Exodus Archeology Evidence

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are no evidence that the Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus & Deuternomy, all books that were traditionally attributed to Moses as its author.

^ almost a sentence. Sooo close ...

One would think that if 2.5 million people lived there for 38 years, there would be some evidence left behind, like burials, fire pits, animal bones, broken pots and so on.

^ clever by half

Consider the following questions.

1. Do you see a difference between viewing the Exodus narrative as 100% accurate, and seeing the very real possibility of meaningful historical contours in the account?
2. Are you aware that there has been serious discussion about the meaning of the Hebrew term elef?
3. What do you know about the material remains, or lack thereof, of the Shasu?

You might benefit from reading Israel's Ethnoghenesis by Faust, or even The Exodus by Friedman.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Sorry, but it not logical that the absence of evidence to be true or that it did happen.

Absence of evidence only means that both possibilities exist. That is all. My interest in this entire study is because I am interested in reconciling the current biblical religion with other religions. So, I take it that whatever is written in the Bible is true unless proven otherwise. While I agree that you are equally justified in taking everything as untrue until proven true. But that does not help me because my objective is not fulfilled. I am strictly interested in understanding how to bring religions into reconciliation together.

I agree with you, genesis was composed in 600 BCE, but you cannot conclude from this that Adam, Noah and Abraham and Joseph would be a myth. All we can say is that there is what is written in the genesis, and we have to apply our minds, whether it is complete or not.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

There are no evidence that the Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus & Deuternomy, all books that were traditionally attributed to Moses as its author.

The problems with Jewish traditions & Christian traditions, or any other religions’ traditions, they are terribly unreliable like legend, myth, folklore, etc, because they tends to be embellished, and cannot be verified.

If a person known to exist, the person’s life can be distorted, embellished, his or her life & personality (eg virtues) is often “idealised”, and even story/stories around that person can be invented (eg fiction).

For example, St George slaying a dragon. St George, who lived in the 3rd century CE and died in very early 4th century CE, have often being anachronistic depicted in arts as a “medieval knight”, fully decked in armoured in High & Late Middle Ages style, during that time, and even today.

The story about the dragon was invented in the 11th century, and became even more embellished in the next 2 centuries. Earlier sources in the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries, didnt have any “dragon”.

You have heard of the saying “larger than life” before, haven’t you?

And if a person who don’t exist, like in myths, then traditions are just carrying on the same “tradition” as myth, making up more about stories about the mythological character., eg Adam, Noah, and even most likely Moses, Joshua & Samson.

And then there are some people whose lives we cannot determine to exist or not, like King David & King Solomon - where we cannot be certain. Even I cannot determine if there are historicities to them. But what I think is most likely, is that the books of Samuel, Kings, etc, of an unified and powerful kingdom in the late 11th to the mid-10th centuries BCE, didn’t happen, including Solomon’s fable wealth.

My friend, you have still not provided any point on which you think Exodus is not correct by saying that there is no evidence, we are going back into the no man’s land of not knowing whether Exodus is true or not true. So, I request you to take some specific point of Exodus and tell me what is wrong with it.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

How do you know this to be true?

Because as of 2023, we have 15.7 million Jews around the world whose entire cultural history supports it! Or are you going to deny an entire race of peoples own recorded history?

The thing that every naysayer ignores is this:

The Old Testament only exists because of Jewish cultural tradition...so it is in fact, their own historical record. It is no less authoritative than your own recorded family tree!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How do you know this to be true?

Because as of 2023, we have 15.3 million Jews around the world whose entire cultural history supports it!

It saddens me to think that you believe this to be a remotely intelligent response, especially given that ...

• we have 1.9 billion people "whose entire cultural history supports" the idea that the angel Gabriel revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and
• we have 2.4 billion people "whose entire cultural history supports" the virgin birth and the resurrection.

Or are you going to deny an entire race of peoples own recorded history?

Oy vey ...

1. We are not a race.
2. I am more than willing to treat brilliant and inspiring etymological myth as such.

 

[gnostic]

Absence of evidence only means that both possibilities exist. That is all.

It still don’t make it true.

In Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences, both of which involved physics and chemistry, both required evidence and/or experiments, to either refute a model or refute the model. The experiments or evidence to test the models. That’s how scientists can determine whether a new hypothesis is science or not science.

Even if the evidence don’t support a hypothesis or theory, that‘s good thing because then scientists will know that hypothesis is weak or incorrect, therefore the hypothesis cannot go further (eg a refuted hypothesis shouldn’t submit the hypothesis for Peer Review, as it has failed the tests (during the testing stage of Scientific Method).

Two things can happen when the evidence refuted the hypothesis. (A) The hypothesis author(s) could try to figure out what were wrong with explanations or with predictions, modify the models and then test the hypothesis again; or (B) the author(s) can ditch the refuted hypothesis, and move on.

But if there no observations (eg evidence or experiments) and the models cannot be tested, then the models are “unfalsifiable“.

Lot of people who are not acquainted how scientists “do science”, often misunderstand what Falsifiability or Falsification means.

Falsifiability means that a statement, concept or model is based on observation that is “testable” (and refutable), therefore it can eventually be empirically tested. Falsifiability is where you could possibly refute the statement, concept or model.

Despite what most people made think about a hypothesis, the hypothesis is a model that contained explanations and predictions, but you don’t make it from nothing or from some imaginary dreams or fantasies. Hypothesis have to be based on prior observations.

Take for instance, Charles Darwin didn’t just make everything up. Darwin have actually observed wildlife, particularly in South America and the Galapagos, as voyage onboard the HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836. He observed animals of different species, eg different species of finches, different species of tortoises, not only from different from the mainland (South America) and islands, but from island to island, where slight differences in terrains, climates, humidity and availability of resources (eg food & water), will show that these populations of species will have physical or morphological traits that differed from the others. What Darwin eventually wrote about, is that changes in the environment would require the populations to have traits that are adapted to their respective environments; so the environment was a driving forces for changes to species, hence he developed the evolutionary mechanism that we know as Natural Selection.

When the environment has changed, it put selective pressures on the populations of organisms. Tortoises living in some islands that were drier, and vegetation that grew on those islands are much higher, so the tortoises would need inheritable traits that are better suited for those islands, these tortoises must reproduce with other tortoises that have longer legs and necks, necks that can crane more upright, so they can reach and feeds on leaves that are higher off the ground.

Biologists that have visited Galapagos and South America during the 20th century to the present, have observed and verified Darwin’s original findings.

My points with Darwin is to showed that He didn’t just make up Natural Selection, they were based on his prior observational experiences. And it was the same with Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday & James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, etc.

Now all of this, is about evidence that are required for studies of nature.

Without the evidence or experiments, then how would you suggest that they could test model‘s validity?

Absence of evidence, as no evidence or zero evidence, would suggest that the concept or model, is unfalsifiable, untestable, and therefore ultimately cannot be tested. In Natural & Physical sciences, absence of evidence is even worse than the evidence that debunked a hypothesis, because even when a hypothesis has been rejected, it was still falsifiable and testable.

A concept model that has absence of evidence, would not even be qualified as hypothesis, because ever hypotheses.

But this thread is about archaeological evidence, not about natural sciences. archaeology is a multi-discipline of various fields, a lot of the archaeological works involved in studying man-made structures (eg buildings), man-made objects (eg wares, tools, weapons, minted coins, etc), what materials they used to make them, and so on. But archaeology also required studying & understanding the history of previous cultures, like their customs (eg what they eat, how they dress, etc) & their rites (eg religious rites, funerary rites, etc), so what they did as individuals or as in community or society. Some of archaeology would require them to be able to decipher and translate any writings & inscriptions, etc.

A lot of archaeology involved different sciences and fields in Social Sciences, like history, geography, anthropology, political science, etc.

While some require non-scientific studies (Humanities), such as translating texts (philology), being able to distinguish art (eg painting, sculptures, etc) and crafts (eg pottery) by the styles in different geographical regions & in different periods.

My questions to you:

If there are absence of evidence, then how can you possibly study or understand something that don’t exist?​

​

And how can possibly verify and know that they happened, without evidence?​

And btw -

I agree with you, genesis was composed in 600 BCE, but you cannot conclude from this that Adam, Noah and Abraham and Joseph would be a myth. All we can say is that there is what is written in the genesis, and we have to apply our minds, whether it is complete or not.

A myth is a cultural (and national) narratives that narrate origins of people, that are often include a great deal of exaggeration and embellishments, including something that are clearly made up. Like angels, that are beings look humans but have wings. From my past experiences in dealing with mythology, other religions, particularly ancient polytheistic religions where some of the gods have wings.

The only mammals that I know of, that have wings are bats, and none of include those that look like human.

 

[Spice]

To the extent that reputable historians didn't believe in Jesus or in David, in each case they would have been able to make reasoned arguments for their case.

I haven't come across doubts expressed by experts about David, beyond the obvious that very little in the archaeological record so far discovered fits the magnificence ascribed to him. By contrast there appears to be reason to doubt the historicity of eg Abraham, or at least an Abraham who fits the description in the Tanakh.

The doubts about the Exodus, as I understand it, have various bases ─ the lack of any suitable date or pharaoh who would fit the story, the failure of Egyptian records to mention anything like the Egyptian captivity or the Exodus, the fact that the story of Moses being found in the bulrushes is copied from from an earlier story about a Mesopotamian king in antiquity, the fact that the name Moses is simply the ancient Egyptian word for "son" (eg as in Ramses = Ra mases = son of Ra) &c; and of course the absence of any archaeological evidence in Egypt, Sinai or the Levant that accords with the story. Seems a reasonable best opinion based on the available evidence, but like the rest of historiography it doesn't claim to be an absolute infallible determination.

As for Jesus, at one stage I was of the view that it was more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus (not least because it's possible to account for the gospels without one). However, these days I think it somewhat more likely than not that there was one. However, the gospels are Mark's constructed story and two further versions of it in Matthew and Luke, and finally John's Jesus, who like Paul's, but unlike the synoptics', is somewhat colored by gnosticism.

Here's a thought for your consideration ─ you have to approach the bible, both Tanakh and NT, the way you'd approach any other ancient writing ─ what, where, when by whom, for what reason? Can you cross-check with other facts from the period? And of course, miracles are claims of magic, and ancient writings have a good deal of such things, so if you allow the bible's miracles, you have to give equal credence to all the other records of magic. I've never seen a satisfactory demonstration of magic, so like the great majority of people who favor reasoned enquiry, I have no reason to think such reports are true.

Magic is simply undiscovered science or illusion. It makes stories more memorable.

Try this for the Exodus story explanation:

In each one of us there is an Egypt and a Pharaoh and a Moses and Freedom in a Promised Land. And every point in time is an opportunity for another Exodus.
Egypt is a place that chains you to who you are, constraining you from growth and change. And Pharaoh is that voice inside that mocks your gambit to escape, saying, "How could you attempt being today something you were not yesterday? Aren't you good enough just as you are? Don't you know who you are?"
Moses is the liberator, the infinite force deep within, an impetuous and all-powerful drive to break out from any bondage, to always transcend, to connect with that which has no bounds.
But Freedom and the Promised Land are not static elements that lie in wait. They are your own achievements which you may create at any moment in any thing that you do, simply by breaking free from whoever you were the day before.
Last Passover you may not have yet begun to light a candle. Or some other mitzvah still waits for you to fulfill its full potential. This year, defy Pharaoh and light up your world. With unbounded light.
--Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Try this for the Exodus story explanation:

Or this ...

The Reform Movement prayer book, Mishkan T’filah, has adapted Walzer’s teaching with a prayer for redemption, read in connection with Mi Chamochah, that is especially relevant at this moment:​

​

Standing on parted shores of history
we still believe that what we were taught
before ever we stood at Sinai’s foot;​

that wherever we are, it is eternally Egypt
that there is a better place, a promised land;
that the winding way to that promise
passes through the wilderness.​

That there is no way to get from here to there
Except by joining hands, marching
Together.​

Our tradition requires of us shared empathy and solidarity in the face of danger. The coronavirus is sweeping across a broken world. Defeating it will require us to see the humanity in one another and commit to fight for justice during this unprecedented moment of need. [source]​

 

[gnostic]

Absence of evidence only means that both possibilities exist. That is all. My interest in this entire study is because I am interested in reconciling the current biblical religion with other religions. So, I take it that whatever is written in the Bible is true unless proven otherwise. While I agree that you are equally justified in taking everything as untrue until proven true. But that does not help me because my objective is not fulfilled. I am strictly interested in understanding how to bring religions into reconciliation together.

I agree with you, genesis was composed in 600 BCE, but you cannot conclude from this that Adam, Noah and Abraham and Joseph would be a myth. All we can say is that there is what is written in the genesis, and we have to apply our minds, whether it is complete or not.

Look Bharat. You agreed about when the Genesis & Exodus were composed during the 6th century BCE, then you should also recognise that neither the authors of both books, don’t know much the history of Egypt and history of Babylonian during the 2 millennium BCE, eg during the periods of Middle Bronze Age, and then the Late Bronze Age.

Some of the things that Genesis and Exodus are clearly anachronistic.

I don’t know if you heard of anachronistic before, but basically it means that a book may describe some places or some things or some events, that will not exist before or after.

Take for instance, Genesis 11:31 mentioned the Chaldeans were in Ur, at the time Abraham’s family were living there, before they moved:

Genesis 11:31

31 Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there.

The problem here, is that the Chaldeans didn’t migrate into southeast Babylonia, until the 10th century BCE, and they only became powerful enough to challenge the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the late 7th century BCE, creating a new dynasty in Babylonia, ruling as 3rd dynasty at Babylon, the Chaldean dynasty (the Neo-Babylonian empire) started by Nebuchadnezzar II’s father, Nabopolassar (626 - 605 BCE).

The Chaldea being at Ur, is clearly anachronistic.

if Abraham lived in Ur in the early 2nd millennium BCE, then Babylon’s 1st dynasty were Amorites, not Chaldeans.

it isn’t the only things that were anachronistic.

The Flood of Genesis 7 & 8, never happened...but that’s not the issues. The issues are Genesis 10’s claims that Egypt and the cities of Mesopotamia never existed, until post-Flood. However archaeology have demonstrated that Egyptian culture and Mesopotamian culture predated the 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age!

For example, if the Flood occurred somewhere between 2400 and 2300 BCE, and Genesis 10 say that Egypt didn’t until Ham’s son Mizraim (Hebrew name for Egypt) was born (post-Flood), then how is the first pyramid (Step Pyramid of Djoser, 1st king of the 3rd dynasty), was constructed during the 27th century BCE?

Plus if the Flood happened as it claimed in Genesis, then that would have devastated Egypt, and it would have disrupted Egyptian government , culture, that it wouldn’t be the same culture (eg customs, art, hieroglyph writings, etc) after the so-called Flood, and yet there were no such disruption.

Genesis 10 claimed that Nimrod was founder of numbers of cities in Shinar (supposedly Babylonia) and Assyria:

Genesis 10:8-12

8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and 12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

Founded by one man. That’s not possible because a number of these were first built at different times.

Erech (or Sumerian Uruk) have inhabited since about 7000 years ago, or 5000 BCE, and became the largest city in the world, throughout the 4th millennium BCE.

Babel or Babylon was only a minor city during the 3rd millennium BCE, and became prominent when the Amorites established the first dynasty of Babylon during the 19th century BCE (c 1894 - 1595 BCE).

Akkad was constructed some times in the mid-3rd millennium BCE (although archaeologists never found this city), and was responsible for Akkadian dynasty and empire that started with Sargon the Great (c 2334 - 2279 BCE).

But the most interesting part is Nineveh and Calah (called Kalhu in Assyrian). Nineveh has been around as early as the 5500 BCE, while Kalhu (Calah) was constructed during the reign of Shalmaneser I (c 1279 - 1244 BCE). Nimrod couldn’t have had Nineveh and Kalhu (Calah) built at the same times, not unless he lived for several thousand years.

so do you see, more anachronistic?

Genesis is very unreliable, and the Exodus is no different. I would suggest that look at Rameses, a city being constructed during the time of Moses’ birth. Historians think it is Pi-Ramesses (house of Ramesses), being built the during the 13th century BCE, in the reigns of Seti I & Ramesses II, from the 19th dynasty.

if Moses lived from late 16th century to late 15th century BCE, then Pi-Ramesses couldn’t have existed during the 18th dynasty, eg reign of Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE).

And if Egypt played important parts in Genesis (eg Abraham & Joseph) and Exodus (Moses), then why cannot neither books name a single Egyptian king in these stories? My guess would be they didn’t know anything about Egyptian history, during the 2nd millennium BCE.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem here, is that the Chaldeans didn’t migrate into southeast Babylonia, until the 10th century BCE, and they only became powerful enough to challenge the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the late 7th century BCE, creating a new dynasty in Babylonia, ruling as 3rd dynasty at Babylon, the Chaldean dynasty (the Neo-Babylonian empire) started by Nebuchadnezzar II’s father, Nabopolassar (626 - 605 BCE).

The Chaldea being at Ur, is clearly anachronistic.

I have seen discussion suggesting that כַּשְׂדִּֽים is a reference to the Kassites. I haven't given it much thought.

 

[gnostic]

I have seen discussion suggesting that כַּשְׂדִּֽים is a reference to the Kassites. I haven't given it much thought.

The Kassites did take over Babylonia, when the Hittites & Kassites captured Babylon in 1595, and the Kassites began the Kassite dynasty and the Middle Babylonian empire, 1595 to 1155 BCE. The dynasty ended when the Assyrians and then the Elamites invaded.

In 1155 BCE, Babylonia were part of the Middle Assyrian empire (1393 - 912 BCE), and then the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911 - 609 BCE).

The Amorites dynasty began the Old Babylonian Empire (c 1894 - 1595 BCE), and the Chaldean dynasty that of Neo-Babylonian Empire (625 - 539 BCE.

The problem with Genesis 11:31, is anachronistic saying that the Chaldeans were in southern Babylonia, particularly Ur, when Chaldeans really did migrated into the region between Ur and the Persian Gulf, until the 10th century BCE. The Chaldeans didn’t exist in this region during the Old Babylonian Empire…the empire began with Amorite dynasty from 19th century BCE, with it making Babylon its capital.

Ur used to be a port city on the coast of Persian Gulf, during 4th and 3rd millennia BCE. But the Persian Gulf gradually retreated from Ur, as weathering of soil during much of the 2nd millennium BCE, caused built up of silt, in southern Mesopotamia, that the region between Ur and Persian gulf were marshland. By the 10th century BCE, this marshland dried up enough for the Chaldeans occupied this region.

Babylonia became part of the Middle AssyrIan Empire since 1155 BCE, then that of new dynasty in Assyria, ushered the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and only ended in the late 7th century BCE, when both the Medes and Chaldeans weakened Assyrian grip in the respective regions (Media & the Babylonia), Nabopolassar made Babylon its capital (625 BCE), and Assyria completely collapsed, with fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE.

Whoever wrote Genesis, simply didn’t understand Babylonian history of the 2nd millennium BCE.

 

[gnostic]

Babylon only became prominent when outsiders (Amorites, Kassites & Chaldeans) successively established Babylon as their capital.

All 3 became Akkadian-ized, adopting Akkadian culture (eg government-style, religion) and language.

Prior to the 2nd millennium BCE, Babylon was insignificant town during the Sumerian and Akkadian hegemony of Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE (or Early Bronze Age).

 

[paarsurrey]

Absence of evidence only means that both possibilities exist. That is all. My interest in this entire study is because I am interested in reconciling the current biblical religion with other religions. So, I take it that whatever is written in the Bible is true unless proven otherwise. While I agree that you are equally justified in taking everything as untrue until proven true. But that does not help me because my objective is not fulfilled. I am strictly interested in understanding how to bring religions into reconciliation together.

I agree with you, genesis was composed in 600 BCE, but you cannot conclude from this that Adam, Noah and Abraham and Joseph would be a myth. All we can say is that there is what is written in the genesis, and we have to apply our minds, whether it is complete or not.

I am strictly interested in understanding how to bring religions into reconciliation together.

It is a good intention/objective, I like it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Absence of evidence only means that both possibilities exist. That is all. My interest in this entire study is because I am interested in reconciling the current biblical religion with other religions. So, I take it that whatever is written in the Bible is true unless proven otherwise. While I agree that you are equally justified in taking everything as untrue until proven true. But that does not help me because my objective is not fulfilled. I am strictly interested in understanding how to bring religions into reconciliation together.

I agree with you, genesis was composed in 600 BCE, but you cannot conclude from this that Adam, Noah and Abraham and Joseph would be a myth. All we can say is that there is what is written in the genesis, and we have to apply our minds, whether it is complete or not.

" So, I take it that whatever is written in the Bible is true unless proven otherwise."

Similarly can we say "whatever is written in the Vedas is true unless proven otherwise", please, right?

Regards

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It still don’t make it true.

In Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences, both of which involved physics and chemistry, both required evidence and/or experiments, to either refute a model or refute the model. The experiments or evidence to test the models. That’s how scientists can determine whether a new hypothesis is science or not science.

Even if the evidence don’t support a hypothesis or theory, that‘s good thing because then scientists will know that hypothesis is weak or incorrect, therefore the hypothesis cannot go further (eg a refuted hypothesis shouldn’t submit the hypothesis for Peer Review, as it has failed the tests (during the testing stage of Scientific Method).

Two things can happen when the evidence refuted the hypothesis. (A) The hypothesis author(s) could try to figure out what were wrong with explanations or with predictions, modify the models and then test the hypothesis again; or (B) the author(s) can ditch the refuted hypothesis, and move on.

But if there no observations (eg evidence or experiments) and the models cannot be tested, then the models are “unfalsifiable“.

Lot of people who are not acquainted how scientists “do science”, often misunderstand what Falsifiability or Falsification means.

Falsifiability means that a statement, concept or model is based on observation that is “testable” (and refutable), therefore it can eventually be empirically tested. Falsifiability is where you could possibly refute the statement, concept or model.

Despite what most people made think about a hypothesis, the hypothesis is a model that contained explanations and predictions, but you don’t make it from nothing or from some imaginary dreams or fantasies. Hypothesis have to be based on prior observations.

Take for instance, Charles Darwin didn’t just make everything up. Darwin have actually observed wildlife, particularly in South America and the Galapagos, as voyage onboard the HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836. He observed animals of different species, eg different species of finches, different species of tortoises, not only from different from the mainland (South America) and islands, but from island to island, where slight differences in terrains, climates, humidity and availability of resources (eg food & water), will show that these populations of species will have physical or morphological traits that differed from the others. What Darwin eventually wrote about, is that changes in the environment would require the populations to have traits that are adapted to their respective environments; so the environment was a driving forces for changes to species, hence he developed the evolutionary mechanism that we know as Natural Selection.

When the environment has changed, it put selective pressures on the populations of organisms. Tortoises living in some islands that were drier, and vegetation that grew on those islands are much higher, so the tortoises would need inheritable traits that are better suited for those islands, these tortoises must reproduce with other tortoises that have longer legs and necks, necks that can crane more upright, so they can reach and feeds on leaves that are higher off the ground.

Biologists that have visited Galapagos and South America during the 20th century to the present, have observed and verified Darwin’s original findings.

My points with Darwin is to showed that He didn’t just make up Natural Selection, they were based on his prior observational experiences. And it was the same with Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday & James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, etc.

Now all of this, is about evidence that are required for studies of nature.

Without the evidence or experiments, then how would you suggest that they could test model‘s validity?

Absence of evidence, as no evidence or zero evidence, would suggest that the concept or model, is unfalsifiable, untestable, and therefore ultimately cannot be tested. In Natural & Physical sciences, absence of evidence is even worse than the evidence that debunked a hypothesis, because even when a hypothesis has been rejected, it was still falsifiable and testable.

A concept model that has absence of evidence, would not even be qualified as hypothesis, because ever hypotheses.

But this thread is about archaeological evidence, not about natural sciences. archaeology is a multi-discipline of various fields, a lot of the archaeological works involved in studying man-made structures (eg buildings), man-made objects (eg wares, tools, weapons, minted coins, etc), what materials they used to make them, and so on. But archaeology also required studying & understanding the history of previous cultures, like their customs (eg what they eat, how they dress, etc) & their rites (eg religious rites, funerary rites, etc), so what they did as individuals or as in community or society. Some of archaeology would require them to be able to decipher and translate any writings & inscriptions, etc.

A lot of archaeology involved different sciences and fields in Social Sciences, like history, geography, anthropology, political science, etc.

While some require non-scientific studies (Humanities), such as translating texts (philology), being able to distinguish art (eg painting, sculptures, etc) and crafts (eg pottery) by the styles in different geographical regions & in different periods.

My questions to you:

If there are absence of evidence, then how can you possibly study or understand something that don’t exist?​

​

And how can possibly verify and know that they happened, without evidence?​

And btw -



A myth is a cultural (and national) narratives that narrate origins of people, that are often include a great deal of exaggeration and embellishments, including something that are clearly made up. Like angels, that are beings look humans but have wings. From my past experiences in dealing with mythology, other religions, particularly ancient polytheistic religions where some of the gods have wings.

The only mammals that I know of, that have wings are bats, and none of include those that look like human.

The comparison between physical and natural sciences and historical sciences does not work, because in physical sciences we can set up experiments and generate evidence, whereas in the present case the evidence is already fixed in the past and we may get it or not. So, here we have to work with silences in contrast with physical sciences. So, the examples of Charles Darwin also do not hold for this reason.


As regarding absence of evidence, the difficulty is that evidence can be uncovered and more importantly the available evidence can be researched. In other words, we look at the existing evidence from a different way. Just as it is done in physical sciences.


I entirely agree that archaeology requires study of the materials and more importantly, the ethnographic history of the area where the evidence is found.

1. Now, let me answer your questions. Your first question is, if there are absence of evidence then how can you possibly study - As I said above, in ancient history, absence of evidence is not absolute. The evidence that we have, it says can be reviewed to discover more evidence.

2. Your question how can we verify and know that they happen?

We have to take the best probable outcome. There can be no absolutes unless we find some way of going back in time. But given that we are curious about our history, we should try to get the best possible answer to our queries and this is dynamic. It will continue to evolve as we do more research.

I agree that narratives include exaggeration, but we have to scrutinize them and if the narrative matches particularly with geography, history and etymology, then we can consider it to be a best probable outcome.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Look Bharat. You agreed about when the Genesis & Exodus were composed during the 6th century BCE, then you should also recognise that neither the authors of both books, don’t know much the history of Egypt and history of Babylonian during the 2 millennium BCE, eg during the periods of Middle Bronze Age, and then the Late Bronze Age.

Some of the things that Genesis and Exodus are clearly anachronistic.

I don’t know if you heard of anachronistic before, but basically it means that a book may describe some places or some things or some events, that will not exist before or after.

Take for instance, Genesis 11:31 mentioned the Chaldeans were in Ur, at the time Abraham’s family were living there, before they moved:



The problem here, is that the Chaldeans didn’t migrate into southeast Babylonia, until the 10th century BCE, and they only became powerful enough to challenge the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the late 7th century BCE, creating a new dynasty in Babylonia, ruling as 3rd dynasty at Babylon, the Chaldean dynasty (the Neo-Babylonian empire) started by Nebuchadnezzar II’s father, Nabopolassar (626 - 605 BCE).

The Chaldea being at Ur, is clearly anachronistic.

if Abraham lived in Ur in the early 2nd millennium BCE, then Babylon’s 1st dynasty were Amorites, not Chaldeans.

it isn’t the only things that were anachronistic.

The Flood of Genesis 7 & 8, never happened...but that’s not the issues. The issues are Genesis 10’s claims that Egypt and the cities of Mesopotamia never existed, until post-Flood. However archaeology have demonstrated that Egyptian culture and Mesopotamian culture predated the 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age!

For example, if the Flood occurred somewhere between 2400 and 2300 BCE, and Genesis 10 say that Egypt didn’t until Ham’s son Mizraim (Hebrew name for Egypt) was born (post-Flood), then how is the first pyramid (Step Pyramid of Djoser, 1st king of the 3rd dynasty), was constructed during the 27th century BCE?

Plus if the Flood happened as it claimed in Genesis, then that would have devastated Egypt, and it would have disrupted Egyptian government , culture, that it wouldn’t be the same culture (eg customs, art, hieroglyph writings, etc) after the so-called Flood, and yet there were no such disruption.

Genesis 10 claimed that Nimrod was founder of numbers of cities in Shinar (supposedly Babylonia) and Assyria:



Founded by one man. That’s not possible because a number of these were first built at different times.

Erech (or Sumerian Uruk) have inhabited since about 7000 years ago, or 5000 BCE, and became the largest city in the world, throughout the 4th millennium BCE.

Babel or Babylon was only a minor city during the 3rd millennium BCE, and became prominent when the Amorites established the first dynasty of Babylon during the 19th century BCE (c 1894 - 1595 BCE).

Akkad was constructed some times in the mid-3rd millennium BCE (although archaeologists never found this city), and was responsible for Akkadian dynasty and empire that started with Sargon the Great (c 2334 - 2279 BCE).

But the most interesting part is Nineveh and Calah (called Kalhu in Assyrian). Nineveh has been around as early as the 5500 BCE, while Kalhu (Calah) was constructed during the reign of Shalmaneser I (c 1279 - 1244 BCE). Nimrod couldn’t have had Nineveh and Kalhu (Calah) built at the same times, not unless he lived for several thousand years.

so do you see, more anachronistic?

Genesis is very unreliable, and the Exodus is no different. I would suggest that look at Rameses, a city being constructed during the time of Moses’ birth. Historians think it is Pi-Ramesses (house of Ramesses), being built the during the 13th century BCE, in the reigns of Seti I & Ramesses II, from the 19th dynasty.

if Moses lived from late 16th century to late 15th century BCE, then Pi-Ramesses couldn’t have existed during the 18th dynasty, eg reign of Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE).

And if Egypt played important parts in Genesis (eg Abraham & Joseph) and Exodus (Moses), then why cannot neither books name a single Egyptian king in these stories? My guess would be they didn’t know anything about Egyptian history, during the 2nd millennium BCE.

Let us take up Genesis 11.31. I agree that Chaldeans at Ur is anachronistic. But that is precisely my point because Chaldeans at Ur anachronistic, therefore we have an alternative to look at another place and my study shows that Ur Chaldeans was actually in the middle Indus Valley where the Ghaggar River enters from India in the middle Indus Valley, in the cholistan area. This area was fully inhabited at 2000 BCE and there was huge trade with the upper Indus Valley. More importantly, the Hindus, even living Hindus, are known to be great followers of astrology and I understand that the word Ur Chaldeans has relationship with astrology. Furthermore, Hindu idols have the six spooked wheel as a symbol of sun and other stars. So, anachronism in Mesopotamia becomes history in Indus Valley.


Now, let us take up the flood of Genesis. Now, I once again, this is precisely the point. If Egypt existed in the Indus Valley and specifically it is identified with the site of Chanhu-Daro, then this site existed between 2500 and 1500 BCE. So, if the flood took place in at circa 3000 BCE.


Regarding Genesis and Exodus being unreliable. My sense is that the unreliability arises because we are looking at the wrong place. But if we start looking at the Indus Valley, the unreliability transforms into reliability.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

" So, I take it that whatever is written in the Bible is true unless proven otherwise."

Similarly can we say "whatever is written in the Vedas is true unless proven otherwise", please, right?

Regards

You may kindly take it that whatever written in the Bible may be true or untrue, unless proven otherwise. And the same for Vedas.

However, I think there is a difference to be made between the Bible and the Vedas.

The modern scholarship says that the original hymns of the Rigveda were composed in 3500 BCE. We have evidence of habitation in the Gujarat-South Rajasthan area between 4000 and 3000 BCE, and the living traditions of Vedic seers also exist in that area. There is a temple of sage Dhadichi, and so on. So, while the Bible, as you rightly say float in the water, then the Vedic history of the Indus Valley is more grounded in the earth. Regards and thanks.

 

[gnostic]

The comparison between physical and natural sciences and historical sciences does not work, because in physical sciences we can set up experiments and generate evidence, whereas in the present case the evidence is already fixed in the past and we may get it or not.

What do you mean by the last part (what I had highlighted in larger font)?

Are you referring to history - where you have mentioned “historical sciences”? Is that what mean “the evidence is already fixed in the past”?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem with Genesis 11:31, is anachronistic saying that the Chaldeans were in southern Babylonia

• First, you give the impression of one who pretends to know more than they know. Just stop it. We all have Wikipedia access.
• Second, Genesis 11:31 does not say that the Chaldeans were in southern Babylonia. It talks of the כַּשְׂדִּֽים (kas'dim). I am simply entertaining the possibility that the common translation may be faulty. Please feel free to pontificate if you have any knowledge of Biblical Hebrew to offer.

 

[Audie]

Let us take up Genesis 11.31. I agree that Chaldeans at Ur is anachronistic. But that is precisely my point because Chaldeans at Ur anachronistic, therefore we have an alternative to look at another place and my study shows that Ur Chaldeans was actually in the middle Indus Valley where the Ghaggar River enters from India in the middle Indus Valley, in the cholistan area. This area was fully inhabited at 2000 BCE and there was huge trade with the upper Indus Valley. More importantly, the Hindus, even living Hindus, are known to be great followers of astrology and I understand that the word Ur Chaldeans has relationship with astrology. Furthermore, Hindu idols have the six spooked wheel as a symbol of sun and other stars. So, anachronism in Mesopotamia becomes history in Indus Valley.


Now, let us take up the flood of Genesis. Now, I once again, this is precisely the point. If Egypt existed in the Indus Valley and specifically it is identified with the site of Chanhu-Daro, then this site existed between 2500 and 1500 BCE. So, if the flood took place in at circa 3000 BCE.


Regarding Genesis and Exodus being unreliable. My sense is that the unreliability arises because we are looking at the wrong place. But if we start looking at the Indus Valley, the unreliability transforms into reliability.

Of course. Keep changing details and oretty soon the story of 'goldilocks and the three bears" becomes "Pride and Prejudice".