Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I'm interested in comparative mythology and evidence for syncretism and supernatural beings. Also if scripture is true in small details. I am seeing evidence that the Israelites emerged from Canaan peacefully and formed their own nation. Dever agrees with this. Carol Meyers agrees, Dr Josh Bowen, Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou as well. Is there a non-fundamentalist who disagrees with this?

I dont have the bandwidth to study dever. Is there no evidence of conflict at all? Perhaps a small conflict was blown up in the bible. Can u pl post summary of the evidence.?

 

[Brian2]

I have not studied the archaeological evidence of the invasion of Canaan. Perhaps Joshua's conquests were small but blown upin the Bible. Thus, we do not gete idence of large-scale conflict.
It is true that exodus from india is a new idea. But then that is what re.search is all about.

The archaeological evidence for the invasion of Canaan can be confusing and there are different views of what happened.
Certainly it can look as if Joshua's conquests were blown up in the Bible but if we take a broader view we see that God told the Israelites that He would give them the land and the cities also, so that they could live in them. That means that when the book of Joshua says that a certain city is destroyed it does not really mean that the structure was destroyed. It is only with certain cities, those that are said to be dedicated to God, that the cities were destroyed and burned. These cities were Jericho, Ai and Hazor and the archaeology in the Biblical time frame shows that also, while the archaeology in the 1200 BC time for the conquest does not show that.
There seem to have been a few factors that have gone into the different views of the conquest (or even saying that the conquest did not happen)
One is the messing up of the archaeology and disagreements about the time of the destruction of Jericho.
Two is the misreading of Joshua and not realising that destruction did not always mean destroying the city structure.
Three the Chronology of Egypt which has changed over the years, seems to still be wrong.
The Riddle of the Exodus that @Ehav4Ever posted gives information that is helpful and the 2 videos below do the same. The whole thing can be confusing because it is a big subject and names involved are not straight forward and different people have different ideas about the truth of the exact Pharaohs of the Exodus and and Pharaoh of Joseph's time etc.
I think it is important to see evidence for Israel having been in Egypt and also evidence from Egyptian sources for events that happened when Israel was in Egypt and evidence for the conquest story in the Bible being true. The videos below and @Ehav4Ever 's video and suggestions will be a good start to all this.
I have also included an article about the confused archaeology of Jericho. Actually the article might be the best one to start with. Good luck in your search.

The Walls of Jericho - Associates for Biblical Research

 

[joelr]

No, you are seeking confirmation of what you're predisposed to believe while continuing to evade my questions.

Completely wrong. First "evade your questions"??? About books? I answered your question I just wasn't aware you your ego was so jacked up?
I mentioned some scholars I have read. Like you just did. Except you seem to think your books are special magic. Dever and Friedman are not really saying anything different about Exodus? It didn't happen as written but a smaller group came from Egypt.
But my books are " confirmation of what I'm predisposed to believe" and yours are free of all that and will release me from my cognitive bias......???

As to Israel's Ethnogenesis -
"He comes to the same sort of conclusion as William Dever*, that Israelite identity was forged during Iron I from a number of diverse groups who had arrived in the central highlands, one of whom - perhaps the dominant one - was the "Israel" mentioned in the late thirteenth century BCE stela of the Egyptian king Mernepta. "

Wow, thank you for freeing me of my predisposition by reaching the same conclusion!

It's my fault, any time anyone asks how many books you have read it's just a flex (should I check my Testosterone levels also? (it's actually too high)). If I get a historical fact wrong, give some info and source it. Is one way to go.

 

[joelr]

I dont have the bandwidth to study dever. Is there no evidence of conflict at all? Perhaps a small conflict was blown up in the bible. Can u pl post summary of the evidence.?

Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."
If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?
Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?
Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.



Israelites - Wikipedia
The earliest recorded evidence of a people by the name of Israel appears in the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt, dated to about 1200 BCE. According to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture branched out of the Canaanite peoples and their cultures through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh.[7][8][9] They spoke an archaic form of the Hebrew language, known today as Biblical Hebrew.[10]
Efforts to confirm the Israelites' biblical origins through archaeology, once widespread, have been largely abandoned as unproductive,[13] with many scholars viewing the stories as inspiring national myth narratives with little historical value. Scholars posit that a small group of people of Egyptian origin may have joined the early Israelites, and then contributed their own Egyptian Exodus story to all of Israel.[a] William G. Dever cautiously identifies this group with the Tribe of Joseph, while Richard Elliott Friedman identifies it with the Tribe of Levi.[26][27]

Based on the archaeological evidence, according to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[28][29][30] through a gradual evolution of a distinct monolatristic (later monotheistic) religion centered on Yahweh. The outgrowth of Yahweh-centric monolatrism from Canaanite polytheism started with Yahwism, the belief in the existence of the many gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon but with the consistent worship of only Yahweh. Along with a number of cultic practices, this gave rise to a separate Israelite ethnic group identity. The final transition of their Yahweh-based religion to monotheism and rejection of the existence of the other Canaanite gods set the Israelites apart from their fellow Canaanite brethren.[28][31][32] The Israelites, however, continued to retain various cultural commonalities with other Canaanites, including use of one of the Canaanite dialects, Hebrew, which is today the only living descendant of that language group.



There is also evidence according to Dever and Fransesca S. that Ashera was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh until around 600BCE. Ashera was also a Canaanite deity.

The Canaanite head deity EL appears in an older Deuteronomy variant where at a council of Gods the highest EL gave Israel to Yahweh. There are several variations.

""When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".




El - New World Encyclopedia

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Completely wrong. First "evade your questions"??? About books? I answered your question I just wasn't aware you your ego was so jacked up? ... It's my fault, any time anyone asks how many books you have read it's just a flex (should I check my Testosterone levels also? (it's actually too high)). ....

Oh, my! For the record, the questions were:

I have a number of his books on the shelf behind me, along with other books on the topic, which begs the questions:

1. How many of his books have you actually read?
2. How many other books addressing Israel's ethnogenesis have you actually read, and by what authors?

I'm willing to presume that your answers will be honest. I'm also willing to suggest other books that may serve to better inform you opinion.

Clearly your silly tantrum managed to avoid the questions while focussing on your testosterone level. I'll leave it to the experts to assess your use of the phrase "jacked up" and your apparent need to boast about (and capitalize) testosterone.

Dever and Friedman are not really saying anything different about Exodus? It didn't happen as written but a smaller group came from Egypt.

Just look at you: moving the goalpost without hardly breaking a sweat! I suppose that such things are relatively easy for someone with your Testosterone [sic] level.

Parenthetically, I rather like Dever; I believe that I first referenced him here seventeen years ago.

 

[River Sea]

I dont have the bandwidth to study dever. Is there no evidence of conflict at all? Perhaps a small conflict was blown up in the bible. Can u pl post summary of the evidence.?

This is mind boggling., what does that mean you don't have bandwidth to study dever., uh? Is that a joke?

Ok @Bharat Jhunjhunwala can you do me a favor here: remember back in the 80's when you discovered the 4 rivers, what was that like for you to actually discover., what was that feeling that actual emotions you went through, and how this discovering led you to your understanding of Exodus?

 

[River Sea]

In terms of your earlier question. The following may help.

The second video., Egypt.,

However water does not turn into blood

Hebrew word for
“blood.” also means “still or stagnant"
what are your thoughts about still or stagnant?

 

[River Sea]

I'm not that interested in Israels ethnogenesis. I'm interested in where the mythology came from. I read his book on who were the early Israelites. I am about to start Francesca Stavrakopoulou's new book. I am interested in comparative mythology which she gets into. Most of my reading in on the NT.

What are your thoughts about the Dan tribe?
Where are the Dan tribe? Are the Dan tribe Germans?
What tribe do you think Indians are from India?
Did they need a lot of straw at land of Canaanites? Did they use stone or bricks?
the sea people how come they were dangerous, how come Hebrews didn't become sea people too?
Have you ever heard of pie proto-indo european
“the Proto-Indo European PIE evolved into Germanic and other IE languages westward and Sanskrit eastward…”
What is Hebrew Language where did it come from?
3 yam suph you want to guess where?
What are your thoughts about Francesca Stavrakopoulou style of writing?
What style of writing is the Torah?
what style of writing is the new testament?
What style of writing is William Shakespeare writing?
What is similar what is different?
Was there santa claus during exodus era, if not how come?
What did Moses think and feel when finding out being adopted?
Where are the bones from horses?
how come no one went and check on Moses when he was up on the volcano., how come no one went to find out how's Moses is doing?
How come they made an idol that's 3 inches tall., how many people who dance around this small idol were able to see this idol from a distance?
This idol was a calf how rich were these Hebrews who travel to Yisrael when they have gold with them?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The second video., Egypt.,

However water does not turn into blood

Hebrew word for
“blood.” also means “still or stagnant"
what are your thoughts about still or stagnant?

What is described in Torath Mosheh Jewish sources is that the Source of reality/creation, Hashem, being the source of how all reality works put in place exceptions to the way we expect reality to work for specific purposes. The ability for water, in Egypt at a specific time, to turn into blood, at a very specific time in history, for the sake of what we called in Hebrew (עשר מכות) "Eser Makkot" is one of those exceptions.

Thus, Jewish sources describe that even in when a Mitzri and a Yisraeli were in the same area for the Mitzri it was very much (דם) and for the Yisraeli it was (מים).

Also, very important to note the word (דם) does not mean "still or stagnant" the three letter root (ד-מ-ה) that (דם) comes from means "resemble" and by some is considered to be a Gradational Varient of the roots (ד-ו-מ) and (ד-מ-מ) which "can" mean quiet based on thier grammer and structure. Ancient Hebrew worked off of three letter roots called Shoreshim and all words are built on this system and thus two words that have the same root can have differnt meanings based on their grammer and structure.

I hope that helps.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

that are said to be dedicated to God, that the cities were destroyed and burned. These cities were Jericho, Ai and Hazor and the archaeology in the Biblical time frame shows that also, while the archaeology in the 1200 BC time for the conquest does not show that.

Does the time of 1500 bce match with the archaeological evidence? If yes, then the problem arises from Egypt. As per my memory the Egyptian chronology matches with 1200 bce. Thus, there is a disconnect between Egyptian chronology and Canaan archaeology. This problem entirely resolves if exodus took place from the Indus valley.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

What is described in Torath Mosheh Jewish sources is that the Source of reality/creation, Hashem, being the source of how all reality works put in place exceptions to the way we expect reality to work for specific purposes. The ability for water, in Egypt at a specific time, to turn into blood, at a very specific time in history, for the sake of what we called in Hebrew (עשר מכות) "Eser Makkot" is one of those exceptions.

Thus, Jewish sources describe that even in when a Mitzri and a Yisraeli were in the same area for the Mitzri it was very much (דם) and for the Yisraeli it was (מים).

Also, very important to note the word (דם) does not mean "still or stagnant" the three letter root (ד-מ-ה) that (דם) comes from means "resemble" and by some is considered to be a Gradational Varient of the roots (ד-ו-מ) and (ד-מ-מ) which "can" mean quiet based on thier grammer and structure. Ancient Hebrew worked off of three letter roots called Shoreshim and all words are built on this system and thus two words that have the same root can have differnt meanings based on their grammer and structure.

I hope that helps.

A peculiarity of the Indus valley is that a major river named Hakra shifted it's course from west to east. The western course became stagnant pools. Thus, six of the 10 plagues are related to shortage or purification of water.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."
If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?
Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?
Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.



Israelites - Wikipedia
The earliest recorded evidence of a people by the name of Israel appears in the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt, dated to about 1200 BCE. According to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture branched out of the Canaanite peoples and their cultures through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh.[7][8][9] They spoke an archaic form of the Hebrew language, known today as Biblical Hebrew.[10]
Efforts to confirm the Israelites' biblical origins through archaeology, once widespread, have been largely abandoned as unproductive,[13] with many scholars viewing the stories as inspiring national myth narratives with little historical value. Scholars posit that a small group of people of Egyptian origin may have joined the early Israelites, and then contributed their own Egyptian Exodus story to all of Israel.[a] William G. Dever cautiously identifies this group with the Tribe of Joseph, while Richard Elliott Friedman identifies it with the Tribe of Levi.[26][27]

Based on the archaeological evidence, according to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[28][29][30] through a gradual evolution of a distinct monolatristic (later monotheistic) religion centered on Yahweh. The outgrowth of Yahweh-centric monolatrism from Canaanite polytheism started with Yahwism, the belief in the existence of the many gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon but with the consistent worship of only Yahweh. Along with a number of cultic practices, this gave rise to a separate Israelite ethnic group identity. The final transition of their Yahweh-based religion to monotheism and rejection of the existence of the other Canaanite gods set the Israelites apart from their fellow Canaanite brethren.[28][31][32] The Israelites, however, continued to retain various cultural commonalities with other Canaanites, including use of one of the Canaanite dialects, Hebrew, which is today the only living descendant of that language group.



There is also evidence according to Dever and Fransesca S. that Ashera was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh until around 600BCE. Ashera was also a Canaanite deity.

The Canaanite head deity EL appears in an older Deuteronomy variant where at a council of Gods the highest EL gave Israel to Yahweh. There are several variations.

""When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".




El - New World Encyclopedia

A peaceful expansion on virgin soil at 1200 bce goes with a small invasion at 1500 bce. I believe there IS evidence for some conflict at 1500 bce. As I said in this thread we are unnecessarily looking for exodus at 1200 bce.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This is mind boggling., what does that mean you don't have bandwidth to study dever., uh? Is that a joke?

Ok @Bharat Jhunjhunwala can you do me a favor here: remember back in the 80's when you discovered the 4 rivers, what was that like for you to actually discover., what was that feeling that actual emotions you went through, and how this discovering led you to your understanding of Exodus?

I was soooo thrilled at finding 4 rivers. Oh my gosh! That was the feeling. Exodus came much later when I found that hindu texts say that krishna left for an unknown country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I didn't read anything about space aliens.
But anyway, why do you doubt that Israel was in Egypt as slaves?

One big reason for me: Israel couldn't have been in Egypt because Israel was in Israel.

If, after the Exodus, the Israelites had come in and displaced the Canaanites who were living there, we would expect to see a major discontinuity in the archaeological record: all of a sudden, we'd stop seeing Canaanite pottery and whatnot, and suddenly start seeing Jewish artifacts. We don't see this.

What the archeological record of Judea does show is a continuity and steady change over time, suggesting that the ancient Jews arose from within the indigenous Canaanite population without ever leaving the area.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

A peculiarity of the Indus valley is that a major river named Hakra shifted it's course from west to east. The western course became stagnant pools. Thus, six of the 10 plagues are related to shortage or purification of water.

Actually, that is an English reading. It is not what the Hebrew text says. Even the word "plague" is not what the Hebrew text states took place. There are other places where water becomes stagnent and that is not a peculiar thing to happen in one location.

Besides, according to the Ipuwer Papyrus there is an account of the water turning to blood red. Thus, the Indus Valley does not hold up to either the internal or external test of history for such a possibility.

In fact, water turning red is not a strange thing happening in different parts of the world that are not the Indus Valley.

 

[Brian2]

Does the time of 1500 bce match with the archaeological evidence? If yes, then the problem arises from Egypt. As per my memory the Egyptian chronology matches with 1200 bce. Thus, there is a disconnect between Egyptian chronology and Canaan archaeology. This problem entirely resolves if exodus took place from the Indus valley.

Sorry if I said 1500BC. The Biblical timing of the Exodus is about 1450 BC and the conquest then should have begun about 1410BC, 40 years after the Exodus.
If you go through the materials provided you may be able to see why there is a disconnect between Egyptian chronology and Canaan chronology.
But of course the Bible speaks of Egypt and the Nile river and the wilderness between Egypt and Israel and various locations in that area. The Indus Valley has nothing to do with the Biblical story of Israel at that time.
There is no point in saying it happened from the Indus Valley when it creates other problems.
As I said the archaeological disconnect has been resolved already without having to think that Israel came from the Indus Valley or anywhere else.

 

[Brian2]

One big reason for me: Israel couldn't have been in Egypt because Israel was in Israel.

If, after the Exodus, the Israelites had come in and displaced the Canaanites who were living there, we would expect to see a major discontinuity in the archaeological record: all of a sudden, we'd stop seeing Canaanite pottery and whatnot, and suddenly start seeing Jewish artifacts. We don't see this.

What the archeological record of Judea does show is a continuity and steady change over time, suggesting that the ancient Jews arose from within the indigenous Canaanite population without ever leaving the area.

There is no doubt a continuity and steady change over time and it can be interpreted the way you do if you take the Biblical account as being untrue.
If you take the Biblical account as being the truth however that gives the reason for what is found. The reason is that the Biblical account tells us that God said that He would not drive out all the Canaanites at once but slowly over many years until the numbers of the Israelites increased to be able to fill the land.
God also said that he would give to Israel the cities that they conquered so that they could live there.
So archaeology finds Canaanite cities and dwellings and only a slow change to what could be termed Israelite dwellings.
Archaeology also finds Canaanite gods worshipped because Canaanites still lived there and because as the Bible says, the Israelites were starting to worship the Canaanite gods along with Yahweh worship.
I wonder why Israelite pottery and architecture etc would be any different at all if Israel originated in the Canaanite culture. Also Israelite pottery and architecture etc should have been found there for however long the Israelites had been there.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

One big reason for me: Israel couldn't have been in Egypt because Israel was in Israel.

If, after the Exodus, the Israelites had come in and displaced the Canaanites who were living there, we would expect to see a major discontinuity in the archaeological record: all of a sudden, we'd stop seeing Canaanite pottery and whatnot, and suddenly start seeing Jewish artifacts. We don't see this.

What the archeological record of Judea does show is a continuity and steady change over time, suggesting that the ancient Jews arose from within the indigenous Canaanite population without ever leaving the area.

The conquest did not exterminate the locals. Then the Hebrews adopted Canaanite customs. Their main difference was regarding one god. We may not expect archaeological evidence for this. We must read archaeological evidence in the light of the scripture, not the other way around.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Actually, that is an English reading. It is not what the Hebrew text says. Even the word "plague" is not what the Hebrew text states took place. There are other places where water becomes stagnent and that is not a peculiar thing to happen in one location.

Besides, according to the Ipuwer Papyrus there is an account of the water turning to blood red. Thus, the Indus Valley does not hold up to either the internal or external test of history for such a possibility.

In fact, water turning red is not a strange thing happening in different parts of the world that are not the Indus Valley.

There in no red in the Hebrew text

If you go through the materials provided you may be able to see why there is a disconnect between Egyptian chronology and Canaan chronology.

Exactly. So let us examine if it matches with Indus chronology. Let me make clear again that the case for Indus rests on 3 yam aur, volcano and the presence of mirror image of moses in krishna.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no doubt a continuity and steady change over time and it can be interpreted the way you do if you take the Biblical account as being untrue.
If you take the Biblical account as being the truth however that gives the reason for what is found.

This sounds like your way of saying that the Biblical narrative doesn't make sense unless you start with the assumption that it has to be right.

The reason is that the Biblical account tells us that God said that He would not drive out all the Canaanites at once but slowly over many years until the numbers of the Israelites increased to be able to fill the land.

If we believe the Bible - particularly the story in Numbers of the census that happened after the Israelites left Egypt but before they got to Canaan - then just the men numbered 600,000 people (which is enough that a line of them standing shoulder-to-shoulder could have stretched across the entire Sinai peninsula at its widest point, BTW). The number of women and children in the group would have meant that many more people than just the 600,000 men were in the group tbat settled in Canaan.

If you don't think that more than a million people - potentially much more - was enough to "fill the land," how many people do you think were needed?

... and what evidence do you have that Israel ever got to these population levels? 1 to 2 million people would have been a massive population in the ancient world.

God also said that he would give to Israel the cities that they conquered so that they could live there.
So archaeology finds Canaanite cities and dwellings and only a slow change to what could be termed Israelite dwellings.
Archaeology also finds Canaanite gods worshipped because Canaanites still lived there and because as the Bible says, the Israelites were starting to worship the Canaanite gods along with Yahweh worship.
I wonder why Israelite pottery and architecture etc would be any different at all if Israel originated in the Canaanite culture. Also Israelite pottery and architecture etc should have been found there for however long the Israelites had been there.

Sounds like you agree that there's no archeological evidence of an Israelite invasion or the displacement of non-Jewish Canaanites.

Here's a question for you: when's the first evidence of the Exodus story... e.g. a manuscript of the account? Is it before or after the Babylonian exile?