For those who want proof of the exodus

[Minimalist]

Prove it.

Hey, asshole.  YOU are the one who said you can disprove Carrier's position.  Now put up or shut up.

[dyresand]

Go to it.  Before you waste your fucking time remember all you have is the pious blather of believers in your silly-assed gospels.  They are shit.

Prove it.

Can you give any legitimate (not the "blather" of some Internet bloggers) examples of hard, physical, archaeological evidence that has EVER disproved a single Biblical account - whether it is from the Old or New Testament?

As best I can tell, unlike Islam or Mormonism, archaeology has been very, very kind to the bible believer.

Satan... if you are real... please show this guy some sense....

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Missing:



Boru

Weren't we lucky that the God character was out of the solar system when we went to the moon?
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/...n_1200.jpg

[GrandizerII]

No, I'm going by what is being stated in the thread. But you know what, I'm going to watch that film in its entirety within the next couple of days and give my review (if I'm not too lazy then).

Good.

I look forward to your hearing your thoughts after seeing it!

Ok, surprise, surprise, just finished watching the film a short while ago. So here's what little I have to say:

The maker of the film, Tim Mahoney, tries to come off as a guy simply looking for the truth but, knowingly or not, had already made his conclusion even before examining the evidence: Exodus must have happened despite the mainstream scholarly consensus stating otherwise. Never throughout the film was he ever willing to accept the possibility of it never happening. So for him, it was not a matter of whether the event actually occurred, but when the event occurred. One of his biggest mistakes to make as this means, if Exodus never happened, then he was not open to such a truth. And that's the opposite of caring about the truth.

Another thing is that there was a severe lack of counterarguments to the revisionist theory proposed in the documentary. We only really hear one side to the debate. Sure, the filmmaker interviews experts who hold to the scholarly consensus, but we never really get to hear what they have to say about the "new" timeline proposed by Tim. All we ever hear the opposing side talk about is that the currently accepted timeline is the foundation for their position that Exodus never happened. But that does not seem to be the fault of the opposing side, but rather the documentary makers omitting all the important things they had to say. So for me, the editing was unfair and probably took a lot of critical words and phrases out of context.

Tim Mahoney's search for the "truth", by the way, is mainly based on Rohl's theory. Make no mistake about it, this was really a film about Rohl's view, not some new idea that started to emerge only recently.

Another big flaw in the documentary is that no attempt is made to try to negate the "theory" proposed and agreed with by Mahoney. Mahoney seems to think that a good theory is one that can be confirmed or supported by various pieces of evidence, but that is only part of what makes a theory a good one. A good theory should normally be one that potentially is falsifiable, and more importantly, has successfully passed challenges and tests multiple times before becoming accepted as a good theory. This obviously could not have been established by some documentary, so no expectation there, but they could have at least tried to challenge their own proposed timeline somewhat.

Of course, the meat of the argument in the documentary is that apparently there are multiple pieces of evidence that the Exodus did happen ... but only if you assume that the Exodus occurred way before Ramesses the II. But all that really means nothing if they are never challenged or put to the test.

One of the pieces of evidence is that a statue of some Asiatic person can be found in Avaris, and somehow the documentary reckons it must have been Joseph, but they don't consider that it may not have been a statue of a Jew but rather of some Hyksos person (which makes sense given that the Hyksos during that point rules over Egypt). This is just one example of how they make inferences that aren't parsimonious and aren't in line with the current accepted conclusions that, by the way, have been converged upon by multiple perspectives and not just one line of reasoning.

[Minimalist]

Quite right, Ir.  One of the things that Rohl jacked off on was the pit graves.  Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, the noted sleazebag Simcha Jacobovici in his widely discredited "The Exodus Decoded" also went nuts over the pit graves containing young men (although Jacobovci was trying to twist the chronology in the other direction to tie it to the Santorini eruption.)  As one reviewer noted of Jacobovici's work:

Exhibit I: Male Plague Victims. Jacobovici asserts that mass burials of males in pit graves at Tell el-Daba are evidence for plague 10, the death of the firstborn. However, he presents only part of the evidence. As usual, there is a chronological problem. The burials are from the early 18th Dynasty, after the expulsion of the Hyksos. In addition, the individuals have a very narrow age range: between 18 and 25. We would expect victims of plague 10 to be younger than 18 and older than 25. Anthropological examination has shown that some of the individuals were Nubians, commonly employed in the Egyptian army in this time period. Since the burials were in the area of a military camp and arrowheads were found in the graves, the most logical explanation is that the burials were soldiers from the Egyptian army. The excavator concludes, “They were probably soldiers who died in the camps from diseases over a period of time” (Bietak 2005: 13).

-- Chris Heard   Higgaion

The only thing I will give Mahoney credit for is that he cultivates the image of the "seeker" merely trying to get evidence for what, as you say, he has already decided must be right.
Jacobovici is a scum-sucking, self-promoting, pig.  Noted xtian scholar Jonathan Reed, sitting on a panel with archaeologist William Dever at the premiere of The Exodus Decoded called it "archaeo-porn."  A great line.

[GrandizerII]

Quite right, Ir.  One of the things that Rohl jacked off on was the pit graves.  Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, the noted sleazebag Simcha Jacobovici in his widely discredited "The Exodus Decoded" also went nuts over the pit graves containing young men (although Jacobovci was trying to twist the chronology in the other direction to tie it to the Santorini eruption.)  As one reviewer noted of Jacobovici's work:

Exhibit I: Male Plague Victims. Jacobovici asserts that mass burials of males in pit graves at Tell el-Daba are evidence for plague 10, the death of the firstborn. However, he presents only part of the evidence. As usual, there is a chronological problem. The burials are from the early 18th Dynasty, after the expulsion of the Hyksos. In addition, the individuals have a very narrow age range: between 18 and 25. We would expect victims of plague 10 to be younger than 18 and older than 25. Anthropological examination has shown that some of the individuals were Nubians, commonly employed in the Egyptian army in this time period. Since the burials were in the area of a military camp and arrowheads were found in the graves, the most logical explanation is that the burials were soldiers from the Egyptian army. The excavator concludes, “They were probably soldiers who died in the camps from diseases over a period of time” (Bietak 2005: 13).

-- Chris Heard   Higgaion

That's what happens when they don't challenge their initial interpretation of the evidence. It's clear both Rohl and Mahoney (and Jacobovici) want the Exodus to be true, so no investment is made on their part in trying to falsify their own claims or come up with better explanations. The main point of the scientific method is to reveal what is true regardless of what we wish for to be the truth. And that's done through repetition, tests, and so on.

[Minimalist]

Precisely but remember....

Science has questions that may never be answered.  Religion has answers that may never be questioned.

[Whateverist]

Hey, can I get a little service here, Drich? My soul isn't just going to save itself you know. So I answered a post of yours and you haven't gotten back to me in days. I'm not sure whether I've inadvertently converted you or if you've just thrown in the towel on converting me.

Such as?

Their is absolute evidence That a semetic people live in the very same region of egypt the bible says the Jews/semites lived

Granted.  People lived in Egypt.

Their is absolute evidence that they lived and Prospered for a very long time, then towards the end of their time in egypt they lacked the basics of life while other at the same time prospered (which would indicate slavery.)

Stipulated: there were slaves in Egypt.

Their is a cataloged and verfied Egyptian govermental document that lists 100 Jew only slave names

Stipulated: there were slaves in Egypt.

There are over 25 unescavated towns/villages sites around the central Semetic city that could indeed support the number recorded leaving egypt.

Stipulated: there were towns sufficient in number to house some number of slaves some of which might well have been jewish.  But what do you have to show a large number of jewish slaves were released at the same time.  I strongly doubt it.

Their is an egyptian document that describes the plagues from an egyptian perspective.

Denied: that it rained frogs and genies swept through Egyptian towns killing every first born child in any house not marked by the blood of a burnt offering (or whatever it was).

So what in you mind is without substance?

Just the crazy part.  

You have some evidence for the mundane bits:
jews in Egypt;
that Egyptians owned slaves;
some of whom were Jewish

Do you have any evidence that a large number of jews left out of slavery at the same time?  This I would question along with the crazy 'miracle' bits.

[Minimalist]

jews in Egypt;
that Egyptians owned slaves;
some of whom were Jewish

Bullshit. 

1. The evidence is that Canaanites were in Egypt.  There is nothing to suggest that they were "jews."
2. The Canaanites ( The Hyksos ) were the rulers of the 15th Dynasty so if anyone was owning slaves it was they and not "the Egyptians."
3.  Again, other than the fucking fairy tales that morons like drippy prattle on about there is nothing to suggest that "jews" existed at all until the Persian period.

[Angrboda]

Page comparing the sayings in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, and the corresponding passages in Exodus.

http://ohr.edu/838