Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[Brian2]

Academia fully recognizes that the Egyptians mentioned the Hebrew tribes of Judah and worshiped YHWH, but the Egyptians were reasonably knowledgeable about all the tribes and Kingdoms of the regions and recorded the information as a result of the trade and conquests. Unfortunately, the Hebrews did not have a written language so we do not have any records from Henbrews until well after ~1000 BCE

There is no evidence that the Hebrews had a significant army at all and as referenced it was the Egyptians who conquered Canaan and by the way the Hebrew tribes.

Between the Conquest and the time of the Monarchy there was the Judges period, where Israel was a coalition of tribes which joined forces at least partially on occasion to fight usually the Philistines who hassled the tribes at times. So true, the Hebrews had no significant army and that is shown in the Bible. Archaeology proves the Bible.
As for writing, the Bible indicates that books were written at the time by probably Moses and Joshua and that it was probably these books which supplied the information for the later redaction, compilations into the Pentateuch and Joshua.
This of course is not saying to reading and writing were wide spread in Canaan at the time, but it is a nonsense to say it did not exist imo.
Saying that seems to be a just a result of the belief that the Moses story etc were made up to give an origins myth for Israel. But really that idea is becoming less and less needed with the accumulating archaeology of the truth of Exodus and Joshua.

As documented by the Egyptian Stella and archaeological evidence Joshua's army is a myth and it was Egypt that conquered Canaan and not Hebrews.

The Stele does not show that for the 1400s, when the conquest happened.

You need to provide independent evidence to justify your claims.

The archaeology of the 1400s is independant evidence that justifies what is written in the Bible.

The evidence is clear, Egypt conquered the Hyksos Kingdom and Canaan in the period the evidence demonstrates including the Merneptah Stele

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remember there is no independent archaeological evidence that the Hebrews had any written language at the time.

With so much writing around at the time and in the area, there is no reason imo to say that it was not in use in Canaan and by the early Israelites. It certainly is attested to in the Bible stories and the early Bible itself shows it was used unless that evidence is just thrown out by theories of the late writing of the Pentateuch. (Errors on errors on errors lead to the complete denial of the historicity of the bible unfortunately)

Writing - Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know how the Merneptah Stele which is supposed to be about 1208 BC, would show Egyptian conquest of Canaan in the 1400s, which is where the archaeology points to.
The Stele also has Israel as an existing state in about 1200 BC and is not good for those who say the exodus and conquest was late (1250, 1200) since Israel would not exist as a state then.

First Israel did not exist as a state, but it was subject to conquest, and yes Egypt has known they existed as a local tribe as others in the region described in Egyptian writings. My previous references document the Egyptian conquest of Hyksos and Canaan over a period of time ending at ~1200 BCE when Egypt retreated from the region corresponding to the rise of Israel

Second, the information in the Stele corresponds to other records in Egyptian writing involving the conquest of Canaan is a bragging rights of previous conquests for everyone to read. There are numerous other sources of written records for this period from Canaanite, Ugarit, and Phoenician that describe and correlate the events in the Stele

Here is a site which wants to use a Revised Egyptian Chronology (REC) to interpret the Stele.

The Merneptah Stele

This famous artifact contains an important reference to Israel: how does it relate to the Bible’s history?

answersingenesis.org

You are quoting Answers in Genesis which is a dishonest disreputable source

Rigging the chronology to suit an agenda is dishonest

Of course revising Egyptian Chronology may be a good and correct thing to do, but does add an extra layer of confusion to the already confusing landscape of archaeology and history that is the Exodus and Conquest, or whatever theory historians have come up with about it.

Revision must only be based on archaeological and Egyptian text evidence. Academic archaeology and history have not rewritten Egyptian chronology. This does not change the fact that Egypt, not Joshua's army captured Canaan at the time frame described for Joshua.

 

[shunyadragon]

Between the Conquest and the time of the Monarchy there was the Judges period, where Israel was a coalition of tribes which joined forces at least partially on occasion to fight usually the Philistines who hassled the tribes at times. So true, the Hebrews had no significant army and that is shown in the Bible. Archaeology proves the Bible.
As for writing, the Bible indicates that books were written at the time by probably Moses and Joshua and that it was probably these books which supplied the information for the later redaction, compilations into the Pentateuch and Joshua.
This of course is not saying to reading and writing were wide spread in Canaan at the time, but it is a nonsense to say it did not exist imo.
Saying that seems to be a just a result of the belief that the Moses story etc were made up to give an origins myth for Israel. But really that idea is becoming less and less needed with the accumulating archaeology of the truth of Exodus and Joshua.

This has been totally refuted by sound archaeological and historical research. The Pentateuch was written after 600 BCE.

There is no accumulated archaeological evidence for Exodus and Joshua. I have cited a number of sources that clearly document this. In fact the evidence that Egypt conquered and occupied Canaan over a period of more than 300 years when the Bible claims Joshua conquered Canaan, and yes as referenced from the Book of Joshua he claimed he conquered virtually ALL of Canaan and wiped out the Canaanites, which cause further extreme contradictions to the Biblical record including other books of the Torah, and your statements. Again . . .

Joshua's claim of conquest of Canaan totally conflicts with the evidence on the Stella of Egypt and the archaeological evidence. By the evidence, Egypt conquered Canaan and the Hebrew tribes of Judah. This is also in conflict with later references in the Torah.

Book of Joshua

10:40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills, and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

43 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

. and then he divided all the lands and gave them to the twelve tribes.

The Stele does not show that for the 1400s, when the conquest happened.

The Stele was a record of the conquest that took place over a period of time from the 1500s BCE to before 1200 BCE. Yes, the Stele correlates with other Egyptian records of the conquest of Canaan and occupation over that period. There are many ruins of Egyptian buildings for that period in what was Canaan

The archaeology of the 1400s is independant evidence that justifies what is written in the Bible.

No, it's not see above and my detailed references.

With so much writing around at the time and in the area, there is no reason imo to say that it was not in use in Canaan and by the early Israelites. It certainly is attested to in the Bible stories and the early Bible itself shows it was used unless that evidence is just thrown out by theories of the late writing of the Pentateuch. (Errors on errors on errors lead to the complete denial of the historicity of the bible unfortunately)

There is absolutely not one scratch of Hebrew writing before 1000 BCE. Yes, some Hebrew may have used a variant of Phoenician for trade, but alas no Hebrew,

Writing - Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

What is described is NOT Hebrew writing, nor are there any comparable writings of record, Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Ugarits had libraries.

The earliest known alphabetic inscriptions are called Proto-Canaanite and date from 1700 - 1500 BCE. Proto-Canaanite, which may have been an adaptation of Egyptian hieroglyphics, developed into the first true alphabetic writing system: Phoenician.

Again this scant reference is not Hebrew and only reflects that Hebrew as a written language evolved from Canaanite and Phoenician text. Basically, it was Phoenician text

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is absolutely not one scratch of Hebrew writing before 1000 BCE.

At least not true Hebrew.

 

[shunyadragon]

At least not true Hebrew.

It was really a variation of Phoenician possibly used in trade, which resembles materials from the Phoenician, Canaanite, and Ugarit libraries. only one scrap is nothing to get excited about, op grasping at straws to find early Hebrew.

 

[shunyadragon]

A more honest complete good reference to the earliest Hebrew text is as follows.

Paleo-Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first Paleo-Hebrew inscription identified in modern times was the Shebna inscription, found in 1870, and then referred to as "two large ancient Hebrew inscriptions in Phoenician letters".[4][5] Fewer than 2,000 inscriptions are known today, of which the vast majority comprise just a single letter or word.[6][7] The earliest known examples of Paleo-Hebrew writing date to the 10th century BCE.[8][9][10]

. . . and still only scrapes

Like the Phoenician alphabet, it is a slight regional variant and an immediate continuation of the Proto-Canaanite script, which was used throughout Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.[11] Phoenician, Hebrew, and all of their sister Canaanite languages were largely indistinguishable dialects before that time.[12][13] The Paleo-Hebrew script is an abjad of 22 consonantal letters, exactly as the other Canaanite scripts from the period.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was really a variation of Phoenician possibly used in trade, which resembles materials from the Phoenician, Canaanite, and Ugarit libraries. only one scrap is nothing to get excited about, op grasping at straws to find early Hebrew.

Please stop pretending to be an authority. You'll only end up embarrassing yourself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was really a variation of Phoenician possibly used in trade, which resembles materials from the Phoenician, Canaanite, and Ugarit libraries. only one scrap is nothing to get excited about, op grasping at straws to find early Hebrew.

Please stop pretending to be an authority. You'll only end up embarrassing yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please stop pretending to be an authority. You'll only end up embarrassing yourself.

Not an authority, but I do cite accurate sources. I do believe the older scrape of Phoenician does not represent primitive Hebrew, as described properly as what is found in the tenth century. Actually, when scrapes of only letters and words are found they are likely trading tokens as in the early writing in other cultures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what evidence do you have that one could not have compiled the Pentateuch as Moses received the messages from God?

There is no evidence that it did not happen at the time that is was recorded that it happened (Whether in archaic Hebrew or the language used before then).

What is your evidence that there are no undetectable goblins living under your house?

One might as well ask "what evidence is there that you aren't an AI response?"

Exactly. Do you see the pattern?
Do you undestand how this amounts to a shift in the burden of proof?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am speaking of a large local flood.

The bible isn't.

It would be the same if I believed any alternative to creation that a skeptic or atheist might believe. I would be using faith.

That would depend entirely on what it is that you believe exactly and on what basis.

But I am speaking of a large local flood, so that example is not appropriate when discussing it with me.

The bible isn't talking about a local flood.

 

[Brian2]

First Israel did not exist as a state, but it was subject to conquest, and yes Egypt has known they existed as a local tribe as others in the region described in Egyptian writings. My previous references document the Egyptian conquest of Hyksos and Canaan over a period of time ending at ~1200 BCE when Egypt retreated from the region corresponding to the rise of Israel

Second, the information in the Stele corresponds to other records in Egyptian writing involving the conquest of Canaan is a bragging rights of previous conquests for everyone to read. There are numerous other sources of written records for this period from Canaanite, Ugarit, and Phoenician that describe and correlate the events in the Stele

It does not matter what the Stele says if it is not about the 1400s, when the Exodus and conquest occurred.

You are quoting Answers in Genesis which is a dishonest disreputable source

Rigging the chronology to suit an agenda is dishonest

Who is rigging a chronology? David Rohl was and maybe still is not a believer and came up with his new chronology while not a believer and for what he sees as good reasons. There are others also who propose a revised chronology. David Rohl's chronology seems to have become popular among many Christians because of Tim Mahoney and Patterns of Evidence.
But as I said, it does not matter in relation to the Stele, which cannot be about the Exodus and Conquest anyway.
There is plenty of evidence in archaeology for the early Exodus and Conquest without a revised chronology.

Revision must only be based on archaeological and Egyptian text evidence. Academic archaeology and history have not rewritten Egyptian chronology. This does not change the fact that Egypt, not Joshua's army captured Canaan at the time frame described for Joshua.

David Rohl is an Egyptologist.
What time frame are you talking about? The Stele is about what is meant to be a conquest around 1200BC. How can that be about the destruction of Jericho around 1400 and the archaeology of those times?
Do you think the Bible gives an early (1450) or late (1250) dating of the Exodus?

 

[Brian2]

The Stele was a record of the conquest that took place over a period of time from the 1500s BCE to before 1200 BCE. Yes, the Stele correlates with other Egyptian records of the conquest of Canaan and occupation over that period. There are many ruins of Egyptian buildings for that period in what was Canaan

I presume you are talking about the Merneptah Stele, which is about a Pharaoh who had a short reign (1213 to 1204 according to current chronology) and did not live for 300 years.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Merneptah | Pharaoh of Egypt, 19th Dynasty Ruler, & Israel Stela

Merneptah was a king of the 19th dynasty of ancient Egypt and a son of Ramses II. After his victory over the Libyans and Sea Peoples, four commemorative stelae were made, one of which is the earliest attestation of a people called Israel.

www.britannica.com

 

[Brian2]

The bible isn't.



That would depend entirely on what it is that you believe exactly and on what basis.


The bible isn't talking about a local flood.

Skeptics like to say that about the flood and to take the YEC position on what the Bible says about the creation.
But if you believe an alternative to a creation then it is by faith, since it is not known by any other means.

 

[shunyadragon]

It does not matter what the Stele says if it is not about the 1400s, when the Exodus and conquest occurred.

It is about the whole history of the conquest of Canaan. You have not acknowledged the corroborating archaeological and Egyptian writing that confirms the Stella evidence I referenced including numerous Egyptian forts, temples, and expensive residences built between the 1500-1200 BCE

Who is rigging a chronology? David Rohl was and maybe still is not a believer and came up with his new chronology while not a believer and for what he sees as good reasons. There are others also who propose a revised chronology. David Rohl's chronology seems to have become popular among many Christians because of Tim Mahoney and Patterns of Evidence.
But as I said, it does not matter in relation to the Stele, which cannot be about the Exodus and Conquest anyway.
There is plenty of evidence in archaeology for the early Exodus and Conquest without a revised chronology.

There is no evidence for the Joshua army, and all the evidence demonstrates an Egyptian invasion of Canaan and colonization over a period of 300 years. There is not any chronology that helps you.

David Rohl is an Egyptologist.
What time frame are you talking about? The Stele is about what is meant to be a conquest around 1200BC. How can that be about the destruction of Jericho around 1400 and the archaeology of those times?
Do you think the Bible gives an early (1450) or late (1250) dating of the Exodus?

The date of Exodus does not concern me, because there remains no evidence for Moses, Exodus, and the invasion of Canaan by Joshua.

Thou I do not find any reference that David Rohl believes in evolution and his new chronology is not generally accepted. Nonetheless, it does not change the lack of evidence and the overwhelming evidence that Egypt invaded, conquered, and colonized Canaan not Joshua's army which did not exist,

 

[shunyadragon]

I presume you are talking about the Merneptah Stele, which is about a Pharaoh who had a short reign (1213 to 1204 according to current chronology) and did not live for 300 years.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Merneptah | Pharaoh of Egypt, 19th Dynasty Ruler, & Israel Stela

Merneptah was a king of the 19th dynasty of ancient Egypt and a son of Ramses II. After his victory over the Libyans and Sea Peoples, four commemorative stelae were made, one of which is the earliest attestation of a people called Israel.

www.britannica.com

The Merneptah Stele is a historical record of the invasion and colonization of Canaan over a period of 300 years confirmed by vast archaeological evidence and other Egyptian records. It is foolish to assume that the invasion and colonization took place all at once when the archaeological and Egyptian records demonstrate the war and colonization took place over 300 years. Egypt was still fighting various armies in the North over Canaan at the time just before the Stella was made actually loosing the battle for Canaan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Skeptics like to say that about the flood

It has nothing to do with skepticism and everything with what the bible actually says.

and to take the YEC position on what the Bible says about the creation.

I'm not talking about "the creation". I'm talking about the flood story. The bible is quite clear that it talks about a global flood, not a local one.

But if you believe an alternative to a creation then it is by faith, since it is not known by any other means.

I don't believe in any mythical biblical story.
I just don't feel the need to misrepresent what it actually says about this flood.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not an authority, but I do cite accurate sources. I do believe the older scrape of Phoenician does not represent primitive Hebrew, as described properly as what is found in the tenth century. Actually, when scrapes of only letters and words are found they are likely trading tokens as in the early writing in other cultures.

"Not and authority, but" you curate your sources to support your biases and then speak with absolute, albeit unearned, certainty. As a result, you're one peer-reviewed study away from looking foolish. (been there - done that)

Be that as it may, you'll likely find the following 2016 article interesting (if you can find it):

Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eighth Century BCE?, by Matthieu Richelle, 2016​

 

[shunyadragon]

I presume you are talking about the Merneptah Stele, which is about a Pharaoh who had a short reign (1213 to 1204 according to current chronology) and did not live for 300 years.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Merneptah | Pharaoh of Egypt, 19th Dynasty Ruler, & Israel Stela

Merneptah was a king of the 19th dynasty of ancient Egypt and a son of Ramses II. After his victory over the Libyans and Sea Peoples, four commemorative stelae were made, one of which is the earliest attestation of a people called Israel.

www.britannica.com

Egyptian Steles and obelisks are often historical monuments of past achievements and religious monuments. As I said the documented history confirms the Stele and you have failed to repond to the evidence. Israel did not become a kingdom with writing, significant military and influence until after 1200=1000 BCE with the collapse of the Egyptian Canaanite colony.

As previously cited

Egypt’s Final Redoubt in Canaan


The fiery end of the last Egyptian colony

By ROGER ATWOOD

July/August 2017

(Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource, NY)
A fragment of a painted limestone relief dating to about 1400 B.C. from Thebes in Egypt depicts defeated Canaanites.


For three centuries, Egyptians ruled the land of Canaan. Armies of chariots and 10,000 foot soldiers under the pharaoh Thutmose III thundered through Gaza and defeated a coalition of Canaanite chiefdoms at Megiddo, in what is now northern Israel, in 1458 B.C. The Egyptians then built fortresses, mansions, and agricultural estates from Gaza to Galilee, taking Canaan’s finest products—copper from Dead Sea mines, cedar from Lebanon, olive oil and wine from the Mediterranean coast, along with untold numbers of slaves and concubines—and sending them overland and across the Mediterranean and Red Seas to Egypt to please its elites.

(© The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Nachom Selpak)

(Courtesy Aaron Burke)
Wealthy Canaanites adopted many Egyptian customs and decorative motifs, such as clay coffins (top) dating to the 13th century B.C. from Deir el-Balah in Gaza and the Eye of Horus (above) such as this faience one found at Jaffa in Israel.
As with many colonial ventures before and since, military conquest led to a new cultural order in the occupied lands. Across Israel, archaeologists have found evidence that Canaanites took to Egyptian customs. They created items worthy of tombs on the Nile, including clay coffins modeled with human faces and burial goods such as faience necklaces and decorated pots. They also adopted Egyptian imagery such as sphinxes and scarabs. For the Egyptians, Canaan was a major trophy. Artists in Egypt carved and painted narratives on the stone walls of temples boasting about vanquished subjects and depicting Canaanite prisoners naked and bound at the wrists.

Yet Egypt’s presence in Canaan ended sooner than the pharaohs might have expected. With Canaan under assault from seaborne invaders and hit by drought so severe it caused food shortages, Egypt’s colonial rule began to crumble around 1200 B.C., starting in the north and gradually spreading south. Egypt did not fall alone. The eastern Mediterranean’s two other great powers of the day, the Hittites in central Turkey and the Mycenaeans in Greece, saw their capitals sacked and their governments fail. They all toppled in the pan-Mediterranean Late Bronze Age collapse of the twelfth century B.C. Egypt’s 2,000-year-old dynastic system survived, but it lost its trade ties throughout the Mediterranean and its valuable outposts in Canaan.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Not and authority, but" you curate your sources to support your biases and then speak with absolute, albeit unearned, certainty. As a result, you're one peer-reviewed study away from looking foolish. (been there - done that)

Be that as it may, you'll likely find the following 2016 article interesting (if you can find it):

Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eighth Century BCE?, by Matthieu Richelle, 2016​

My sources are accurate and specific and do not support any biases.
This reference is not available to me. Need one that is available