closed minds all across the world this somehow equates to proof.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the time line arguement being presented. We are not pushing the events back we are saying 'intermediate period' after the new Kingdom was not 350 years it was more like 100 to 150 years. This does not push anything back, it bring everything back before this period forward. Egypt is not as old as scholars think it to be. we say this because again they can not definatly account for the 'dark ages' of egypt.

You aren't a scholar you can't make that conclusion.

Dude I am simply explaining how adjusting the time span of the 3rd dark period does not equate to moving the exodus back in time. (something you do not seem to understand) it moves everything before the 3rd dark age forward in the history of egypt and it also moves the exodus forward. Again, that is only if you are one of those people who want the time lines to sink up. appearently according to the movie if you do that the rest of world history also sinc's up. It seems egypt's history puts the rest of the ancient world history in a state of flux by introducing dark periods into the rest of the world stage to account for the time egypt says they've been around. again watch the movie it is all explain very well with a nice chart and graphs.

That's simply the view of ONE scholar.

I think their were 6 that all helped to make this movie from all over the world. each dealing with his specific time period in which he was the expert.

You know very well I tell Min at every opportunity not to use quacks like Richard Carrier who's views are dismissed wholesale by almost every other scholar. You have to play by the rules as well. Now I don't know that Rohl is a quack, he appears to be a well respected Egyptologist, but his theory challenging the chronology of Ancient Egypt is not supported by other scholars.

Rohl maybe a quack, but at the same time we must also recognise that all other egyptologists are also ducks when they speak and repersent absolutes when their is a 1000 year hole in the middle of their profession. Again they can not say for certain their time line is absolute especially when it conflicts with the rest of the ancient world. Granted we know more about them, but again what we hold as popular belief puts holes in the rest of world history.

...I just read the first part of exodus again, and could not find any reference to a pharaoh who rule for 80 years.. Nor does it say Moses was 80 years old when the Pharoah died. It simply states that moses killed a egyptian, was caught Pharoah wanted to kill him, he fled, he found his wife, the 'a long time past' and that pharaoh died... The new Pharaoh came in, work the jews harder, they cried out and God decided to help them... Time passes Chapter 3 starts with the burning bush... Again nothing in the story says on pharaoh has to be a certain age when he died nor a certain age when the other one took power.

Exodus 7:7: "Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three when they spoke to Pharaoh."

again that was the age of moses it does not say pharaoh had to be that old as well.
Chapter 2:23 says some time after moses got married that Pharaoh died. Meaning the pharaoh of moses' youth and the pharaoh of the exodus was not the same guy.

Some??? How many? which ones?

Are you actually stupid, or is it an act? I already gave you one example: Jericho had been abandoned at the time of the supposed conquest of Canaan.

Are you actually stupid, or is it an act? I already gave you one example: Jericho was a viable city 40 after a middle kingdom exodus.

But an even bigger problem for you is that some cities were occupied by Egypt.

Are you actually stupid, or is it an act? Post middle Kingdom means after the middle kingdom has fallen. The events of the exodus (The death of Pharaoh's son, the destruction of the Army and the loss of Egypt's wealth spun them into a dark age. a depression it took over 100 years for them to recover from.)
Their were no cities occupied by a central egyptian goverment because their was no centralized goverment any more (40 after the loss/exodus)

Beit She'an, for example, was a heavily fortified Egyptian city located on the Jordan river smack bang in the centre of the so-called "promised land". It was destroyed by fire in 1150 BC.

so?

So let's recap - you believe in an early Exodus in c. 1450 BC. That was then followed by 40 years of wondering in the wilderness before the grand conquest of Canaan lasting two weeks.

where did you get those numbers?

So you're telling me that the Hebrews led by Joshua took Canaan c. 1410 BC. Yet for another number of centuries there were still standing cities in Canaan occupied by Egyptians and others who were not Israelites. So they didn't take the land of Canaan. Now you might tell me "ah but the Bible does say that David is the one who conquers Beit She'an several centuries later". Yeah he does, and then the Assyrian Empire came and wiped out the whole of Israel (leaving just Judah) in the 8th century BC. But the bigger problem is that Beit She'an was one of a series of administrative points for the rule of Egypt in the Canaan lands. Archaeology clearly shows that until the mid 12th century they were the dominant nation in the region. Beit She'an had control of an area of 20-30 kilometres radius, which of course includes cities that it is claimed that Joshua conquered. He couldn't have conquered anything in Canaan in the 15th, 14th, or 13th centuries because the whole area was controlled by Egypt at that time.

Are you stupid or something? (Your supposed to say stupid is as stupid does)
When did the middle kingdom end? then what happened after the middle kingdom to egypt? then what happened to the egyptian held cities after the central collaps..

Are you getting it yet? If not i know of a great little film that explains all of this in great detail. it has maps and graphs and the guy has a gift of taking really complicated things and explaining nice and simple. (So you will stop referencing random dates and associate the exodus with actual pivotal points in Egyptian history. by doing so (coupled with some common sense) you can stop asking about egyptian held terrtories long before or long after the time period in which we are discussing.

So again, not once in history did Israel ever control the "promised land". Not once. Not even as a divided kingdom did they manage it.[quote]lol..

Maybe if you referenced a time line where you are getting your courage from (for your wrong conclusions) I can help you and show you the time period the movie says egyptian sourced evidence proves the exodus took place, at least then you can see your arguement 'has no cloths.'

Again they were not foreigners they had lived their for several generations/Hundreds of years (longer than the US has been a country) Technically the semites enslaved by Egypt that later became the jews were indeed not known as jews then. they were 2nd class egyptians who over stayed their welcome, that couldn't leave if they wanted... some would say they were like prisoners.

Egypt didn't have second-class citizens.

So all were Pharaohs?

See no common sense
Infact sport their were 8 social classes in egypt.
http://www.ushistory.org/civ/3b.asp

According to this almost all slaves were captured foreigners, which were imprisoned by the state. Which for a slick tounge egyptologist could say 'only prisoners were slaves' implying some measure of guilt on the slave population when in fact the only guilt needed was to be of a different back ground.

[Drich]

Wolpe was the second guy they interview in this movie old sport, so as to get his full perspective, and not just some old cogers take on what was said.

what else you got?

What do you mean, "what else you got?"

They've explained the numerous problems with the entire archaeological record, and with the narrative itself, that this new version "alternate timeline of the Exodus" presents. They've explained that the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field, many of them Israelis who would have every reason to want to confirm the Exodus and Conquest actually occurred (since that's partially the basis for the claim of the modern nation upon that land), is that no such thing as described in the mythology actually happened. They've explained that it doesn't fit with the pharaohs listed in the story, nor does the record of the pharaohs contain any examples of that fit the narrative. 

Briefly, a guy named Woods contended that he had discovered evidence that Jericho was destroyed near to the date the Exodus must have happened in order to fit the timeline correctly, but it was based on a piece of charcoal that was mis-dated due to a calibration error at the British Museum, which was later fixed and a proper date applied that was over 150 years earlier, at a time when the Exodus could not have happened. Others (primarily Aardsma, Rohl, and Stewart) have tried to advance the "missing millennium" hypothesis and other sorts of "push the timeline back" ideas to account for this, but were soundly shot down by fellow experts in the field, not only on archaeological grounds (such as when you examine other cities mentioned in the story which did not exist anywhere near the older timeline proposed) but also because of the above-mentioned conflicts with that hypothesis... yet apologists continue to push these ideas as the basis of an entirely new mythology about the Exodus.

Face it, the story was made up, post hoc, to give a unifying Origin Story and identity to the people who had been taken by the Babylonians, resulting in new "ancient" texts cobbled together out of other stories... the "scars" from the editing are plainly visible to modern scholarship. The simple fact is that we have no evidence for anyone following the "Abrahamic covenant" (based on lack of pig bones in refuse pits at dig sites, one of the ways they identify Israeli settlements among the Canaanites) prior to 1200 BCE, and most experts consider the Israelites to have been one of a number of nomadic tribes (what the Amarna Stele calls "Apiru", or wanderers) in the Canaan hills, who eventually called themselves the Isra-el (means "triumphs/prevails with God") who settled into more-permanent habitation and gained power in the vacuum briefly created by the arrival of the Pelasgians (Sea Peoples) and the attrition wars between Egypt (who then owned Canaan) and the Hittites to the north. According to Silberman, "Thus, the founding fathers of the Israelite nation can now be seen as scattered groups of pastoralists living in small family groups and grazing their flocks on hilltops and isolated valleys in the hill country of Canaan." The whole concept of an Exodus and Conquest were made up later, as nation-building propaganda by the priests, centuries after the stories were supposed to have occurred-- we know this because they mention cities that were not even extant at the time, but were well-settled by the time of the Babylonian Exile.

As Yoda might say: More research, and not just from those who pre-agree with the conclusions you seek, I would recommend.

citations??? what do you have to support any of this ad hoc mess?

At least i came here with a video that cites historical records and interviews actual archaeologist who are digging up said evidence. what do you have besides a 'doo' rag and a trust me look on your avatar?

[Minimalist]

citations??? what do you have to support any of this ad hoc mess?

If you were capable of comprehending works like Redford's " Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" or Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" it would be worth directing you to them.  But you can't.

Obviously all you can handle are poorly made videos that reinforce what you oh-so-desperately-want-to-believe is true.

You are in over your head, drippy.

[Angrboda]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

citations??? what do you have to support any of this ad hoc mess?

At least i came here with a video that cites historical records and interviews actual archaeologist who are digging up said evidence. what do you have besides a 'doo' rag and a trust me look on your avatar?

What? What do you think the names I referenced in my reply are?  Those are the names of "actual archaeologists", top-level university professors and writers, and not a couple of random crackpots at the fringes. I did my best to succinctly (for me) reference the knowledge that those fields have gleaned from centuries of work, especially the technology-enabled research done in the past couple of decades.

I don't think you know what ad hoc  means. Simply summarizing what can be read in any serious, scholarly work on the ancient near east does not constitute an ad hoc explanation. If I thought you would honestly care about and/or consider citations as valid even when they conflicted with your prejudices, I'd be glad to offer you some (more) references... I also know that these are easily referenced in a number of threads you've seen before, such as those by GoodWithoutGod and Aractus, among others, so you are being disingenuous when you suggest my post is an "ad hoc  mess". Then again, what else is new?

Frankly, it's about an hour until my Beloved, our son, plus my inlaws and parents arrive for me to host a Christmas dinner that I am currently cooking, so I just don't care enough to dig up what is readily available to you. 

As for my do-rag, since when does a do-rag say "trust me"? What the fuck, man?