Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Your "archaeological " e-book is a work of fiction.
|
A forgone conclusion of yours, without doubt.
Quote:
history and archaeology now consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE.[1]
Of course Christian and Jewish literalists do not accept this.
and..
https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/evidence-of-the-exodus
In the past few decades the field of Biblical archaeology has been secularized to the point that, in the mainstream of expert opinion, the Exodus story is now considered to be legend.
and
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.1d31999674c1
"There was no real exodus. There was no real wilderness wandering," asserts William G. Dever, excavator of the ancient biblical city of Gezer (between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv), and former director of the Albright School of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.
Dever's views are by no means universally accepted, but he is one of the most highly regarded biblical archaeologists in the world. The questionsthat Dever and others raise about the Exodus are of more than passing interest to secular historians, to Christians and to Jews, who will be sitting down Monday night to eat unleavened bread and the other traditional dishes of Passover -- the celebration of the Children of Israel's exodus from bondage in Egypt. The Exodus and the bondage that preceded it are the seminal events in Judaism -- for they mark the transformation of Jacob's clan into the people of Israel.
and.......
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...ises-1.5626647
Despite feverish searching with Scripture in one hand and cutting-edge technology in the other, evidence backing the Bible remains elusive. But there are some surprising anomalies
Eighteen years ago, on October 29, 1999, Haaretz published an article by Tel Aviv University's Zeev Herzog, whose message was spelled out in the very headline: The Bible: No evidence on the ground.
Of what? No evidence that the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt, passed through a miraculously parted Red Sea, wandered the Sinai Desert for 40 years or indeed any years, and no evidence that they conquered the land of Israel and divided it up among 12 tribes of Israel. The renowned archaeologist also shared his suspicion that David and Solomons "United Kingdom," described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a minor tribal domain.
|
Let's face it: The secularists bring their presuppositions to bear upon any findings and conclude a lot differently than do other scholars. Of course, there are limitations, also, to archaeology. As writer of the last article I posted stated archaeology cannot prove every historical detail.
So, is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and people of many faiths line up on either side of the equation, and some say both. Archaeological discoveries have verified that parts of the Biblical Exodus are historically accurate, but archaeology can’t tell us everything. Although archaeology can illuminate aspects of the past and bring parts of history to life, it has its limits.
It certainly is exciting when the archaeological record matches with the Biblical account—as with the examples described here. However, while this evidence certainly adds weight to the historical accuracy of elements of the Biblical account, it can’t be used to “prove” that every detail of the Exodus story in the Bible is true.
But the fact there were ancient Hebrew homes found in Egypt is very revealing since Joseph (a son of Jacob) settled his brothers and their families in Egypt in a land (probably similar to a city-state) that actually was given to the Hebrews by Pharaoh (Gen 45:10; 46:28, 29, 34; 47:1, 4, 6, 27; 50:8; Ex 8:22; 9:26). In fact, the Hebrews still occupied that land during Moses' encounter with [the] Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.
Also, there are severe limitations to archeology:
Limits of Archaeology
Many critics who doubt the historicity of the Exodus share a problem: over-reliance on what archaeology can prove. Archaeology is, in fact, a limited and imperfect area of study in which the interpretation of findings, as archaeologists readily admit, is more of an art than a hard science.
Archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi points out the limits of this science when he explains:
(1) little of what was made or written in antiquity survives to this day;
(2) few of the ancient sites have been surveyed and a number have not even been found;
(3) probably fewer than 2 percent of the known sites have been meaningfully excavated;
(4) few of these have been more than scratched; and
(5) only a fraction of the fraction that have been excavated have been published and data made available to the scholarly world (1972: chapter 4).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...ntroversy.aspx
Also, as I mentioned previously it was a custom of ANE cultures (including Egyptians) to literally cover up negative, unflattering or embarrassing events by either not recording them or expunging them later from the records. This was done to protect the reputation and image not only of the rulers
but of their gods, as well! But the bible stands in very sharp contrast to this practice -- and this is one of the major reasons why I believe the bible is authentic and that it's history is accurate. The bible spares no one! Jewish writers recorded things as they were even when it more often than not put their own countrymen and their own rulers in a very poor light! Writers of scripture pulled no punches.
