Jesus Resurrection

[joelr]

Septuagint 250 BC: Goshen of Arabia

1. The Septuagint (LXX) was translated in Alexandria, Egypt around 250 BC.
2. Referencing the time of Abraham to Jacob, the Septuagint LXX, translates Gen 45:10; 46:34 as, "Goshen of Arabia". This is used as proof that in 250 BC, well before Paul's time of writing Gal 4:25, that everything east of the Nile, including the wilderness of Egypt (Sinai Peninsula) was considered Arabia. It is suggested that the Septuagint merely reflected the geographical understanding of the time.
   1. "You shall settle in the land of Goshen [of Arabia], and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children’s children, as well as your flocks, your herds, and all that you have." (Genesis 45:10)
   2. "you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our ancestors’—in order that you may settle in the land of Goshen [of Arabia], because all shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians.”" (Genesis 46:34)
3. Considering many of the geographers of the time, like Herodotus: 484 BC, had no concept of the Sinai Peninsula or the Gulf of Aqaba, the translators copied this error from their contemporary geographers. The Holy Spirit did not make this mistake, and the works, "of Arabia" are not in the original Hebrew text.
4. No one actually believes that the Holy Spirit had the phrase "Goshen of Arabia" in the original. We all understand it was a textual gloss of the worse kind: Adding to the word of God something that is factually untrue. The Septuagint translators added the words, "of Arabia" because the maps of Herodotus, Hecataeus, Hesiod and Hecataeus that they had before them were wrong.
   1. We couldn't find an English Bible that adds the words, "of Arabia" proving that modern translators reject it.
   2. The Massoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament (1000 AD) does not add the words "of Arabia".
5. The Romans renamed the Sinai Peninsula "Arabia" only after 106 AD.
6. "The degree of correspondence between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text varies greatly. In Genesis, the correspondence is usually very close. In Job, not so close. There are many places where the Septuagint departs from the Hebrew far more dramatically than in Gen. 45:10 & 46:34. And in fact, some scholars argue that in some instances where the Masoretic text and the Septuagint differ, the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text preserves the original meaning. Seemingly not put off by the discrepancies in meaning between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint freely." (Jeff Smelser, NTGreek.net)
7. "Region of Egypt which the Israelites inhabited during their sojourn in that country. It is described as situated on the eastern frontier of Lower Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 28, 29; Ex. xiii. 17; I Chron. vii. 21), forming an outpost of it (Gen. xlvi. 34); apparently not at all (or scantily) inhabited by Egyptians (ib.), but, in the estimation of shepherds, evidently "the best of the land" (ib. xlvii. 6,11), since Pharaoh's cattle grazed there (6). According to verse 11 "the land of Rameses" is synonymous with "the land of Goshen." "Goshen" alone (without the addition "land of") is used only in xlvi. 28, 29. In these two verses it may designate a city, as the LXX. understands it, which here renders "Goshen" by "Heroonpolis," adding in verse 28 to "unto Goshen" the words "into the land of Ramesses"; in xlv. 10 the LXX. transliterates "Gesem of Arabia." This name "Arabia" means, in Egyptian usage, either, generally, all land east of the Nile or, as a special district, the "nome Arabia," the 20th of Lower Egypt. Heroonpolis or Heropolis (according to the excavations of Naville, modern Tell al-Mas-Khua) was, however, the capital of the 8th or Heroopolitan nome, east of the Arabian. Nevertheless, the name "Arabia" seems to be used by the LXX. in the special sense, for in the reign of Ptolemy II. the Greek administration seems to have treated the neighboring 8th and 20th nomes as one district (comp. the "Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus," ed. Grenfell, 1896, p. l.). Later, the two districts seem to have been separated again (comp., e.g., Ptolemy, "Geographia," iv. 5, 53)." (Jewish Encyclopedia, Goshen)

Conclusion:

1. It is clear that the Septuagint translators were wrong when they called Goshen "of Arabia" at the time of Abraham
   1. This error was due to the fact that ancient geographers of the time did not even understand the Gulf of Aqaba existed.
   2. Had they knew their geography better, they never would have called this section of land Arabia. The locals living their knew is was not Arabia.
2. The Holy Spirit did not allow Paul to make the same mistakes as the some of the Geographers of his day.
3. The Septuagint (LXX) was translated in Alexandria, Egypt around 250 BC and we know from Herodotus that several towns deep in the Nile Delta of Egypt near the great Pyramids were called "Towns of Arabia".
4. Herodotus knew full well that Arabia proper was nowhere near Egypt. His comments that lead some to put "Arabia in Egypt" are rather simple to explain:
   1. "Arabian cities" in the Nile Delta are merely Arab immigrants who formed a majority population in a city inside Egypt. There is a "China Town" in ever major city, but we all know where China is not.
   2. 2. The references to the "Arabian Sea" and the "Arabian Mountains" does not mean Arabia inside Egypt, west of the Red Sea or even close by. These references simply mean the Egyptian mountain range flanged entire length the Arabian Sea which separated Egypt from the territory of Arabia proper.
5. Herodotus calls Pithon in the Eastern Nile Delta beside Goshen, AN ARABIAN TOWN!

1. "Arabian town of Patumus [Pithom, Tell el-Maskhuta, near Goshen]" (Herodotus, History 2.158.2)

1. This is helpful in understanding why the Translators of the LXX, who performed their translation work IN EGYPT would say Goshen was of Arabia.

1. When those bent on keeping Mt. Sinai out of Saudi Arabia quote ancient historians who say Hebrew Goshen in Egypt was in fact Arabia, you wonder why the Israelites ever left?
2. It simply trashes the Bible story like putting Kadesh Barnea inside the promised land at Qudeirat.

Septuagint 250 BC: Goshen of Arabia

Well that means exactly nothing concerning the location of your magic mountain.

 

[joelr]

The appeal to authority fallacy is when you use or quote an authority or expert in the field that you agree with, but this authority has not provided evidence, only assertion. Any so called evidence is just a masked assertion that is debunked.

You have committed this fallacy.

And id like to respond to all the other points, but, if i do that, 2 things will happen. Allot of time will be used and second youl have two many posts to deal with which means youl give me sloppy responses. So, id like you to put in a good effort on those 2 points above.

Yes and the "appeal to authority" you were talking about was my use of the ENTIRE FIELD OF ARCHEOLOGY!?
And the ENTIRE FIELD OF HISTORY!?

There is no "an authority or expert in the field that you agree but this authority has not provided evidence, only assertion"?????
There is nothing even close to that. The ENTIRE FIELD of archeology has ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence.
Richard Carrier has A 700 PAGE BOOK WITH SOURCES!?!?

So you are so off base with this asertion that I repeat -
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND LITERARY FALLICIES!!

You are so bad at this that you wrote the definition which is the complete opposite of what I have done? Provide an entire fields worth of evidence and a scholar with a massive thesis. This is ecactly the opposite of the definition of argument to authority is?

Smashing you isn't even fun anymore, it's too easy.

 

[Jollybear]

Well that means exactly nothing concerning the location of your magic mountain.

1. It actually does because it narrows it down into WHAT desert the mountain is located at. It puts the mountain in arabia, at midian, LIKE I FIRST TOLD YOU.

2nd, since jubel al luz is in arabia, has been found and does match archeological markers with the story, well that narrows it down to a nail.

That makes jubal al luz the best candidate.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes and the "appeal to authority" you were talking about was my use of the ENTIRE FIELD OF ARCHEOLOGY!?
And the ENTIRE FIELD OF HISTORY!?

First of all, the entire field of archeology and the entire field of history, every person, does not agree.

Second of all, even if all did agree, and agreed with you, thats still appeal to authority.

You need evidence, not authority and not numbers.

There is no "an authority or expert in the field that you agree but this authority has not provided evidence, only assertion"?????
There is nothing even close to that. The ENTIRE FIELD of archeology has ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence.
Richard Carrier has A 700 PAGE BOOK WITH SOURCES!?!?

Instead of appealing to authority, lets go through that evidence. Lets comb through it. Lets stick to the content. Lets stay on it point by point, line on line, question after question.

Im not afraid to do that, are you? Im also not lazy to do it either, are you?

So you are so off base with this asertion that I repeat -
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND LITERARY FALLICIES!!

WRONG BUDDY! I understand them better then you do! Action speaks louder then words! And your action shows you have appealed to authority and i merely pointed it out!

You are so bad at this that you wrote the definition which is the complete opposite of what I have done? Provide an entire fields worth of evidence and a scholar with a massive thesis. This is ecactly the opposite of the definition of argument to authority is?

Its not wrong to quote an authority, provided the authority is presenting evidence, not assertion. But, on the case of the mountain, it was assertion and i pointed it out. I even refuted that assertion and showed sinai truly is in arabia.

Smashing you isn't even fun anymore, it's too easy.

The fact you think this is fun shows what kind of person you are. You just proved to me what your intent is and that intent is not respect.

And, no, its not easy for you. I can see that clear as day.

****s getting real now. I listen to peoples actions more then there words. Actions always speak louder then words.

 

[Prometheus85]

Yes, it is my opinion that if this story happened at all, we are dealing with someone who was misdiagnosed as dead.


You don't have the coroner's report for Jesus. You cannot be certain he was dead. He was taken down shortly after passing out. Even Pilate is shocked he died so soon 'cause it usually takes a long time. In John, at least, there is the possibility he had fluid overload and the spear to the side relieved the pressure, but I've seen personally what happens when you drain fluids too quickly -- their vitals tank. You can't even put in a urinary catheter and drain a liter or two of urine all at once. You have clamp, release, clamp, release, etc. So, Jesus gets popped like a blister and he faints and the body is taken down and placed in a nice cool secluded place with air in it. He wakes up a few days later and hightails it out of the area.

We wouldn't be having this conversation had he been beheaded or buried in a grave under lots of dirt.

Wow....

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Mind-blowing, isn't it? Not trusting the words of people who weren't even there to witness it because they themselves supposedly claim they had run off? Romans and Jewish clergy against Jesus would have every reason to spread the story Jesus died so they could nip that movement in the bud. His followers had every reason to deny it because their 15 min were up and that was upsetting. The only way to be sure is with a medical report, which we don't have.

 

[lukethethird]

The only way to be sure is with a medical report, which we don't have.

What, no medical reports came with the Shroud?

 

[joelr]

1. It actually does because it narrows it down into WHAT desert the mountain is located at. It puts the mountain in arabia, at midian, LIKE I FIRST TOLD YOU.

2nd, since jubel al luz is in arabia, has been found and does match archeological markers with the story, well that narrows it down to a nail.

That makes jubal al luz the best candidate.

This magic mountain means nothing and proves nothing. The whole idea that it lends credibility to some supernatural story is insane. IT could even be a story written about a god mountain because it was ALREADY BLACK so they made a myth about it.

The OT is myth so there isn't anything to prove.

 

[joelr]

First of all, the entire field of archeology and the entire field of history, every person, does not agree.

Second of all, even if all did agree, and agreed with you, thats still appeal to authority.

You need evidence, not authority and not numbers.

Holy crud you just don't get it? I have to explain everything step by step?

"Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. "

In my case the ENTIRE FIELD OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY DOES HAVE EVIDENCE. That's why they have reached a consensus.
William Denver explained it in the Nova interview.
Also Thompsons work has been studied and accepted as fact. THAT IS EVIDENCE!!??!???!?!

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham
"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against Thompson, but it is his other books Dever has the most beef against. This one stands stellar and strong. I was absolutely bowled over by it. The second time through is even more astonishing.
Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.
So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up.

This is a very important book, it swept away the accumulated dust of centuries and opened up a new, realistic, understanding of the past it described, an understanding that has thoroughly replaced the anachronism of the 'general claim' referred to in the opening line of the review"

It's like taking a physics class and disagreeing with the professor because all the physics text are just an "appeal to authority"?

It doesnt' work that way. It's when one expert is claiming something without evidence. This is not that.

Instead of appealing to authority, lets go through that evidence. Lets comb through it. Lets stick to the content. Lets stay on it point by point, line on line, question after question.

There isn't any appeal to authority. Everything I present is based on facts and knowledge discovered by Ph.D scholars in each field.

Im not afraid to do that, are you? Im also not lazy to do it either, are you?

You seem to be as most evidence I put forth you ignore and move on to other topics. Or start trying to say the source is faulty or that time you started on with scholarship doesn't know what their talking about. Any old way to get around glaring facts that this stuff is a bunch of old myths.

WRONG BUDDY! I understand them better then you do! Action speaks louder then words! And your action shows you have appealed to authority and i merely pointed it out!

Action does speak louder than words. That's why I showed you the actual definition of that fallacy. "Without evidence" - is the kind of source I don't use. So no, you don't understand it at all.

Its not wrong to quote an authority, provided the authority is presenting evidence, not assertion. But, on the case of the mountain, it was assertion and i pointed it out. I even refuted that assertion and showed sinai truly is in arabia.

Oh, now you understand authority?
The magic mountain is a waste of time. Even if there actually was a map of where the mountain is and it had some type of black surface in the end it shows nothing?
A myth could have been written about it because it was black? Or natural reasons?
Anything written in the OT isn't real, we already know this. Why would I waste any more time going over facts when it leads nowhere? I could explain why Sinai might not be in Arabia but it's pointless. Moses didn't exist.
You need Moses for this story to work.

The fact you think this is fun shows what kind of person you are. You just proved to me what your intent is and that intent is not respect.

And, no, its not easy for you. I can see that clear as day.

No I said it's not fun anymore because it's so easy.
You can draw whatever conclusions you want about me, I'm not worried about that. Or your intent or respect.

****s getting real now. I listen to peoples actions more then there words. Actions always speak louder then words.

Ok.

 

[Jollybear]

This magic mountain means nothing and proves nothing. The whole idea that it lends credibility to some supernatural story is insane. IT could even be a story written about a god mountain because it was ALREADY BLACK so they made a myth about it.

The OT is myth so there isn't anything to prove.

So basically you dont want to debate the evidence, you just want to bash it?

 

[Jollybear]

Holy crud you just don't get it? I have to explain everything step by step?

"Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. "

In my case the ENTIRE FIELD OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY DOES HAVE EVIDENCE. That's why they have reached a consensus.
William Denver explained it in the Nova interview.
Also Thompsons work has been studied and accepted as fact. THAT IS EVIDENCE!!??!???!?!

Stay on point.....you appealed to authority on the location of mount sinai. That authority gave only assertions and assumptions, which i then showed a source that refuted that authorities assumptions. It showed mount sinai location is in current arabia. You never addressed that, but merely brushed it off.

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham

"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against Thompson, but it is his other books Dever has the most beef against. This one stands stellar and strong. I was absolutely bowled over by it. The second time through is even more astonishing.
Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.
So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up.

This is a very important book, it swept away the accumulated dust of centuries and opened up a new, realistic, understanding of the past it described, an understanding that has thoroughly replaced the anachronism of the 'general claim' referred to in the opening line of the review"

You did two things here. You appealed to authority AGAIN because all this says is that the book refutes the existence of the partriarches, but you actually never gave any actual evidence showing that the partriarches are myth. Hence appeal to authority.

Do you wish to comb through and discuss this evidence or do you just want to bash and argue? Tell me honestly because i dont want to waste anymore of your time and i dont want you to waste anymore of my time. If your willing to comb through and discuss all the actual evidence/data, then good, ill do that. Thats what im interested in doing. But, if your not interested in that, SAY SO NOW. Because i wont waste time on you if your agenda is just to bash and argue. So, tell me streaght up right now.

It's like taking a physics class and disagreeing with the professor because all the physics text are just an "appeal to authority"?

Are you interested in discussing this evidence?

It doesnt' work that way. It's when one expert is claiming something without evidence. This is not that.

Yes, it is that. You quoted an authority on the location of mount sinai and i showed where that authority was wrong.

There isn't any appeal to authority. Everything I present is based on facts and knowledge discovered by Ph.D scholars in each field.

Oh really? Funny, you keep on saying this but you dont actually present any evidence or discuss any evidence. Odd.

You seem to be as most evidence I put forth you ignore and move on to other topics. Or start trying to say the source is faulty or that time you started on with scholarship doesn't know what their talking about. Any old way to get around glaring facts that this stuff is a bunch of old myths.

Dont accuse me of what you do. I wasnt even talking about the patriarches, but was talking mount sinai and you red herring by bringing up the patriarches. You just wanna bash and refuse to discuss the actual evidence. Dont accuse me of what you do. Theres a word for that, its called the actions of hypocrisy .

Action does speak louder than words. That's why I showed you the actual definition of that fallacy. "Without evidence" - is the kind of source I don't use. So no, you don't understand it at all.

Your not presenting evidence, your just saying you have evidence. And your quoting authority saying it. But theres no actual examples of the evidence nor willingness to discuss said evidence. Thats called appeal to authority.

So, you committed a red herring by bringing up the patriarches. You committed appeal to authority TWICE now. And you committed hypocrisy .

Oh, now you understand authority?
The magic mountain is a waste of time. Even if there actually was a map of where the mountain is and it had some type of black surface in the end it shows nothing?
A myth could have been written about it because it was black? Or natural reasons?
Anything written in the OT isn't real, we already know this. Why would I waste any more time going over facts when it leads nowhere? I could explain why Sinai might not be in Arabia but it's pointless. Moses didn't exist.
You need Moses for this story to work.

Ok, if you CAN explain why sinai is not in arabia, then DO IT. Stop being all talk and no show. And if theres evidence in arabia, then YA, moses would have existed.

No I said it's not fun anymore because it's so easy.
You can draw whatever conclusions you want about me, I'm not worried about that. Or your intent or respect.

So, you dont care if i or anyone you debate with respects you? You asked if i have a BS filter. I sure do. And THAT is BS! Everyone wants respect! Even you. Quit acting like some tough guy behind a screen. That BS makes me sick.

 

[Prometheus85]

Mind-blowing, isn't it? Not trusting the words of people who weren't even there to witness it because they themselves supposedly claim they had run off? Romans and Jewish clergy against Jesus would have every reason to spread the story Jesus died so they could nip that movement in the bud. His followers had every reason to deny it because their 15 min were up and that was upsetting. The only way to be sure is with a medical report, which we don't have.

Medical Report???? Seriously LMAO

I’m saying wow because everything you’re saying makes no sense and goes against traditional views. You know like revisionist history.

 

[joelr]

So basically you dont want to debate the evidence, you just want to bash it?

It doesn't get us anywhere. If the OT had an exact map of the mountain and we knew exactly which mountain it was what does that prove?
Since the OT is a mythical narrative then they could have chosen that mountain to create a mythology of god speaking to Moses because it was charred. We can never know which was which?
We can't know why it's black, we can't know for sure if it's the correct mountain. It's all speculation and in the end we are no closer to showing the OT is any more real or mythical.

Since your sources are con-men it looks weak but again, how could this possibly advance this discussion?

 

[joelr]

Stay on point.....you appealed to authority on the location of mount sinai. That authority gave only assertions and assumptions, which i then showed a source that refuted that authorities assumptions. It showed mount sinai location is in current arabia. You never addressed that, but merely brushed it off.

Actually no, the paper I linked to disputes the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz.

Then it examines the archaeological evidence and debunks that. So the evidence is on my side here. I don't know why you insist on twisting it around?

You did two things here. You appealed to authority AGAIN because all this says is that the book refutes the existence of the partriarches, but you actually never gave any actual evidence showing that the partriarches are myth. Hence appeal to authority.

That's the least educated thing I've heard in a long time? When a field of science comes to a consensus and you tell someone they don't respond with "that isn't evidence..." "show me evidence".....

Unless you have a Ph.D in biblical archeology and have some archeological digs and evidence to present you have no counter claim.

Do you wish to comb through and discuss this evidence or do you just want to bash and argue? Tell me honestly because i dont want to waste anymore of your time and i dont want you to waste anymore of my time. If your willing to comb through and discuss all the actual evidence/data, then good, ill do that. Thats what im interested in doing. But, if your not interested in that, SAY SO NOW. Because i wont waste time on you if your agenda is just to bash and argue. So, tell me streaght up right now.

I told you at the beginning there is no scholarship to support any biblical history. You just think I'm "bashing" your evidence and such because it's completely faulty, doesn't support any type of divinity and that type of supernatural thinking isn't supported by logic, rationale and the sciences.
Your also being dishonest here because I've posted dozens of individual pieces of information to which you're completely ignored or tried to ad hom away. Even resorting to attempting to make scientific fields unsuitable as evidence because they "don't know anything"??

So what you say here doesn't even track with your past behavior. I'm not "bashing or arguing", I'm just winning.

Are you interested in discussing this evidence?

Yes, it is that. You quoted an authority on the location of mount sinai and i showed where that authority was wrong.

You haven't debunked any of the article by Gordon Franz? You didn't seem to even look at them.
Not the first or second article.

Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?

Oh really? Funny, you keep on saying this but you dont actually present any evidence or discuss any evidence. Odd.

So first I give evidence from PhDs and scholarship but they don't know what their talking about and how I haven't shown evidence?
Your contradicting yourself.

Dont accuse me of what you do. I wasnt even talking about the patriarches, but was talking mount sinai and you red herring by bringing up the patriarches. You just wanna bash and refuse to discuss the actual evidence. Dont accuse me of what you do. Theres a word for that, its called the actions of hypocrisy .

It seems pointless to try and make a case for a stupid magic mountain being somewhere when the entire story it comes from is total fiction?

Your not presenting evidence, your just saying you have evidence. And your quoting authority saying it. But theres no actual examples of the evidence nor willingness to discuss said evidence. Thats called appeal to authority.

So, you committed a red herring by bringing up the patriarches. You committed appeal to authority TWICE now. And you committed hypocrisy .

It's not a red herring, it's like if someone was trying to prove that Santa Clause is slim enough to fit into most chimnies. Why go through the effort when the whole thing is just a fictional tale?

Ok, if you CAN explain why sinai is not in arabia, then DO IT. Stop being all talk and no show. And if theres evidence in arabia, then YA, moses would have existed.

I think this is your problem, you are having trouble extrapolating ideas too their logical conclusion.
You seem to think even if this mountain was in Arabia that this lends any credibility to Moses.
It doesn't. Not even a little. Someone wrote fiction and placed Moses on this mountain in a story. That is exactly what it would mean if one could establish that this mountain was in Arabia.
In all religious myths gods and supernatural events are placed on actual locations that really do exist. But the stories are still myth. Why can't you understand this??

The Knights of the Roundtable myths contain many accurate locations in England. Gone With the Wind contains very detailed descriptions of what pre-civil war south was like on wealthy plantations. It's still ALL FICTION!

Everything you've mentioned is debunked in these articles. I sometimes forget you don't read any evidence that goes against your beliefs.


Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?


The thesis of these books and video is that the real Mount Sinai is located at Jebel el-Lawz in Saudi Arabia, and the gold that the Israelites took from the Egyptians is in “them thar hills!” Are their views correct? The simple answer is no. There are a number of significant problems with this view. Mount Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula right where the Bible places it.

Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
PROBLEMS WITH THIS VIEW


The biggest problem with the identification of Mt. Sinai at Jebel el-Lawz is that it does not meet the Biblical criteria for the site. These claims are based on three false assumptions and a misunderstanding of the archaeological remains that they observed. It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the Red Sea crossing and the chronology of the Exodus from Egypt to Mt. Sinai. I will tackle these issues in a future issue of Bible and Spade.


False Assumption #1: The Sinai Peninsula was considered the Land of Egypt -explained in article

False Assumption #2: Mt. Sinai is in the Land of Midian - see article

False Assumption #3: Galatians 4:25 says Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia - see article

Another major problem for the Jebel el-Lawz site is the statement by Moses that Mt. Horeb (another name for Mt. Sinai) is “eleven days journey from Kadesh Barnea” (Deut. 1:2). It would be impossible to march more than 2 million Israelites through the difficult terrain from Jebel el-Lawz to Kadesh Barnea in the allotted time. However, Wyatt, Williams, Blum and Cornuke all ignore this problem.



MISUNDERSTANDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE


Those who hold to the Jebel al-Lawz site as Mt. Sinai are quick to point out the “archaeological evidence”. Their reasoning is, “Look what was found, everything fits, it must be the site”! Let’s look at the evidence and see if it really “fits”.

None of these items fit:
The Altar of the Golden Calf
Cave of Moses
The Altar of Moses and the 12 Pillars
The Split Rock at Horeb
Fasold’s gold

Contrary to their claims and the dust jacket endorsements that calls their evidence “overwhelming” and “scholarly” the case for Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia has not been made. The identification of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia is not new. Other scholars and explorers have identified different mountains in Midian as Mt. Sinai and such identifications have long ago received proper scholarly assessment. For example, Dr. Menashe Har-el, one of Israel’s leading geographers and an expert on the Sinai Peninsula, and for many years professor of Historical and Biblical Geography at Tel Aviv University, researched these questions several decades ago in his doctoral dissertation at New York University. He reworked his dissertation and published it under the title The Sinai Journeys, The Route of the Exodus. In this book, Har-el (1983: 242-275) spends a whole chapter refuting the idea that Mt. Sinai is in Midian (Saudi Arabia).8


Professor Har-el also sets forth a very plausible alternative for the identification of Mt. Sinai. He proposed Mt. Sinai should be located at Jebel Sin Bishar in western central Sinai. This proposal is followed in the Zondervan NIV Atlas of the Bible (Rasmussen 1989: 88-90). In the next article, Professor David Faiman (1986, 1989, 1994) of Ben Gurion University of the Negev will discuss Har-el’s proposal.


Simply stated, Mt. Sinai should be located in the Sinai Peninsula right where the Bible places it, not in Saudi Arabia.

So, you dont care if i or anyone you debate with respects you? You asked if i have a BS filter. I sure do. And THAT is BS! Everyone wants respect! Even you. Quit acting like some tough guy behind a screen. That BS makes me sick.

Nope, I don't care who respects me or not. I don't go through life having a fit like a child because someone doesn't respect me. Respect is earned. But no one "owes" me respect.
I'm not acting dis-respectable in discussion, but I couldn't care less what most other people decide to do with their thoughts and opinions.

 

[Jollybear]

Actually no, the paper I linked to disputes the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz.

Then it examines the archaeological evidence and debunks that. So the evidence is on my side here. I don't know why you insist on twisting it around?



That's the least educated thing I've heard in a long time? When a field of science comes to a consensus and you tell someone they don't respond with "that isn't evidence..." "show me evidence".....

Unless you have a Ph.D in biblical archeology and have some archeological digs and evidence to present you have no counter claim.





I told you at the beginning there is no scholarship to support any biblical history. You just think I'm "bashing" your evidence and such because it's completely faulty, doesn't support any type of divinity and that type of supernatural thinking isn't supported by logic, rationale and the sciences.
Your also being dishonest here because I've posted dozens of individual pieces of information to which you're completely ignored or tried to ad hom away. Even resorting to attempting to make scientific fields unsuitable as evidence because they "don't know anything"??

So what you say here doesn't even track with your past behavior. I'm not "bashing or arguing", I'm just winning.







You haven't debunked any of the article by Gordon Franz? You didn't seem to even look at them.
Not the first or second article.

Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?



So first I give evidence from PhDs and scholarship but they don't know what their talking about and how I haven't shown evidence?
Your contradicting yourself.



It seems pointless to try and make a case for a stupid magic mountain being somewhere when the entire story it comes from is total fiction?





It's not a red herring, it's like if someone was trying to prove that Santa Clause is slim enough to fit into most chimnies. Why go through the effort when the whole thing is just a fictional tale?



I think this is your problem, you are having trouble extrapolating ideas too their logical conclusion.
You seem to think even if this mountain was in Arabia that this lends any credibility to Moses.
It doesn't. Not even a little. Someone wrote fiction and placed Moses on this mountain in a story. That is exactly what it would mean if one could establish that this mountain was in Arabia.
In all religious myths gods and supernatural events are placed on actual locations that really do exist. But the stories are still myth. Why can't you understand this??

The Knights of the Roundtable myths contain many accurate locations in England. Gone With the Wind contains very detailed descriptions of what pre-civil war south was like on wealthy plantations. It's still ALL FICTION!

Everything you've mentioned is debunked in these articles. I sometimes forget you don't read any evidence that goes against your beliefs.


Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?


The thesis of these books and video is that the real Mount Sinai is located at Jebel el-Lawz in Saudi Arabia, and the gold that the Israelites took from the Egyptians is in “them thar hills!” Are their views correct? The simple answer is no. There are a number of significant problems with this view. Mount Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula right where the Bible places it.

Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
PROBLEMS WITH THIS VIEW


The biggest problem with the identification of Mt. Sinai at Jebel el-Lawz is that it does not meet the Biblical criteria for the site. These claims are based on three false assumptions and a misunderstanding of the archaeological remains that they observed. It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the Red Sea crossing and the chronology of the Exodus from Egypt to Mt. Sinai. I will tackle these issues in a future issue of Bible and Spade.


False Assumption #1: The Sinai Peninsula was considered the Land of Egypt -explained in article

False Assumption #2: Mt. Sinai is in the Land of Midian - see article

False Assumption #3: Galatians 4:25 says Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia - see article

Another major problem for the Jebel el-Lawz site is the statement by Moses that Mt. Horeb (another name for Mt. Sinai) is “eleven days journey from Kadesh Barnea” (Deut. 1:2). It would be impossible to march more than 2 million Israelites through the difficult terrain from Jebel el-Lawz to Kadesh Barnea in the allotted time. However, Wyatt, Williams, Blum and Cornuke all ignore this problem.



MISUNDERSTANDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE


Those who hold to the Jebel al-Lawz site as Mt. Sinai are quick to point out the “archaeological evidence”. Their reasoning is, “Look what was found, everything fits, it must be the site”! Let’s look at the evidence and see if it really “fits”.

None of these items fit:
The Altar of the Golden Calf
Cave of Moses
The Altar of Moses and the 12 Pillars
The Split Rock at Horeb
Fasold’s gold

Contrary to their claims and the dust jacket endorsements that calls their evidence “overwhelming” and “scholarly” the case for Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia has not been made. The identification of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia is not new. Other scholars and explorers have identified different mountains in Midian as Mt. Sinai and such identifications have long ago received proper scholarly assessment. For example, Dr. Menashe Har-el, one of Israel’s leading geographers and an expert on the Sinai Peninsula, and for many years professor of Historical and Biblical Geography at Tel Aviv University, researched these questions several decades ago in his doctoral dissertation at New York University. He reworked his dissertation and published it under the title The Sinai Journeys, The Route of the Exodus. In this book, Har-el (1983: 242-275) spends a whole chapter refuting the idea that Mt. Sinai is in Midian (Saudi Arabia).8


Professor Har-el also sets forth a very plausible alternative for the identification of Mt. Sinai. He proposed Mt. Sinai should be located at Jebel Sin Bishar in western central Sinai. This proposal is followed in the Zondervan NIV Atlas of the Bible (Rasmussen 1989: 88-90). In the next article, Professor David Faiman (1986, 1989, 1994) of Ben Gurion University of the Negev will discuss Har-el’s proposal.


Simply stated, Mt. Sinai should be located in the Sinai Peninsula right where the Bible places it, not in Saudi Arabia.



Nope, I don't care who respects me or not. I don't go through life having a fit like a child because someone doesn't respect me. Respect is earned. But no one "owes" me respect.
I'm not acting dis-respectable in discussion, but I couldn't care less what most other people decide to do with their thoughts and opinions.

If discussing the evidence/data is "pointless" and "doesnt get us anywhere" why are you then arguing this with me?

And just because no one OWES you respect, this means you dont WANT IT? You can tell me with a streaght face that you dont want respect?

Also, one more question: what must i do in order to "earn" your respect? After you answer that, ill tell you what you must do to earn mine too. Because respect goes both ways.

Also, you say you ARE respecting me. Ok, in that case ive already "earned" your respect?

Also the article i gave you refutes the article you KEEP on giving me. But instead of dealing with that and building on the next point, you just throw the same article in my face again.

 

[joelr]

If discussing the evidence/data is "pointless" and "doesnt get us anywhere" why are you then arguing this with me?

Well I vascillate back and forth but this magic mountain issue doesn't help move your thesis forward in any significant way, so it seems pointless.

Even if we simply say that this IS the biblical mountain and it's charred/black for some unknown reason. It proves nothing, it suggests nothing? The OT is a myth according to archeology. So reasons for the mountain being dark would be some natural reason. There is no reason to think this mountain is related to Moses because there was no Moses.

I could say maybe Godzilla charred the mountain. But we know Godzilla is fiction.

And just because no one OWES you respect, this means you dont WANT IT? You can tell me with a streaght face that you dont want respect?

In this context, on a debate forum, I expect no respect. Maybe someone will feel my contribution to posts warrants respect, maybe not. I'm not even thinking about it.

Also, one more question: what must i do in order to "earn" your respect? After you answer that, ill tell you what you must do to earn mine too. Because respect goes both ways.

I don't care.

Also, you say you ARE respecting me. Ok, in that case ive already "earned" your respect?

I'm not saying anything about respect.

Also the article i gave you refutes the article you KEEP on giving me. But instead of dealing with that and building on the next point, you just throw the same article in my face again.

Maybe, but there is now a 2nd article in play. Which among other things has analysis of:
The Altar of the Golden Calf
Cave of Moses
The Altar of Moses and the 12 Pillars
The Split Rock at Horeb
Fasold’s gold


and he debunks your claims from 3 different angles - credibility, evidence, scripture

 

[Jollybear]

Well I vascillate back and forth but this magic mountain issue doesn't help move your thesis forward in any significant way, so it seems pointless.

Well, quit being double minded. Tell me stteaght up what you want to do? Do you want to discuss the evidence or not? Its a yes or no answer. And make sure whatever your answer is, that its truthful, because ill hold you to your agreement and if you break it, youl only be making yourself look bad. But do you "CARE" about that? Also if you break it, the convo will be officially over. But, right, you dont "care" right? You seam to not care about much.

Even if we simply say that this IS the biblical mountain and it's charred/black for some unknown reason. It proves nothing, it suggests nothing?

No, it WOULD suggest the exodus was real, not myth.

The OT is a myth according to archeology.

So now you broad brush the entire OT? Go from mount sinai to the entire OT. You dont see how that does violence to the many arays of subjects within the entire OT?

Furthermore, your ignorent of the fact that archeology does back other things within the OT. But, hey, wer still on mount sinai, one darn thing at a time. You cant eat a whole pizza in one bite. Like seriously man, take a breath, CALM DOWN. Relax.

So reasons for the mountain being dark would be some natural reason. There is no reason to think this mountain is related to Moses because there was no Moses.

Thats your assumption. I want to discuss the data and both our assumptions. Are you willing?

I could say maybe Godzilla charred the mountain. But we know Godzilla is fiction.

Ya, sure, we know Godzilla is fiction, but, God is not godzilla. And i dont believe God is fiction, while you do. But hey, lets discuss the data, how boat it?

In this context, on a debate forum, I expect no respect. Maybe someone will feel my contribution to posts warrants respect, maybe not. I'm not even thinking about it.

Your something else man.

I didnt ask you what you EXPECT. I asked you what you WANT. Do you WANT respect, yes or no?

I don't care.

Thats BS. I dont believe you. Im going to ask the question again. And even if its true, well, i CARE to know the answer.

what must i do in order to "earn" your respect? After you answer that, ill tell you what you must do to earn mine too. Because respect goes both ways.

I'm not saying anything about respect.

Thats a lie. You said a few things about respect. Here is your quote

"Nope, I don't care who respects me or not. I don't go through life having a fit like a child because someone doesn't respect me. Respect is earned. But no one "owes" me respect.
I'm not acting dis-respectable in discussion, but I couldn't care less what most other people decide to do with their thoughts and opinions."

So, you said a mouthful about respect. And i asked questions pertaining to it. Which those questions are still pending.

Oh, and dont forget my other question. You said respect is earned, then said your not being disrespectful in discussion. So, have i then EARNED your respect?

Maybe,

If mayby, point out where the article was wrong and why. Be accountable. Mayby is nothing. Theres no discussion with that. Which is further proof you just wanna argue and preach and bash rather then discuss the data/evidence/issues.

but there is now a 2nd article in play. Which among other things has analysis of:
The Altar of the Golden Calf
Cave of Moses
The Altar of Moses and the 12 Pillars
The Split Rock at Horeb
Fasold’s gold

Good, so, would you like me to discuss that other article with you? Yes or no? Or do you just want to throw it at me?

and he debunks your claims from 3 different angles - credibility, evidence, scripture

Ill be the decider of that, IF we discuss it. But, that depends on you first.

 

[joelr]

Well, quit being double minded. Tell me stteaght up what you want to do? Do you want to discuss the evidence or not? Its a yes or no answer. And make sure whatever your answer is, that its truthful, because ill hold you to your agreement and if you break it, youl only be making yourself look bad. But do you "CARE" about that? Also if you break it, the convo will be officially over. But, right, you dont "care" right? You seam to not care about much.

Like I said, even if that con-man was correct about magic mountain it puts us no closer to any sort of truth.
There are many other things to discuss related to the NT.
The OT is done, it's mythology and Thompsons book proves this to all scholars.

No, it WOULD suggest the exodus was real, not myth.

Not even close. You know this. I know you know because in the past you've spoke about evidence and proof and such.
You know that even if this was the mountain the reason it's black could not be shown. Like so many other myths an author of the OT could have simply saw a black mountain top and decided to write a god-story about it.
And beyond that the OT is complete myth and is non-historical.
I have already established this as fact by biblical expert William Denver.
Not history. They didn't even have a word for history. They are just stories. This we know as fact.


Furthermore black mountains are not even uncommon:
There are several mountain ranges named the Black Mountains:

• Black Mountains (Alaska)
• Black Mountains (Arizona)
• Black Mountains (Bhutan)
• Black Mountains (California)
• Black Mountains (Nevada)
• Black Mountains (North Carolina)
• Black Mountains (Queensland)
• Black Mountains (Rhön)
• Black Mountains (Utah)
• Black Mountains, Wales and small areas of England
• Kirana Hills, central-west Pakistan.
• Montagne Noire, southwestern France
• Svartfjella, 'The Black Mountains', Svalbard

How are black mountains formed?
The larger part of these hills is formed from Old Red Sandstone, though bands of Carboniferous Limestone and of Twrch Sandstone (or Millstone Grit) are important landscape-forming rocks in the south and west of the range owing to their greater resistance to erosion.

So now you broad brush the entire OT? Go from mount sinai to the entire OT. You dont see how that does violence to the many arays of subjects within the entire OT?

Uh, I've already been over this, the OT is not historical:
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

do I need to post this entire article?

Then Thompsons work completely established that the OT is not a true story:


The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel
by Thomas L. Thompson

"In the 1970s Thompson, amongst others, began a sea-change in the study of Syro-Palestinian history, at that time known as "Biblical archaeology". Until that time, the endeavours of archaeologists were entirely devoted to demonstrating the accuracy of the Old Testament (OT) accounts of the history of the Hebrews.

The foundational assumption was that the OT was a reliable account of the events it related, and that the job of archaeologists was to make the evidence they dug from the ground fit the Bible’s history.

Thompson was one of the first to challenge that assumption. In the decades since, Thompson has been more than vindicated, and his views paved the way for a complete re-evaluation of Hebrew history, independent of the stories in the Bible"


MORE THAN VINDICATED and PAVED THE WAY FOR A COMPLETE RE-EVALUATION OF HEBREW HISTORY

Furthermore, your ignorent of the fact that archeology does back other things within the OT. But, hey, wer still on mount sinai, one darn thing at a time. You cant eat a whole pizza in one bite. Like seriously man, take a breath, CALM DOWN. Relax.

Nope.

NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

Thats your assumption. I want to discuss the data and both our assumptions. Are you willing?

Waste of time. Even if this con man was correct, a black mountain does not provide a shred of proof of any ancient mythology. If you seem to think it does then go for it. Have a dance party. I'm looking to discuss things that are evidence.
At any rate the 2 articles debunk all of his claims anyways?

Ya, sure, we know Godzilla is fiction, but, God is not godzilla. And i dont believe God is fiction, while you do. But hey, lets discuss the data, how boat it?

Your something else man.

I didnt ask you what you EXPECT. I asked you what you WANT. Do you WANT respect, yes or no?

We have been. This mountain is not going to EVER prove or even count as evidence for god. You need to get past that. If that's all you got then you just have no evidence.

Like I said, even if we knew this was the mountain in the OT, black mountains happen for natural reasons. So it does not work as proof of anything.
But all of the evidence you wrote down was de-bunked in those 2 articles anyways?

I thought you would just read the articles and save yourself the embarrassment of being wrong once again?

T

hats BS. I dont believe you. Im going to ask the question again.

I don't care about being respected on an internet debate forum. People can read my input and make up their own minds and I truly don't care.

And even if its true, well, i CARE to know the answer.

what must i do in order to "earn" your respect? After you answer that, ill tell you what you must do to earn mine too. Because respect goes both ways.

What it takes for me to respect someone is a personal question which I am not going to answer or acknowledge from this point on. I am also not interested in your critera for respecting other people.
No thank you.

Thats a lie. You said a few things about respect. Here is your quote
"Nope, I don't care who respects me or not. I don't go through life having a fit like a child because someone doesn't respect me. Respect is earned. But no one "owes" me respect.
I'm not acting dis-respectable in discussion, but I couldn't care less what most other people decide to do with their thoughts and opinions."

Yeah, I answered a question you posed about respect and that was my answer.
Your further questions are not something I'm interested in answering. So my statement stands.

So, you said a mouthful about respect. And i asked questions pertaining to it. Which those questions are still pending.

Yes because you asked me if I cared about respect or some sh@%. So I answered. The latest questions are not discussions I'm interested in. No thank you.

Oh, and dont forget my other question. You said respect is earned, then said your not being disrespectful in discussion. So, have i then EARNED your respect?

Why do you care is the question?

 

[joelr]

If mayby, point out where the article was wrong and why. Be accountable. Mayby is nothing. Theres no discussion with that. Which is further proof you just wanna argue and preach and bash rather then discuss the data/evidence/issue

Good, so, would you like me to discuss that other article with you? Yes or no? Or do you just want to throw it at me?

as far as I could tell anything in the magic mountain found article was debunked in here:

Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
and
2000 Back Issues



and again, mountains are black all the time so even if the con-man was correct you have zero proof of any myth being true.

See I provided you with a crap ton of pagan religions that clearly influenced Christianity. But you still decided to go the route of "but it isn't PROOF, we don't know for sure...."

Very nit0picky and being difficult. But still, yeah one can never say with 100% certainty.
So now you want to show some black mountain as being proof of god, well no. If you're going to be so literal and nit picky and then turn around and use some ridiculous far-flung long-shot evidence as proof....well no, you can't do that. You tried to set firm standards now you want to spend all this time proving evidence that doesn't mean anything at all?

You can't have it both ways?

Those articles I just posted pretty much debunks all those mountain claims. So what if one or 2 little details are possibly leaning in the con-mans favor? So what? At best it's going to be undecided.
And even if the OT had longitude and latitude and we knew the mountain was black. ZERO PROOF of supernatural. Black mountains exist all over. Someone wrote a black mountain in a god myth. Wow. That's proof of NOTHING.

But, what we do have proof of is that Moses NEVER EXISTED!!

"
The Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."


Moses and the Exodus
Even people who know little about the Bible likely can recount the story of Moses leading the Israelites from Egypt in an extraordinary exodus. In this interview, Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University, reflects on the significance of the Moses narrative in ancient times, the role it plays in American history, and why it continues to resonate with us today.

Editor's note: Carol Meyers, like other academic scholars, uses the term B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) instead of B.C. (Before Christ).

Beyond fact or fiction
Q: Questions about whether or not events in the Bible really happened evoke strong passions. As a biblical scholar, how do you see the issue of historical authenticity in terms of the earliest biblical accounts—the ones for which there is little archeological evidence?

Carol Meyers: Too often in modern western thinking we see things in terms of black and white, history or fiction, with nothing in between. But there are other ways of understanding how people have recorded events of their past. There's something called mnemohistory, or memory history, that I find particularly useful in thinking about biblical materials. It's not like the history that individuals may have of their own families, which tends to survive only a generation or two. Rather, it's a kind of collective cultural memory.

When a group of people experience things that are extremely important to their existence as a group, they often maintain collective memories of these events over generations. And these memories are probably augmented and elaborated and maybe even ritualized as a way of maintaining their relevance.

We can understand how mnemohistory works by looking at how it operates in more recent periods. We see this, for instance, in legends about figures in American history—George Washington is a wonderful example. Legends have something historic in them but yet are developed and expanded. I think that some of the accounts of the ancestors in the book of Genesis are similar. They are exciting, important, attention-grabbing, message-bearing narratives that are developed around characters who may have played an important role in the lives of the pre-Israelite ancestors.

Q: Let's turn to one of the most vivid figures in the Bible, Moses. Who is the Moses of the Bible, and could there have been such a person?

Meyers: The Moses of the Bible is larger than life. The Moses of the Bible is a diplomat negotiating with the pharaoh; he is a lawgiver bringing the Ten Commandments, the Covenant, down from Sinai. The Moses of the Bible is a military man leading the Israelites in battles. He's the one who organizes Israel's judiciary. He's also the prophet par excellence and a quasi-priestly figure involved in offering sacrifices and setting up the priestly complex, the tabernacle. There's virtually nothing in terms of national leadership that Moses doesn't do. And, of course, he's also a person, a family man.

Now, no one individual could possibly have done all that. So the tales are a kind of aggrandizement. He is also associated with miracles—the memorable story of being found in a basket in the Nile and being saved, miraculously, to grow up in the pharaoh's household. And he dies somewhere in the mountains of Moab. Only God knows where he's buried; God is said to have buried him. This is highly unusual and, again, accords him a special place.

"It's possible that a charismatic leader, a Moses, rallied people and urged them to make the difficult and traumatic and dangerous journey."

Q: What spurs the transformation of a real person into such a legendary figure?

Meyers: We can see the Moses narratives as the products of a period of trauma. We see this at other times and places. Think about our own American history. In the difficult period of the Revolutionary War, there's a lot of trauma and turmoil. Should people fight for freedom and risk losing everything? Or should they remain dominated by European colonial powers? And one man, George Washington, emerges as a superhero, the one in whom people could put their faith, who would take them to new terrain, who would lead them to independence. If you look at the biographies of George Washington that were written before 1855, you would think he was a demigod. The mythology about him is incredible.

In some ways, we have that kind of material about Moses. The hype about him is a way of expressing the fact that people could trust his judgment. They could trust that there would be success in this highly risky venture of leaving a place where they at least had food and water and going to a place where they might not have enough food and water. But they were apparently convinced it was worth the risk, if they might eventually be able to determine the course of their own lives and to escape the tyranny of Egyptian control.

Evidence of the Exodus
Q: You and other scholars point out that there isn't evidence outside the Bible, in historic documents and the archeological record, for a mass migration from Egypt involving hundreds of thousands of people. But it may be plausible that there was a much smaller exodus, an exodus of people originally from the land of Canaan who were returning to it. Is that right?

Meyers: Yes. Despite all the ways in which the exodus narratives in the Bible seem to be non-historic, something about the overall pattern can, in fact, be related to what we know from historical sources was going on at the end of the Late Bronze Age [circa 1200 B.C.E.], around when the Bible's chronology places the story of departure from Egypt.

Now, what is the evidence? First of all, during this period there likely were a lot of people from the land of Canaan, from regions of the eastern Mediterranean, in Egypt. Sometimes they were taken there as slaves. The local kings of the city-states in Canaan would offer slaves as tribute to the pharaohs in order to remain in their good graces. This is documented in the Amarna letters discovered in Egypt. So we know that there were people taken to Egypt as slaves.

There were also traders from the eastern Mediterranean who went to Egypt for commercial reasons. And there also probably were people from Canaan who went to Egypt during periods of extended drought and famine, as is reported in the Bible for Abraham and Sarah.

So Canaanites went to Egypt for a variety of reasons. They were generally assimilated—after a generation or two they became Egyptians. There is almost no evidence that those people left. But there are one or two Egyptian documents that record the flight of a handful of people who had been brought to Egypt for one reason or other and who didn't want to stay there.

Now, there is no direct evidence that such people were connected with the exodus narrative in the Bible. But in our western historical imagination, as we try to recreate the past, it's certainly worth considering that some of them, somehow, for some reason that we can never understand, maybe because life was so difficult for them in Egypt, thought that life would be greener than in the pastures that they had left.

And it's possible that a charismatic leader, a Moses, rallied a few of those people and urged them to make the difficult and traumatic and dangerous journey across the forbidding terrain of the Sinai Peninsula, back to what their collective memory maintained was a promised land.

Origins of the Israelites
Q: Do you think that these people returning to Canaan met up with other Canaanites in the hill country and became the people of Israel?

Meyers: The emergence of ancient Israel in the highlands of Palestine is shrouded in clouds and mystery. We'll really never know the whole story. We can only conjecture how the inhabitants of new settlements in the highlands, in places where there never had been any settlements before, somehow began to identify with each other. And, at least as I see it, they could have met with people who had made the trek across the Sinai Peninsula.

What was it that brought them together and gave them a new national identity, a new ethnicity? Many scholars, including me, would search in the theological realm. There is a belief in the Bible that the dream of escaping from Egypt and returning to an ancestral homeland could not have happened without supernatural intervention, divine intervention. And the group that had come from Egypt felt that one particular god, whom they called Yahweh, was responsible for this miracle of escape.

They spread the word to the highlanders, who themselves were migrants into the highlands, who perhaps had escaped from the tyranny of the Canaanite city-states or from an unsettled life as pastoralists across the Jordan River. And the idea of a god that represented freedom—freedom for people to keep the fruits of their own labor—this was a message that was so powerful that it brought people together and gave them a new kind of identity, which eventually became known by the term Israel.

 

[Jollybear]

.

Your being very dishonest by not being accountable via answering my questions directly.

You asked why i care. Because i like starting off a debate with respect first. It makes debating the content less distracted. Thats why i care. Plus, it makes the process of the debate more fun and pleasent.

So, now. What must i do to earn your respect? And if your already respecting in discussion, have i then already earned your respect?

Also, if discussing evidence is a "waste of time" then why do you keep throwing articles at me like you cant think for yourself?

Oh by the way, half of what you through at me this time around, i did not read, because im serious about you answering my questions honestly.

But i did glance at the black mountains.

North carolina

"The range takes its name from the dark appearance of the red spruce and Fraser firtrees that form a spruce-fir forest on the upper slopes which contrasts with the brown (during winter) or lighter green (during the growing season) appearance of the deciduous trees at lower elevations."

This is nothing compared to jubal al luz. PLUS its a red herring.

We need to deal with WHY jubal al luz is black. Its not black for the same reason this NC mountain is black. Its not due to dark red spruce trees. Its due to metamorphic rock at jubal al luz.

Now answer my questions above. Im getting sick of your BS.

Also you did not account for how the article i gave you refuted the article you gave me on the location of mount sinai.

But, you keep throwing articles at me left, right and center very unintelligently and haphazardly.

Also, one more thing. You told me what i know and that you know what i know. Ok.....do not do that. THAT does not respect me, and THAT will make me not respect YOU.

And this is something you need to start "caring" about too, otherwise your being selfish.