Temples from before 3000 found the island Sinai

[Moses]

http://www.islandpacket.com/world/story/820736.html

CAIRO — Archaeologists exploring an old military road in the Sinai have unearthed four new temples amidst the 3,000-year-old remains of an ancient fortified city that could have been used to impress foreign delegations visiting Egypt, antiquities authorities announced Tuesday.

Among the discoveries was the largest mud brick temple found in the Sinai with an area of 70 by 80 meters (77 by 87 yards) and fortified with mud walls 3 meters (10 feet) thick, said Zahi Hawass, chief of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities.

The find was made in Qantara, 2 1/2 miles (4 kilometers) east of the Suez Canal. These temples mark the latest discovery by archaeologists digging up the remains of the city on the military road known as "Way of Horus." Horus is a falcon-headed god, who represented the greatest cosmic powers for ancient Egyptians.

The path once connected Egypt to Palestine and is close to present-day Rafah, which borders the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

 
Enlarge Image
This undated hand out picture released Tuesday April 21, 2009, by Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities shows Pharaonic King Tuthmosis II, left, in front of the god Ra’a Hoor Akhti carved on a wall at one of four recently unearthed new temples in Qantara amidst the 3,000-year-old remains of an ancient fortified city that could have been used to impress foreign delegations visiting Egypt, antiquities authorities announced Tuesday April 21, 2009.
AP Photo
Archaeologist Mohammed Abdel-Maqsoud, chief of the excavation team, said the large brick temple could potentially rewrite the historical and military significance of the Sinai for the ancient Egyptians.

[eccles]

Great to see such a post on this Group. I saw the report possiby on the site of the magazine of the Archaeological Institute of America. I am a keen studyier of Ancient Egypt.

Here is an article about the "Way of Horus" from the "Tour Egypt" Site:

In spite of the divergent opinions of Egyptologists as regards the beginning of the
military route or what is called " The Great Horus Route" illustrated in the battle relief of
King Seti I in the columns court of the Karnak Temple, as having 12 fortresses and
military compounds, yet they agree upon the route's real existence.

Egyptologists have discovered until now 4 fortresses, two at Qantrah Sharq (Eastern
Qantarah) at Tell Habouh and Tell Al-Borg; the third in Bir Al-Abd; the fourth in the
Kharoub area near Al-Arish.

Continued:
http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/horusmilitary.htm

s a side note I remind members that there are no Egyptian accounts of the "Exodus" of 2 million Hebrews  lead by so-called Moses out of Egypt and no Archaeological evidence in the Sinai Desert of wanderings of 2 million people for 40  years.

[Elijah]

I feel our members would be offended if anyone who feels archeological evidence is more than lacking but totally inexistant for anything biblical (aka Biblical Archeology) that they then judge it as not archeology to go search for it, but rather demand that until such archeology be found we must label it as religious faith and therefore must exclude it from the site. This is political tactics entering the site, and I ask the administrators and moderators to set such atitude straight. Everything archeologically discovered started as theory to go search for whether it was inspired by a text or scripture or bible to go look for it. Do we ban the imagination from posting what might be something for us to go search for. To do so is to let someone else take o ver to rule, and then control like Hitler did... or any tyranny. I aqm defending our members here from anyone who comes in telling us we all need to be reminded what isnt proven yet.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY
is not archeology to explain the myths of a popular book.
Such thinking needs to keep within its own chapter and not attempt to become the whole BAS book.

[Watchman]

I have to agree with Elijah on this one! Archaeology as well as History, and veins of unbroken traditions from Judaism and Christianity have led many fine scholars, bent on disproving the alleged Biblical Mythos, to their knees before the God this book speaks of.

Aside from that, many fine Historians (believers and unbelievers) have combed the evidence and determined just based on the historiography alone, that the Bible, apart from the God factor, is still a very sound and reliable source of History.

Most people from the other camp really do not want the Bible to be seen as History or be demonstrated to be possible or (Nature forbid) true, have an a priori bias...they just do not want it to be reliable or factual because of what questions for their own lives that illicits.

For two centuries they have based many concusions simply on their prejudiced assumption's...no camels in Abrahams time...Semetic writing not even developed until centuries after Moses...no Hittites...no Sargon or Balshazzar...and opn and on and on goes the unending stream of "eating their own hat" but do they ever admit they were just plain wrong or in error...too few, instead they seek out a new not yet demonstrated statement or place or make up issues based on poor evidence like judging Mark as the first gospel because the oldest fragment we have is from Mark or because it is smaller.

In my lay-scholarly opinion it absurd, unreasonable, and illogical for scholars to fall in line with that type revisionist assumptive conclusionism, or bow to there intuited theories and give up on what history or even traditions have told us.

take for example a flood of catastrophic proportions. It happened! There are so many evidences when looked at together and wioth an unbiased mind it is overwhelming, let alone the fact that peoples the world older hold traditions regarding this fact (some amazing similarities..over 50 versions just among native americans).

Anyway, I am sure this will catch a rebuke or two.

Wathman

[tourmaline]

There is no evidence for a world wide flood, but much evidence of many "localized" floods.

As a general rule, the further back you go chronologically in the Bible, the shakier the ground you are walking on in terms of historical fact. I've witnessed many people say that the Bible is a work of fiction and many saying that the Bible is unfailingly fact. As with most things, the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately, in terms of the Exodus, archaeologists of all faiths have scoured the Sinai peninsula in an attempt to find evidence of habitation during the relevant period and have come up completely empty-handed. Also, one looks in vain for some mention in the Egyptian records of an ousting of slaves, and the only thing that really comes at all close is the expulsion of the Hyksos who then fled into Palestine; I believe it is likely that this was one of the elements that contributed to what came to be the Exodus story. Archaeology also unequivocally establishes that many of the cities that were mentioned in the desert wandering were actually mere villages and were not even inhabited at the time the Exodus was to have taken place...but they WERE inhabited centuries later when the Exodus story came into its final form around the time of the Babylonian exile. Could the author have been projecting contemporary features of his own milieu back into the distant past? It's likely. The Exodus epoch is a confused, contradictory account with several strands from different time periods woven together.

I could go on...I'm sorry to ramble but it is truly exasperating the way that so many people of faith feel that they must insist that their holy book is literally true and that archaeology confirms it. That is a generalization and the truth is that in many ways certain parts of the Bible have been confirmed and other parts have been conclusively dis-proven. Is your faith really such a house of cards that it cannot withstand that information, and the implication that the Bible was written by fallible human beings, many many differen human beings? I truly hope that as we progress scientifically/archaeologically and more fascinating discoveries are made that both confirm and contradict the Biblical view, that people will be open to a faith that evolves from one of black and white literalism to something more sublime and universal.

[notalent]

Unfortunately, in terms of the Exodus, archaeologists of all faiths have scoured the Sinai peninsula in an attempt to find evidence of habitation during the relevant period and have come up completely empty-handed.

This isn't an accurate characterization.  The semitic script found in the mines of Serabit el-Khadim show that semitic people were used to work Egyptian mines in the near vicinity of the chronological ball-park.

Also, one looks in vain for some mention in the Egyptian records of an ousting of slaves, and the only thing that really comes at all close is the expulsion of the Hyksos who then fled into Palestine; I believe it is likely that this was one of the elements that contributed to what came to be the Exodus story.

This isn't a compelling argument.  The Hyksos expulsion was a military triumph for Egyptians.  The Exodus episode was not.  Egyptians only record things that look good in a hagiography.  So why would you expect to find an account of their humiliation in the Exodus?

The Exodus epoch is a confused, contradictory account with several strands from different time periods woven together.

Easy to say but apparently not easy to demonstrate since you aren't supporting your claim.

I could go on...I'm sorry to ramble but it is truly exasperating the way that so many people of faith feel that they must insist that their holy book is literally true and that archaeology confirms it.

It's more exasperating to read uninformed pontifications from amateur skeptics who merely repeat the conclusions of professional skeptics without understanding the underlying material, or more often, the lack thereof.

I truly hope that as we progress scientifically/archaeologically and more fascinating discoveries are made that both confirm and contradict the Biblical view, that people will be open to a faith that evolves from one of black and white literalism to something more sublime and universal.

One may guess that what you find to be sublime in the Bible would reveal whatever prejudices you have against its followers.

[jingle33]

Hey! accept my hello. howdy! I am newbie.

[tourmaline]

 

semitic script found in the mines of Serabit el-Khadim show that semitic people were used to work Egyptian mines in the near vicinity of the chronological ball-park.

Yes, I apologize for not being more specific in my post. Serabit al-Khadem is of course an amazing site, an Egyptian mining installation that was worked in large part by Asiatic, Semitic-speaking people. I was referring in my post to evidence of a large group - or even a smaller group - of people who would have left traces in the Sinai as they encamped and passed through: fire-pits, pottery sherds, graves, etc. Nothing has been found from the relevant period that remotely suggests the Exodus account.

This isn't a compelling argument.  The Hyksos expulsion was a military triumph for Egyptians.  The Exodus episode was not.  Egyptians only record things that look good in a hagiography.  So why would you expect to find an account of their humiliation in the Exodus?

I have heard that excuse parroted back so many times over the years by people trying to justify the ancient Egyptian silence regarding any Hebrew/Exodus tradition. One doesn't require an Egyptian account of their defeat at the hands of the ancient Hebrews. One only needs some mention - in ANY context, as long as it is of the correct time period - of a name, or detail that can plausibly be connected with the Hebrew presence in Egypt and/or their departure en masse (regardless of the circumstances of the departure). And fascinatingly, such a thing does exist. Scarabs have been found which mention an Egyptian ruler called Yaqob-Har (Yaqob-El), which is tantalizingly close to Jacob and whose name is West Semitic in origin, and seems to include a Semitic theophoric element. And when is this ruler dated? To the early Hyksos period - 15th Dynasty - or possibly even the mysterious probably-Semitic 14th Dynasty immediately before the Hyksos period.

The Exodus epoch is a confused, contradictory account with several strands from different time periods woven together.

Easy to say but apparently not easy to demonstrate since you aren't supporting your claim.

Analysis of the Exodus and Wilderness Wandering traditions by scholars of several different stripes are so ubiquitous in books and on the net that I'm not even going to bother to "support my claim." They all come to different conclusions and try to put forth various hypotheses - many come away confounded and fatigued by their fruitless efforts to fit a square peg into a round hole i.e. to establish by 21st C. scholarly standards the historicity and fact of all the muddled geographic details and time-frames within the story. If you are interested in the various strands of the written text, you can research the Documentary Hypothesis.

Its more exasperating to read uninformed pontifications from amateur skeptics who merely repeat the conclusions of professional skeptics without understanding the underlying material, or more often, the lack thereof.

Amateur skeptic as opposed to professional skeptic....hmmm. I don't think the point is skepticism, per se. I think the point is to have the courage to look at the material world with one's logical mind fully engaged, and to not suspend disbelief, which is what one must do if one accepts the Bible willy-nilly as unfailingly factual.

It's not about being consummately skeptical and attempting to rain on people's parade. I actually have a very strong belief in a higher power/God. But that belief is not bound up with dogma or triumphalism or the superiority of one faith over another. My relationship with God is an outgrowth of my own experience in the world, and whether or not the Bible or any other book is literally true has no bearing on my own inner experience.

And by the way, I may not have chosen to become a professional in the field of Biblical scholarship or archaeology, but that doesn't mean that I am not a critical thinker. I recieved my BA a few years ago in both Jewish Studies and Biblical Studies and I maintained a 4.0 throughout my college career. I was encouraged to go on to grad school by my professors and my adviser but I chose not to simply because I have no desire to teach, which is pretty much the only option available within that field. I do read the conclusions of scholars (or what you small-mindedly call "professional skeptics") that I respect as well as those I don't respect, and some I agree with and others I think are misguided. But I do not unhesitatingly accept revisionist theories and laugh at conservative theories. I honestly try to be completely free of bias and let the *data* speak. I wish everyone would do this. I love the Bible, but I am not an ostrich who sticks her head in the sand and insists on "that ol' time religion" when modern scholarship has strongly suggested that so many aspects of it are untenable.

One may guess that what you find to be sublime in the Bible would reveal whatever prejudices you have against its followers.

I find the most sublime passage of the Bible to be 1 Kings 19:11-12.
And I am a follower of the Bible as well, but just in a different way than you are.

[turanclancath]

http://www.gemstonegifts.com/stones/tourmaline.htm

Welcome Tourmaline.
I was intrigued by the symbolism of the tourmaline stoneand found this.
A very spiritual stone


Well the problem you  signal  Fate and/or Science is an very old p[roblem.

The best solution was found in the Middle ages 
with Averroes and in its optimal form by Siger of Brabant ( see Wiki )
I will call it Averroeism for convinience although in reallity it is the Averroeism of Siger of Brabant
Averoeism   the idy that there are 2 truths the so called double truth.

A Religious one and a Scientific one and they belong to different  dimensions and can exist together even if they are opposite.

So you can believe that there was etc etc  and as an Scientist have another opinion.
Eric Cline and Finkelstein are good examples.
As Jews they practice religion.They are religious !!!!
As scientists( for sure both Professors arent amateurs )
they dont believe  many Biblical things.

Thomas Aquinas choosed another way het tried toharmonise Religion and Science but Religion was superior.( no double truth )
The result was in the end that since the 16 century  Religion and Science drifted apart.



Turanclancath 

[notalent]

This isn't a compelling argument.  The Hyksos expulsion was a military triumph for Egyptians.  The Exodus episode was not.  Egyptians only record things that look good in a hagiography.  So why would you expect to find an account of their humiliation in the Exodus?

I have heard that excuse parroted back so many times over the years by people trying to justify the ancient Egyptian silence regarding any Hebrew/Exodus tradition. One doesn't require an Egyptian account of their defeat at the hands of the ancient Hebrews. One only needs some mention - in ANY context, as long as it is of the correct time period - of a name, or detail that can plausibly be connected with the Hebrew presence in Egypt and/or their departure en masse (regardless of the circumstances of the departure).

Many people don't like having it "parroted" to them all the time because it's the truth.  Again, a hagiography isn't going to record catastrophic reverses at the hands of slaves.  Egyptians just don't do that, and you know it.  There's just no good way to spin it.  Really embarrassing things go straight into the memory hole.

And fascinatingly, such a thing does exist. Scarabs have been found which mention an Egyptian ruler called Yaqob-Har (Yaqob-El), which is tantalizingly close to Jacob and whose name is West Semitic in origin, and seems to include a Semitic theophoric element. And when is this ruler dated? To the early Hyksos period - 15th Dynasty - or possibly even the mysterious probably-Semitic 14th Dynasty immediately before the Hyksos period.

I could believe the 14th, since I tend toward NC chronology.  IMO, the Hyksos are Amalek who met Israel in battle on the way in to taking over a devastated Egypt at the end of the reign of Dudimose.  Yet another reason why there is no record because of the general decline and chaos of that particular time.  What records of anything in Egypt survive from that time?  Very, very little.

The Exodus epoch is a confused, contradictory account with several strands from different time periods woven together.

Easy to say but apparently not easy to demonstrate since you aren't supporting your claim.

Analysis of the Exodus and Wilderness Wandering traditions by scholars of several different stripes are so ubiquitous in books and on the net that I'm not even going to bother to "support my claim."

I think you're confusing terms here.  There are claims and there are supports (or lack thereof) for them.  An extreme example is the Skeptics Bible on the internet.  There are many claims but 99.9% of them are un-scholarly,  shallow and based in isagogical ignorance.

For more "scholarly" claims, there are answers as well that can be rejected out of a preference for skepticism.

They all come to different conclusions and try to put forth various hypotheses - many come away confounded and fatigued by their fruitless efforts to fit a square peg into a round hole i.e. to establish by 21st C. scholarly standards the historicity and fact of all the muddled geographic details and time-frames within the story. If you are interested in the various strands of the written text, you can research the Documentary Hypothesis.

Well, you can find answers to all the conundrums down at your local theological library.  So there. 

But seriously, the answers are almost always right there in the text if one is willing to give the text the benefit of the doubt, even if only for the sake of the argument.  If you don't think so, try me.

Its more exasperating to read uninformed pontifications from amateur skeptics who merely repeat the conclusions of professional skeptics without understanding the underlying material, or more often, the lack thereof.

Amateur skeptic as opposed to professional skeptic....hmmm. I don't think the point is skepticism, per se. I think the point is to have the courage to look at the material world with one's logical mind fully engaged, and to not suspend disbelief, which is what one must do if one accepts the Bible willy-nilly as unfailingly factual.

I challenge this tacit assumption that your logical mind is fully engaged, and by dint of personal courage, no less.  I mean, give yourself a medal!  An Egyptian hagiographer would be impressed with that kind of esteem-building self-talk.  "I'm courageously not believing everything a book of myths is telling me." 

That isn't logical which suggests something else is going on.

It's not about being consummately skeptical and attempting to rain on people's parade. I actually have a very strong belief in a higher power/God. But that belief is not bound up with dogma or triumphalism or the superiority of one faith over another. My relationship with God is an outgrowth of my own experience in the world, and whether or not the Bible or any other book is literally true has no bearing on my own inner experience.

This is also not logical.  It is manifestly the case that you are suggesting that your relationship with God (your religion) is superior to what you view as "triumphalism", i.e. fundamentalist belief in the veracity of scripture.  It's your own triumphalism.  And you suggest your 21st century, scientific/skeptical view of scripture is superior to a fundamentalist faith in them.

I'm not attacking your faith, just the implication that your faith is more reasonable and thus superior, while trying to also claim to not be superior.  I submit your logical mind is not as fully engaged as you would like to believe on these points.

And by the way, I may not have chosen to become a professional in the field of Biblical scholarship or archaeology, but that doesn't mean that I am not a critical thinker. I recieved my BA a few years ago in both Jewish Studies and Biblical Studies and I maintained a 4.0 throughout my college career. I was encouraged to go on to grad school by my professors and my adviser but I chose not to simply because I have no desire to teach, which is pretty much the only option available within that field. I do read the conclusions of scholars (or what you small-mindedly call "professional skeptics") that I respect as well as those I don't respect, and some I agree with and others I think are misguided. But I do not unhesitatingly accept revisionist theories and laugh at conservative theories. I honestly try to be completely free of bias and let the *data* speak. I wish everyone would do this.

There's no process for becoming free of bias.  In fact, the most powerful method of maintaining bias toward something that can't be resolved by the scientific method is to fall back on the scientific method.  Since it is hollowed above all things in the 21st century, it is seen as the most unassailable position for all things, e.g. God, Biblical narratives, etc.

I love the Bible, but I am not an ostrich who sticks her head in the sand and insists on "that ol' time religion" when modern scholarship has strongly suggested that so many aspects of it are untenable.

In particular, the Exodus you seem to find untenable.  But from what you've actually posted, it would seem your view is "supported" mainly by an "absence of evidence".  Not the strongest support, IMO.  It's what atheists use to deny God.  If such an argument is so compelling for doubting the Exodus, why not for God Himself?

One may guess that what you find to be sublime in the Bible would reveal whatever prejudices you have against its followers.

I find the most sublime passage of the Bible to be 1 Kings 19:11-12.

And I am a follower of the Bible as well, but just in a different way than you are.

Leviticus 10:1-3

[tourmaline]

Hi Jingle! I'm new too. I don't have the good manners to introduce myself though, I just jumped right in!

Turanclancath: Thank you, I do indeed love tourmalines. I also agree that truth can exist in different dimensions. I've always made a distinction between truth, of which there can be many, and fact, which there can be only one set of for a given situation.

Regarding your comment on Jews having one foot in science and one foot in their religion...Jews are an ethnicity, a people, like Italians and Chinese, but Jews also have a religion which we call Judaism. All Jews are not religious - you cannot be a religious person just by being born of a certain nationality. There are many religious (observant) Jews who are also scientists, but I don't believe that Israel Finkelstein is one of them. I believe he is completely secular. Yes, his mother is Jewish so he is a member of the Jewish people, but I doubt that he would consider himself religious in any way, certainly not observant.

Many people don't like having it "parroted" to them all the time because it's the truth.  Again, a hagiography isn't going to record catastrophic reverses at the hands of slaves.  Egyptians just don't do that, and you know it.  There's just no good way to spin it.  Really embarrassing things go straight into the memory hole.

Again, I iterate: A reference to such a defeat is not necessarily what is required. Moreover hagiographic or monumental pharaonic  inscriptions are not the only primary source for knowledge of ancient Egypt. Their are more mundane sources available, the el-Amarna letters being the most salient example.

Of course my argument is not that there never was any kind of  sojourn in Egypt, but rather that many of the details of the Exodus and wandering narratives are probably largely unhistorical, though based on historical kernels that came down from the hoary past and were embellished over time, like the Song of the Sea and the Song of Deborah.

I could believe the 14th, since I tend toward NC chronology.  IMO, the Hyksos are Amalek who met Israel in battle on the way in to taking over a devastated Egypt at the end of the reign of Dudimose.  Yet another reason why there is no record because of the general decline and chaos of that particular time.  What records of anything in Egypt survive from that time?  Very, very little.

It is a possibility. The name 'Amaleq does not appear to be Semitic and it has been hypothesized that the Hyksos were Indo-European - plus we don't know what they called themselves. So Hyksos = 'Amaleq is a possibility, but I'm far from convinced.

I think you're confusing terms here.  There are claims and there are supports (or lack thereof) for them.  An extreme example is the Skeptics Bible on the internet.  There are many claims but 99.9% of them are un-scholarly,  shallow and based in isagogical ignorance.

I am not confusing terms. I was not implying that all the quack Exodus theories on the net would be valid support for my claim that the Exodus story is muddled and unhistorical, I was stating that the topic has been tackled so much by everyone under the sun that it was pointless for me to try to wade through all of it in order to provide support for my claim. This is, after all, a post on a public online forum, not a senior thesis.  I don't have the time nor the inclination to go digging up obscure references, and you are well versed enough in the subject matter that you've probably encountered many of them before.

I challenge this tacit assumption that your logical mind is fully engaged, and by dint of personal courage, no less.  I mean, give yourself a medal!  An Egyptian hagiographer would be impressed with that kind of esteem-building self-talk.  "I'm courageously not believing everything a book of myths is telling me."

 

Oh yes, I would most definitely say that it takes a lot of courage. And the fact that you don't grasp that tells me that you are lacking in awareness. As someone who at one time believed in the historicity of the Biblical narrative, I can tell you that it is a very uncomfortable jolt when you hear a compelling argument that undermines some aspect of the Bible. For a moment, the ground which you were standing on seems to drop out from under you, and at that moment you have a choice. You can either a) dig in your heels and ignore it, b) lose all your faith and become a cynic, or c) assimilate the new information and adapt your faith in light of it. It really is a sink or swim feeling. I struggled with it, and in college I watched religious students struggle painfully with it.

In my classes - which were taught by critical scholars of the Bible and ancient Near East - many of the students were religious: Christian/Catholic and Jewish. It was extremely difficult for many of them to hear and accept some of points that brought aspects of the Old and New Testaments into question. I watched them move uncomfortably in their chairs, listened to their protests that the class was irreverent and disrespectful, and ultimately saw these students either quit the class, suffer through it, or be moved and enlightened by the new ideas presented and in several cases they went on to major in Biblical Studies. I know that the Bible is much more than just a "book of myths," it is the foundation upon which some people live their life. So yes, I think it takes a tremendous amount of courage for people of [Biblical] faith to allow themselves to truly look head-on at these critical issues and not retreat back into the religious traditions that may themselves be "safe" and "comfortable" but do not necessarily lead to genuine understanding. So gold medals for all, I say! :-)

It's not about being consummately skeptical and attempting to rain on people's parade. I actually have a very strong belief in a higher power/God. But that belief is not bound up with dogma or triumphalism or the superiority of one faith over another. My relationship with God is an outgrowth of my own experience in the world, and whether or not the Bible or any other book is literally true has no bearing on my own inner experience.

This is also not logical.  It is manifestly the case that you are suggesting that your relationship with God (your religion) is superior to what you view as "triumphalism", i.e. fundamentalist belief in the veracity of scripture.  It's your own triumphalism.  And you suggest your 21st century, scientific/skeptical view of scripture is superior to a fundamentalist faith in them.

Logic is appropriate for the material world (which Biblical *narrative* is based in), the spiritual world is another matter. Can you apply logic and science to intangibles like love, trust, honor, God? No. But one CAN apply those principles to bones, pottery, and even to text. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...

I'm not attacking your faith, just the implication that your faith is more reasonable and thus superior, while trying to also claim to not be superior.  I submit your logical mind is not as fully engaged as you would like to believe on these points.

No. Let me alter your unfortunate and flawed paraphrase to reflect how I really feel: My corroborated view that parts of the Bible are not historical "is more reasonable and thus superior" to a stubborn insistence that it is historical.

In fact, the most powerful method of maintaining bias toward something that can't be resolved by the scientific method is to fall back on the scientific method.  Since it is hollowed above all things in the 21st century, it is seen as the most unassailable position for all things, e.g. God, Biblical narratives, etc.

But I think that it can be resolved by the scientific method. Again, the events described in the Bible take place in the material world. We can touch the stones, the soil, the pottery...So it figures that if the events happen as described and in the time-frame that is laid out in the text, we should be able to find some material remains to back up the event. In some cases we have and in some cases, despite searching high and low, we have come up completely empty handed.

In particular, the Exodus you seem to find untenable.  But from what you've actually posted, it would seem your view is "supported" mainly by an "absence of evidence".  Not the strongest support, IMO.  It's what atheists use to deny God.  If such an argument is so compelling for doubting the Exodus, why not for God Himself?

Look at how bound up your (and many Christian's) conception of God is with the book... Without the Bible to dictate to you what God is and is not, it seems that you would be at a loss! You seem to suggest that if we throw out Exodus the next step is to throw out God, and then in a quote above, you seemingly suggest that "faith in scripture" is practically synonymous with "faith in God." There are many pastors that would call that idolatry. God and the Bible are NOT one and the same. This is very strange for many Christians. When I argue about the historicity of the Bible with them, they assume that I am a cynical atheist. It astonishes them when I then speak to them about God and what a strong sense of his presence I have in my life!  A literal belief in the Bible is not a prerequisite for believing in God.

And to answer your question: there is a lack of physical evidence for a Hebrew Exodus, an event that should have left physical traces. God is intangible, but the hints of God's presence are all around me on a daily basis. Unlike for you [seemingly], I do not perceive God as a relic whose presence I can only get a sense of by opening up the pages of the Bible. God is a force, both dynamic and subtle, that astonishes me all the time within my own every day existence.

One may guess that what you find to be sublime in the Bible would reveal whatever prejudices you have against its followers.

I find the most sublime passage of the Bible to be 1 Kings 19:11-12.

And I am a follower of the Bible as well, but just in a different way than you are.

Leviticus 10:1-3

Nice. Why am I not surprised that you chose a passage of provocation and aggression.    Just joking. 

[Elijah]

I agree there are many local floods that make people discover their historic existence and then say Oh look of course it is a flood, it is Noah's flood. But just as religious fools jump to say local floods were Noah, so too the scholastic schools are like those who opposed Moses and they say global Flood evidence is not global nor Noah. Both claim and deny by their faith in their way, rather than let the data divide itself, the local floods, from the global ones caused by asteroid impact sinking all continents at the same time and rising them all back up.

The same with Exodus. Every mention of migration and people said Oh look it is the exodus. Or ancient people saying Our exodus was the same year that Israel had exodus. Because of this Africanus places exodus as 1792 BC. No it was not the true year 1513 BC, but it proves that high probablity that Babylon had an exodus fleeing the rule of Hamurabi. Then you have Hindu who place Babylon's Venus tablets of Amizaduga (1625 BC) as instead of Ur 1900 BC. (1625 BC is 2400 AM from Adam; 1900 BC is false 3600 AM from false 5500 BC Adam.) Though Babylon ended in 1594 BC, this indicates a collapse at king Amizaduga's death and flight from the last king who began in 1625 BC making people think Amizaduga was the last king. It also then proves 1900 BC ends 108-year Ur from a 2009 BC Marduk of UrNammu to death of 160-year old IbbiSiin at Ur III's conquest. The fall that 30-year old IbbiSin survived in 2029 BC was that of 177-year Ur I in which he then at 42 created a kingship with Ishbi-Erra in 2018 BC. It isn't whether explanations are there, it is whether you accept them before you suffer from the delay of not having accepted things. There are things that won't cause death if ignorant, and things that will, soon will.
So we have Indu exodus from Ur to Indu River in 1900 BC, and Indu exodus from Babylon to Indu River in 1625 BC. But it is not Israel 1513 BC. However China does have an exodus from Indu River to its oldest city in 1513 BC (posted by me); this does not mean they left Egypt as a lost tribe of Israel. In fact lost tribe of Israel should not mean Jews, butu rather any nation that thought their exodus into another new world made THEM the new house of God. To get true chronology, you dont play with math numbers first. Instead you gorw to undertsand the religious eschatology as it developed and expanded, and divided, and corrupted. This unveils the whole story then, and you find Genesis then true.

This is why then you can see the exodus from Ur in 2030 BC went to Ararat just like king Gilgamesh did, and both these Hitites and Shemite Chaldeans entered Egypt at Peleg's death. However, the math is then cross-altered. Year 768 is placed as death of Peleg Mesanipada and Unas Sakkara, correctly being year 339 after Flood (Peleg died in year 339 at 239 not at age 339). And the 768 years then is not these Hitite-Shemite (Chaldeans) coming into Egypt which they did in 2030 BC Hebrew but claimed as 2321 BC Egypt, but rather year 768 was 1601 BC where Israelites became forced employees willingly while Hyksos families packed and left (not in mass exodus of a single day, but during 2 years from 1602-1600 BC) six years before Moses was born in 1594 BC when Babylon fell. So there are migrations all over, and all listed in the Genesis combined with world records, if you see it. The 600,000 is because it included residents from Peleg's death who left to be citizens of Israel in their 518th year (2030-1513 BC) as stated by Manetho in Josephus, having built Memphis and created the calendar on new moon Epagum 1 July 12 and new year Pamenot July 17 of 2030 BC.

During the plagues of 1514 BC, Pharaoh declared the 7th month Toth 1 to be the new year on Sep 6 so that Epagum 1 would not fall  on March 4 of 1513 BC (after our leap day) but on Aug 31, with Toth 1 remaining on Sep 5. Our Roman-Greek heritage insists there was an Epagum 1 on Julian Sep 1 in 1514 BC and is why they end the Flood on Toth 1 as our Julian Sep 1 of 2957 BC. But the Flood ended 2369 BC as my pictures of Mount Ararat are labeled.

Other exodus migrations are proven by Mayan arriving in 1313 BC at Copan upon reaching Volcano Cosiguina in 1314 BC. Notice 1313 BC is Jewish Seder Olam exodus after a 2105 BC Flood. The year 2105 BC therefor has high probability of actually being a building date of Tower at Ur in year 22 of king Meskiag-Nannar. UrNammu expanded it in 2009 BC to prevent migration exodus to Babel building Marduk Street aimed at rising Mars on July 8 (360 Julian years from sighting Little Ararat.)

Yet more exodus of other nations exists, such as 1437 BC of China whose calendar seasons are accepted that year as a 19-year moon in a 365-day calendar of 1461-day seasons. However, they conclude their calendar came from 1200 Julian years back to 2637 BC instead of 600 years of of 360 days back to Ur's 2029 BC. Thank the Hindu for the 360-day theory for the 1200-year formula of Venus, and deciding it is for 12-year Jupiter. Incidently, Jupiter is 7 orbits as 83 years, but presumed to always match 84 years of 360 days it then fails when Abram drops out, cuts out, stage left, because 432 years of 360 days as 36x 12 years ends in 426 Julian years despite Jupiter completing its 36 orbits in 427 years (Flood to Abram's escape from the school crap despite he being the teacher). If you can disagree with all that's said here, then you are not checking the math.
When the mantle melts below, a magnetic field will wipe out memory chips. So now is the time to save on both media, the CD which may get wiped out by heat and light, and the memory chips bagged in foil.
Everything will go under water; what technology do you know of above 7000 feet? What you wisely collect now in knowledge should be for your survival. Don't worry about whether you will still have yeast for bread.

[notalent]

Look at how bound up your (and many Christian's) conception of God is with the book... Without the Bible to dictate to you what God is and is not, it seems that you would be at a loss!

So if the question is put to you, "Indeed, has God said...All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? (II Timothy 2:16,17)", your answer would be "No"?

If not, then you must admit that scripture is sufficient to keep one from being "at a loss", and in fact it is indispensable for the "man of God".

You seem to suggest that if we throw out Exodus the next step is to throw out God, and then in a quote above, you seemingly suggest that "faith in scripture" is practically synonymous with "faith in God." There are many pastors that would call that idolatry. God and the Bible are NOT one and the same.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God --John 1:1

This is very strange for many Christians. When I argue about the historicity of the Bible with them, they assume that I am a cynical atheist. It astonishes them when I then speak to them about God and what a strong sense of his presence I have in my life!  A literal belief in the Bible is not a prerequisite for believing in God.

These [Bereans] were more noble ... in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. --Acts 17:11

It's interesting to note that your procedure is the exact opposite. 

And to answer your question: there is a lack of physical evidence for a Hebrew Exodus, an event that should have left physical traces. God is intangible, but the hints of God's presence are all around me on a daily basis. Unlike for you [seemingly], I do not perceive God as a relic whose presence I can only get a sense of by opening up the pages of the Bible.

Then it's not surprising that your viewpoint regarding God is not in harmony with the God of the Bible.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. --Luke 24:27

God is a force, both dynamic and subtle, that astonishes me all the time within my own every day existence.

The only force God is exerting in this age is his Word inside His believers.  And God isn't the only one who can astonish people.  One had best learn to tell the difference...

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: --Ephesians 6:12-17

That sword the only "force" that will avail anyone in this life.

[Elijah]

The two of you are so much in exact agreement, and yet it is so sad you think you speak opposite. You both stand right next to the truth; you both are just short of the truth, shy of it; and you both think the other person is so far from it. If you understand what I mean, then it is a step to seeing you are both right, but that you do not see that the one inch between you and truth (in opposite directions) might as well be an arrow missing a target's edge. Follow up post coming, but I am very sleepy. My answer to both of you truly is a reply all in the world need to apply. I can see the answer, and I fail to apply it myself. Sometimes an answer makes you feel like Elijah, like you are the only one who knows Jehovah, the only one who knows truth, or still faithful. And then you look at yourself with this truth and you feel you are the dirt and scum that everyone else is. And all those people who do not wish to think you are the only one with truth, they want you to see yourself as scum so that they can say you do not have this truth. Like Elijah who said Oh Jehovah I am no better.

[Elijah]

Look at how bound up your (and many Christian's) conception of God is with the book... Without the Bible to dictate to you what God is and is not, it seems that you would be at a loss!

I agree because I do not hear his words the way you hear them, and perhaps not as he means them. He is right that you can think that the book is God, or that the words of English are God, or the choice of punctuation is God, or the page numbers are God. Perhaps you think chapter numbers are God and verse numbers are God. It is possible to worship the book instead of worship God. This is why Jesus declared himself as words, yes words of God, greater than written words of God. Because we are speaking of spoken words of God, not written ones. Not a voice we hear, but a voice we see, and a voice we feel.

So if the question is put to you, "Indeed, has God said...All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? (II Timothy 2:16,17)", your answer would be "No"?

If not, then you must admit that scripture is sufficient to keep one from being "at a loss", and in fact it is indispensable for the "man of God".

This is a ploy to say these words. I judge not Jesus who said that Abram was alive to God by saying I am the God of Abram not was the God of Abram. Yet Jesus clearly taught Abram was dead not in heaven; he said he the son of man would go first. So then his story of anyone named Lazarus getting scraps (of books) from the rich (who own the books) going to the bosom of Abram is just a Greek myth analogy since Jews were being schooled by Greeks. Further, that no one is in heaven also means the same of seeing Moses and Elijah with Jesus, they were messages to show that the way of Jesus was with Moses and Elijah, not that they were in heaven already and now joined by Jesus. My point is THE WORDS are just words, the truth is deeper. We use words to communicate a thing greater called truth and reality. The whole bible is about truth and lie starting with who has it Adam or Eve or neither or both. So you two argue like our parents, and presume one of you is Cain and the other is Abel. Instead truth means doing some thinking, such as okay Jesus said I am the God of Abram, so it doesnt mean Abram is in heaven, it means God will not forget Abram, Abram will return alive. The answer to resurrection posed to Jesus is thus answered not by claiming he is in heaven alive. THUS IT IS TRUE THAT WE MUST QUESTION WHAT THE EXODUS TRULY WAS OR WAS NOT.

You seem to suggest that if we throw out Exodus the next step is to throw out God, and then in a quote above, you seemingly suggest that "faith in scripture" is practically synonymous with "faith in God." There are many pastors that would call that idolatry. God and the Bible are NOT one and the same.

I agree. To throw out nuclear fission is to throw out God. If we actually eliminate matter, all matter, yes God exists but having chopped off all he created is like losing his body, wasting away his works and his children. God grows bigger by what he creates of his body turning it into all of us and all things created, and that which is wasted he returns to him so that he will never die. Thus tossing out scripture equated as tossing out God, is also the same as tossing out all truth is tossing out God (truth about bad things does expose the end result of bad things, not advocating porn to show how it corrupts you). Scripture can be all writing, all books, so that tossing out all books and all writing is tossing out God. In other words it is not our words that define God, but the invisible intangible message behind our words. Thus Jesus is word of God more than a book is, and we are word of God more than a book is; if we are truer than that book, or the words in that book. A book is not alive and cannot answer its enemies back when the reader twists it. And yet it is alive, the person who wrote it died, and so the book keeps him alive if someone reads it correctly, and someone else defends the truth of the words telling others they have interpreted the words wrong. Thus Jesus or you or I have revived the book back to life when we tell each other in what way we killed the book by twistig what it said. Twisting is more mistaken than it is deliberate. But deliberate atitudes do create a spirit of being a bad critic.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God --John 1:1

Yes, before the Bible was Jesus. And before Adam was Jesus; before the galactic universe was Jesus, and even before Jesus then God still had word by speaking out to create that very large portion of him, the son who is Jesus to create all other things. So Jesus was word even before the Bible was. And Enoch saw word, Noah saw word, and Abram saw word. And yes I say saw word not heard word.

This is very strange for many Christians. When I argue about the historicity of the Bible with them, they assume that I am a cynical atheist. It astonishes them when I then speak to them about God and what a strong sense of his presence I have in my life!  A literal belief in the Bible is not a prerequisite for believing in God.

I experience this same thing, so I know what you mean here. This is the people who think science is not of God but of man, and so science is opposite of God as a way to deny God. It is actually a lazy man who wishes to worship God by praying over the stagnant water rather than chlorinate it. And when you die, then rather saying God killed you with unclean water because you did not worship God by chlorinating it, they will say no, you are tortured to stay on earth and the man who died from bad water is in heaven with God. The same goes with Jewish Kosher now being a prayer instead of actual clean meat or clean food.