Unresolvable problems with Exodus in archaeology, history and contradictions in the Torah

[shunyadragon]

Off-topic discussions have bounced around in other threads concerning Exodus. In this thread, I will provide specifics

Bart Ehrman, a historian at UNC University has done research over the years concerning the Bible.

First, the Biblical contradictions concerning Jericho.

Historical Problems with the Hebrew Bible: The Conquest of Canaan | The Bart Ehrman Blog

This will be my final post, for now, on the problems with the Hebrew Bible. I couldn’t resist one last set of comments on the historicity of the accounts narrated there, this time with respect to the stories in the book of Joshua about the Conquest of the Promised Land (Jericho and so on).

ehrmanblog.org

When considering the historicity of the narratives of Joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness. They were written some 600 years later, and were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation among people in Israel during all those intervening centuries. Moreover, they are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives. Biblical scholars have long noted that there is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened. He is writing an account that appears to be guided by his religious agenda, not by purely historical interests. That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives.

• Internal discrepancies. As we have seen, parts of Joshua stress that Joshua was fantastically successful in conquering the land: “Joshua defeated the whole land” (10:40); “Joshua took all that land” (11:16); “Joshua took the whole land” (11:23). If it were true that Joshua took “all” the “whole” land – why are there so many parts of the land that the text admits were not taken? The Deuteronomistic historian later has to acknowledge that when “Joshua was old…the LORD said to him ‘very much of the land still remains to be possessed’” (13:1). And so we are told that Jerusalem had not yet been taken (15:63); or parts of Ephraim (16:10); or parts of Manasseh (17:12-13). At the end of the book Joshua has to persuade the people to drive out the natives living in the land (23:5-13).
• Tensions with other Accounts. A similar problem arises between Joshua and other books of the Deuteronomistic history. In ch. 11, for example, the Israelite forces completely annihilate the city of Hazor: “they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire.” If that were true, why is it that in the next book, Judges, the Canaanites still very much live in and control Hazor, under their king Jabin, whose powerful army afflicted and oppressed the Israelites (Judges 4)?
• General Implausibilities. A number of the stories in Joshua are so chock-full of the miraculous that historians simply cannot deal with them as historical narratives (see the excursus in ch. 1). None of the miracles is more striking than the account in ch. 10, where the Israelite armies are having such a huge success, routing the coalition of kings aligned against them that Joshua cries out to the sun to stop its movement in the sky. And the sun stands still at high noon for twenty-four hours before moving on again, giving the Israelites ample time to complete the slaughter. As readers have long noted, it would be a miracle indeed if the earth suddenly stopped rotating on its axis for a day and then started up again, with no disturbance to the oceans, land masses, and life itself!
• External Verification and Archaeology. For biblical scholars, just as significant is the surviving physical evidence (or rather lack of it) for the conquest. Archaeologists have long noted that there is scant support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
  • References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources outside the Bible.
  • Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
  • Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).
  • Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).

And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua? The answer appears to be: none of the above. There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan. Archaeologists have discovered that few of the places mentioned were walled towns at the time. Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest apparently did not even exist as cities at the time. This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box 4.2). The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon. These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua. Moreover, there is no evidence of major shifts in cultural patterns taking place at the end of the 13th century in Canaan. There are, to be sure, some indications that some towns in Canaan were destroyed at about that time (two of the twenty places mentioned as being destroyed by Joshua were wiped out at about the right time: Hazor and Bethel) But that is true of virtually every time in antiquity: occasionally towns were destroyed by other towns or burned or otherwise abandoned.

We are left, then, with a very big problem. The accounts in Joshua appear to be non-historical in many respects. This creates a dilemma for historians, since two things are perfectly clear: (a) eventually there was a nation Israel living in the land of Canaan; but (b) there is no evidence that it got there by entering in from the East and destroying all the major cities in a series of violent military campaigns. Where then did Israel come from?

 

[Colt]

Off-topic discussions have bounced around in other threads concerning Exodus. In this thread, I will provide specifics

Bart Ehrman, a historian at UNC University has done research over the years concerning the Bible.

First, the Biblical contradictions concerning Jericho.

Historical Problems with the Hebrew Bible: The Conquest of Canaan | The Bart Ehrman Blog

This will be my final post, for now, on the problems with the Hebrew Bible. I couldn’t resist one last set of comments on the historicity of the accounts narrated there, this time with respect to the stories in the book of Joshua about the Conquest of the Promised Land (Jericho and so on).

ehrmanblog.org

When considering the historicity of the narratives of Joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness. They were written some 600 years later, and were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation among people in Israel during all those intervening centuries. Moreover, they are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives. Biblical scholars have long noted that there is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened. He is writing an account that appears to be guided by his religious agenda, not by purely historical interests. That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives.

• Internal discrepancies. As we have seen, parts of Joshua stress that Joshua was fantastically successful in conquering the land: “Joshua defeated the whole land” (10:40); “Joshua took all that land” (11:16); “Joshua took the whole land” (11:23). If it were true that Joshua took “all” the “whole” land – why are there so many parts of the land that the text admits were not taken? The Deuteronomistic historian later has to acknowledge that when “Joshua was old…the LORD said to him ‘very much of the land still remains to be possessed’” (13:1). And so we are told that Jerusalem had not yet been taken (15:63); or parts of Ephraim (16:10); or parts of Manasseh (17:12-13). At the end of the book Joshua has to persuade the people to drive out the natives living in the land (23:5-13).
• Tensions with other Accounts. A similar problem arises between Joshua and other books of the Deuteronomistic history. In ch. 11, for example, the Israelite forces completely annihilate the city of Hazor: “they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire.” If that were true, why is it that in the next book, Judges, the Canaanites still very much live in and control Hazor, under their king Jabin, whose powerful army afflicted and oppressed the Israelites (Judges 4)?
• General Implausibilities. A number of the stories in Joshua are so chock-full of the miraculous that historians simply cannot deal with them as historical narratives (see the excursus in ch. 1). None of the miracles is more striking than the account in ch. 10, where the Israelite armies are having such a huge success, routing the coalition of kings aligned against them that Joshua cries out to the sun to stop its movement in the sky. And the sun stands still at high noon for twenty-four hours before moving on again, giving the Israelites ample time to complete the slaughter. As readers have long ntoed, it would be a miracle indeed if the earth suddenly stopped rotating on its axis for a day and then started up again, with no disturbance to the oceans, land masses, and life itself!
• External Verification and Archaeology. For biblical scholars, just as significant is the surviving physical evidence (or rather lack of it) for the conquest. Archaeologists have long noted that there is scant support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
  • References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources outside the Bible.
  • Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
  • Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).
  • Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).

And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua? The answer appears to be: none of the above. There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan. Archaeologists have discovered that few of the places mentioned were walled towns at the time. Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest apparently did not even exist as cities at the time. This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box 4.2). The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon. These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua. Moreover, there is no evidence of major shifts in cultural patterns taking place at the end of the 13th century in Canaan. There are, to be sure, some indications that some towns in Canaan were destroyed at about that time (two of the twenty places mentioned as being destroyed by Joshua were wiped out at about the right time: Hazor and Bethel) But that is true of virtually every time in antiquity: occasionally towns were destroyed by other towns or burned or otherwise abandoned.

We are left, then, with a very big problem. The accounts in Joshua appear to be non-historical in many respects. This creates a dilemma for historians, since two things are perfectly clear: (a) eventually there was a nation Israel living in the land of Canaan; but (b) there is no evidence that it got there by entering in from the East and destroying all the major cities in a series of violent military campaigns. Where then did Israel come from?

The OT books were redone in Babylon after the devastating loss of the 2nd Temple, nation and once again finding themselves in bondage!

 

[dybmh]

Off-topic discussions have bounced around in other threads concerning Exodus. In this thread, I will provide specifics

I see nothing here about the book of Exodus.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see nothing here about the book of Exodus.

Read again, The post refers to contradictions in the Torah relating to the Exodus account in Joshua as to whether there was really an invasion as described, For example, Did the migration involve an invasion of Canaan by an army led by Joshua.

More specifics on the problems with the Exodus account itself.

 

[dybmh]

Read again, The post refers to contradictions in the Torah relating to the Exodus account in Joshua as to whether there was really an invasion as described, For example, Did the migration involve an invasion of Canaan by an army

More specifics on the problems with the Exodus account itself.

The conquest is not the Exodus.

If it were true that Joshua took “all” the “whole” land – why are there so many parts of the land that the text admits were not taken?

An unanswered question is not a contradiction. It's a question. The answer is, "taking the land" does not mean that all the indigenous people were annihilated.

 

[shunyadragon]

Overview of the problems with the Book of Exodus

The Exodus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reliability of the biblical account​

Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories were written centuries after the apparent setting of the stories.[3] The Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41), the construction of the tabernacle to year 2667 (Exodus 40:1-2, 17), stating that the Israelites dwelled in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41), and including place names such as Goshen (Gen. 46:28), Pithom, and Ramesses (Exod. 1:11), as well as stating that 600,000 Israelite men were involved (Exodus 12:37).[29]

The Book of Numbers further states that the number of Israelite males aged 20 years and older in the desert during the wandering were 603,550, including 22,273 first-borns, which modern estimates put at 2.5-3 million total Israelites, a number that could not be supported by the Sinai Desert through natural means.[30] The geography is vague with regions such as Goshen unidentified,[e] and there are internal problems with dating in the Pentateuch.[14] No modern attempt to identify an historical Egyptian prototype for Moses has found wide acceptance, and no period in Egyptian history matches the biblical accounts of the Exodus.[32] Some elements of the story are miraculous and defy rational explanation, such as the Plagues of Egypt and the Crossing of the Red Sea.[33] The Bible did not mention the names of any of the pharaohs involved in the Exodus narrative, making it difficult for modern scholars to match Egyptian history and the biblical narrative.[34]

While ancient Egyptian texts from the New Kingdom mention "Asiatics" living in Egypt as slaves and workers, these people cannot be securely connected to the Israelites, and no contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible.[35] The earliest surviving historical mention of the Israelites, the Egyptian Merneptah Stele (c. 1207 BCE), appears to place them in or around Canaan and gives no indication of any exodus.[36] Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein argues from his analysis of the itinerary lists in the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy that the biblical account represents a long-term cultural memory, spanning the 16th to 10th centuries BCE, rather than a specific event: "The beginning is vague and now untraceable."[37] Instead, modern archaeology suggests continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlement, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, with no suggestion that a group of foreigners from Egypt comprised early Israel.[38][39]

Potential historical origins​

Ramesses II, one of several suggested pharaohs in the Exodus narrative
Despite the absence of any archaeological evidence, most scholars nonetheless hold the view that the Exodus probably has some sort of historical basis,[4][6] with Kenton Sparks referring to it as "mythologized history".[11] Scholars posit that a small group of people of Egyptian origin may have joined the early Israelites, and then contributed their own Egyptian Exodus story to all of Israel.[f] William G. Dever cautiously identifies this group with the Tribe of Joseph, while Richard Elliott Friedman identifies it with the Tribe of Levi.[40][41]

Most scholars who accept a historical core of the exodus date this possible exodus group to the thirteenth century BCE at the time of Ramses II, with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE at the time of Ramses III.[4] Evidence in favor of historical traditions forming a background to the Exodus myth include the documented movements of small groups of Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples into and out of Egypt during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, some elements of Egyptian folklore and culture in the Exodus narrative,[42] and the names Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, which seem to have an Egyptian origin.[43] Scholarly estimates for how many people could have been involved in such an exodus range from a few hundred to a few thousand people.[4]

Joel S. Baden[44] noted the presence of Semitic-speaking slaves in Egypt who sometimes escaped in small numbers as potential inspirations for the Exodus.[45] It is also possible that oppressive Egyptian rule of Canaan during the late second millennium BCE may have aided the adoption of the story of a small group of Egyptian refugees by the native Canaanites among the Israelites.[46] The expulsion of the Hyksos, a Semitic group that had conquered much of Egypt, by the Seventeenth Dynasty of Egypt is also frequently discussed as a potential historical parallel or origin for the story.[46][47][48] Alternatively, Nadav Na'aman argued that oppressive Egyptian rule of Canaan during the Nineteenth and especially the Twentieth Dynasty may have inspired the Exodus narrative, forming a "collective memory" of Egyptian oppression that was transferred from Canaan to Egypt itself in the popular consciousness.[49]

Many other scholars reject this view, and instead see the biblical exodus traditions as the invention of the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, with little to no historical basis.[26] Lester Grabbe, for instance, argued that "[t]here is no compelling reason that the exodus has to be rooted in history",[50] and that the details of the story more closely fit the seventh through the fifth centuries BCE than the traditional dating to the second millennium BCE.[51] Philip R. Davies suggested that the story may have been inspired by the return to Israel of Israelites and Judaeans who were placed in Egypt as garrison troops by the Assyrians in the fifth and sixth centuries BCE.

 

[shunyadragon]

The conquest is not the Exodus.

The conquest is dependent on Joshua leading an army to conquer Canaan. Note, that the thread title includes contradictions in the Torah relating to Exodus, You cannot deny that the invasion of Joshua is directly related to and a consequence of Exodus, The evidence as to the possible numbers claimed in Exodus does not add up to an army capable of invading Canaan as described in Joshua.

Note bold in post #6 concerning the possible numbers of Hebrews? involved in Genesis.

An unanswered question is not a contradiction. It's a question. The answer is, "taking the land" does not mean that all the indigenous people were annihilated.

These are specific contradictions in the Torah, and you are being selective on what is literally contradictory. You need to be more complete in your objections and not selective to justify an agenda.

The description in Joshua literally describes a complete conquest of Canaan including cities that there is no evidence that they existed at the time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Read again, The post refers to contradictions in the Torah relating to the Exodus account in Joshua as to whether there was really an invasion as described, For example, Did the migration involve an invasion of Canaan by an army led by Joshua.

Good grief ...

 

[shunyadragon]

Good grief ...

Don't hurt your head. Self-abuse does help your argument. I recommend two aspirin and going to bed.

 

[dybmh]

You cannot deny that the invasion of Joshua is directly related to and a consequence of Exodus

The Exodus is a completely different group of people ( according to the story ). Anything could have happened after they departed from Egypt. They could have dispersed, remained in the wilderness. There's several points in the story where the people considered returning to Egypt

The desire to attack the Exodus story from the book of Joshua is a stretch at best.

Note bold in post #6 concerning the possible numbers of Hebrews? involved in Genesis.

I couldn't find it. But, I do see that Post #6 is at least discussing, drumroll, the Exodus. Congrats on posting something on topic. Nothing new or interesting though, it's nothing more than copy paste of a Wikipedia article. Nothing new added there.

FYI, the parallel conversation / thread which apparently triggered / spawned this one never claimed historicity. All that's there is an indication the there is a story of the river turning to blood reported by a non-biased Egyptian third party at around the appropriate time as the Exodus story is claimed to have occurred.

This is evidence that the story occurred in that region NOT in India.

That's all.

These are specific contradictions in the Torah, and you are being selective on what is literally contradictory. You need to be more complete in your objections and not selective to justify an agenda.

Your're imagining an agenda. Repeating the accusations will be considered a personal attack.

I see no contradictions in anything you have copy-pasted into the thread. Only that historians don't consider miracles history, duh, and the details ( particularly the number of individuals) don't have plausible explanations.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The description in Joshua literally describes a complete conquest of Canaan including cities that there is no evidence that they existed at the time.

No, it doesn't. When was the last time you read the book? Have you ever read the book? Please be honest.

I predict you will not answer this question. Instead you will say something like "you didn't respond to my post.". That's what you did last time, and the time before, and the time before... even though it's always false.

Please prove me wrong, ok?

And, reading it literally is also foolish.

 

[dybmh]

@shunyadragon , FYI, we are approaching a Jewish holiday. If you respond to what I've written I will probably not reply for several days.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Exodus is a completely different group of people ( according to the story ). Anything could have happened after they departed from Egypt. They could have dispersed, remained in the wilderness. There's several points in the story where the people considered returning to Egypt

No, it is not, Joshua took charge of the Jews when Moses died and led the Hebrews in a military campaign to take Canaan, Have you read the Book of Joshua?

Beginning of Joshua

1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,

2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.

3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.

4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.

5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

The desire to attack the Exodus story from the book of Joshua is a stretch at best.

Not stretch at all. Where did the army of Joshua come from?

I couldn't find it. But, I do see that Post #6 is at least discussing, drumroll, the Exodus. Congrats on posting something on topic. Nothing new or interesting though, it's nothing more than copy paste of a Wikipedia article. Nothing new added there.

English comprehension appears to be a problem. Post #6 specifically refers to the Exodus.

FYI, the parallel conversation / thread which apparently triggered / spawned this one never claimed historicity. All that's there is an indication the there is a story of the river turning to blood reported by a non-biased Egyptian third party at around the appropriate time as the Exodus story is claimed to have occurred.

Not at present the subject of the thread. Problems with Genesis specifically in post
#6, Count and you can find it.

This is evidence that the story occurred in that region NOT in India.

Sarcasm was not productive nor meaningful. Joshua was specifically referring to Canaan and the listed fortified cities he conquered according to God's instructions.

That's all.



Your're imagining an agenda. Repeating the accusations will be considered a personal attack.

No. you are selectively citing to support some sort of agenda because you are not responding constructively to the reference cited.

I see no contradictions in anything you have copy-pasted into the thread. Only that historians don't consider miracles history, duh, and the details ( particularly the number of individuals) don't have plausible explanations.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The contradictions are more profound including the claims of the number of fortified cities claimed to be conquered by Joshua.

No, it doesn't. When was the last time you read the book? Have you ever read the book? Please be honest.

Yes, the invasion of Canaan is a direct result of the Exodus of Jews from Egypt.

I predict you will not answer this question. Instead you will say something like "you didn't respond to my post.". That's what you did last time, and the time before, and the time before...

Please prove me wrong, ok?

And, reading it literally is also foolish.

The references prove you wrong including the Book of Joshua. Also, see post #13

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Exodus is a completely different group of people ( according to the story ). Anything could have happened after they departed from Egypt. They could have dispersed, remained in the wilderness. There's several points in the story where the people considered returning to Egypt

The desire to attack the Exodus story from the book of Joshua is a stretch at best.

According to the Bible Joshua was with Moses. He was much younger than Moses but he was supposed to have been part of the Exodus. In fact when Moses died he led the Hebrews into the promised land. So how is this a "stretch"?

Chronology: the Exodus to Samuel

In this topic, Bible chronology is traced from the exodus out of Egypt until the judgeship of Samuel. Earlier chronology is addressed in “Chronology: Abraham to the Exodus” and “Chronology: Septua…

bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is not, Joshua took charge of the Jews when Moses died and led the Hebrews in a military campaign to take Canaan

Not stretch at all. Where did the army of Joshua come from?


English comprehension appears to be a problem. Post #6 specifically refers to the Exodus.

Not at present the subject of the thread. Problems with Genesis specifically in post
#6, Count and you can find it.


Sarcasm was not productive nor meaningful. Joshua was specifically referring to Canaan and the listed fortified cities he conquered.

No. you are selectively citing to support some sort of agenda because you are not responding constructively to the reference cited.


The contradictions are more profound including the claims of the number of fortified cities claimed to be conquered by Joshua.

Yes, the invasion of Canaan is a direct result of the Exodus of Jews from Egypt.



The references prove you wrong.

I saw the message saying that a post had been added as I was typing mine up.

And yes, the Bible does say that Joshua was with Moses. I do not understand the objection either.

 

[dybmh]

No, it is not, Joshua took charge of the Jews when Moses died and led the Hebrews in a military campaign to take Canaan, Have you read the Book of Joshua?

All the ones who entered the land and supposedly conquested were a different generation. The generation of the Exodus died in the wilderness.

Not stretch at all. Where did the army of Joshua come from?

They were born in the wilderness.

English comprehension appears to be a problem. Post #6 specifically refers to the Exodus.

As I said. See below. I will enlarge and emphasize to facilitate beyond whatever problem you are having. This is from your reply. These are words you quoted. And you are claiming I have reading complrehension problems?

Not at present the subject of the thread. Problems with Genesis specifically in post
#6, Count and you can find it.

The word Genesis does not exist in post #6. Perhaps you could quote what you are referring to since I doubt it has relevance. And this tread appears to be an exaggerated wild goose chase. "Unresolvable problems"? They're easily resolved. It's not historical. It's mirraculous. If a person doesn't believe in miracles, they won't believe the story. All problems are resolved. You're welcome.

Joshua was specifically referring to Canaan and the listed fortified cities he conquered.

It's irrelevant to the Exodus.

No. you are selectively citing to support some sort of agenda because you are not responding constructively to the reference cited.

What agenda is that?

The contradictions are more profound including the claims of the number of fortified cities claimed to be conquered by Joshua.

That's not a contradiction. Do you know what that word means? It means the same speaker prodduces two opposing claims which cannot be true.

Yes, the invasion of Canaan is a direct result of the Exodus of Jews from Egypt.

So what? If the conquest didn't happen it has no bearing on whether or not the Exodus occured. This is called a sequence. Sequence. If the consequence did not occur, it has no bearing on whether or not the cause occured. It really is simple logic. I'm not sure why it's not clicking for you.

Here's a simple story: Yesterday I went to the store ... Then for dinner I had rice and beans.

If you find out I didn't have rice and beans for dinner, it doesn't mean I didn't go to the store. Many things could have happened which produced that result. One possibility is, I never went to the store. But there's a whole host of other possible reasons. If this is applied to this context, the person reporting that I went to the store is different from the person who is reporting what I had for dinner. That further diminishes the significance of finding out that the rice and beans event didn't happen as reported.

The references prove you wrong including the Book of Joshua..

Knew it! That's the way these things always go. The critic is uber-confident... but HASN'T EVEN READ THE BOOK. That's stupid. I've read the book multiple times. The indigenous people were not annihilated. Try reading the book. It's not even that long. you could probably finish it in a weekend.

 

[dybmh]

According to the Bible Joshua was with Moses. He was much younger than Moses but he was supposed to have been part of the Exodus. In fact when Moses died he led the Hebrews into the promised land. So how is this a "stretch"?

Chronology: the Exodus to Samuel

In this topic, Bible chronology is traced from the exodus out of Egypt until the judgeship of Samuel. Earlier chronology is addressed in “Chronology: Abraham to the Exodus” and “Chronology: Septua…

bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com

Sorry, you're right. I forgot there were two exceptions. Joshua and Kaleb. All the others were dead.

It's a stretch because even if the consequence did not occur as claimed, it has no bearing on the truth of the antecedent. This is standard logic. Also, these stories were scribed by different people. It would be as if I heard from Pat that the exodus occured, and I heard from Les that the conquest occured. If I find out that Les is a liar, it has no bearing on anything that Pat had told me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, you're right. I forgot there were two exceptions. Joshua and Kaleb. All the others were dead.

It's a stretch because even if the consequence did not occur as claimed, it has no bearing on the truth of the antecedent. This is standard logic. Also, these stories were scribed by different people. It would be as if I heard from Pat that the exodus occured, and I heard from Les that the conquest occured. If I find out that Les is a liar, it has no bearing on anything that Pat had told me.

What makes you think that they were "scribed by different people"? That does not appear to be the case. If it is as modern historians and Bible scholars seem to think the stories were written much later by people that had nothing to do with the stories. In fact they appear to be legend at best.

And do you believe that everyone over forty died before they got to the promised land? If I remember the myth correctly that was how long it was between leaving Egypt and entering Canaan.

 

[dybmh]

What makes you think that they were "scribed by different people"?

The descriptions. The word choice. For example, in chap 5, there is an angel. It is the same angel as in Exodus 13. Exodus 23, but they are described using different word choices. If they were the same source, this would not have happened. This is pretty standard in scriptural source analysis.

Edit: sorry, it's Exodus 23, not 13. My mistake.

That does not appear to be the case.

Your turn. Please bring your reasons for thinking they are the written by the same person.

If it is as modern historians and Bible scholars seem to think the stories were written much later by people that had nothing to do with the stories. In fact they appear to be legend at best.

Who cares. That doesn't change a thing. And there is a difference between "written" and "composed". The dates that you are using for Exodus are the dates of compilation, TAQ. Do you know what that means? Without looking it up, what is TAQ? Bible critics never get this right. Please prove me wrong by showing some actual knowledge of scriptural dating of this era.

And do you believe that everyone over forty died before they got to the promised land?

Irrelevant.

If I remember the myth correctly that was how long it was between leaving Egypt and entering Canaan.

Who cares? It is irrelevant. You seem to be trying to bait me into off-topic debate. No thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The descriptions. The word choice. For example, in chap 5, there is an angel. It is the same angel as in Exodus 13. Exodus 23, but they are described using different word choices. If they were the same source, this would not have happened. This is pretty standard in scriptural source analysis.

Edit: sorry, it's Exodus 23, not 13. My mistake.



Your turn. Please bring your reasons for thinking they are the written by the same person.



Who cares. That doesn't change a thing. And there is a difference between "written" and "composed". The dates that you are using for Exodus are the dates of compilation, TAQ. Do you know what that means? Without looking it up, what is TAQ? Bible critics never get this right. Please prove me wrong by showing some actual knowledge of scriptural dating of this era.



Irrelevant.



Who cares? It is irrelevant. You seem to be trying to bait me into off-topic debate. No thank you.

I see that you are back to excessively breaking up up posts. There really is no excuse for doing that.

But I did not say same person. It is thought to be a composite work done much later than the myth. That means various authors, not one author, working together to piece together their own mythology.

And you should know why it is thought to be myth. Far too many people leaving Egypt to survive in the Sinai. Stories of magic. Later works, such as that of Joshua with internal inconsistencies. There are quite a few reasons not to think of it as historical.

 

[dybmh]

I see that you are back to excessively breaking up up posts. There really is no excuse for doing that.

When you start complaining about formatting, that's an indicator you've lost the debate.

But I did not say same person. It is thought to be a composite work done much later than the myth. That means various authors, not one author, working together to piece together their own mythology.

Then we're back to my original claim. There's 3 and only 3 cases.

Case 1: There's only 1 author.

​

Pat says: "Event A occured then Event B occured". If Event B is a lie, it has no bearing on Event A. The consequent has no bearing on the antecedent. This is standard logic, and the defintion of a "sequence of events". The only way around this is to reverse the sequence showing that Event B caused Event A.​

Case 2: There are multiple authors no compiler.

​

Pat says: "Event-A occured". Les says: "After Event-A, Event-B occured". If Event B is shown to be a lie. It has no bearing on Event A. They are seperate stories. There is no way around this. And it's still true that the consequence has no bearing on the antecedent.​

Case 3: There are multiple authors and compilers.

Pat says: "Event-A occured." Les says "Event B occured". Compilers C & D & E, take the two stories and combine them. If Event B is shown to be a lie, it still has no bearing on Event A. There is no way around this. And it's still true that the consequence has no bearing on the antecedent.​

Therefore, in any case, attacking the story of the conquest has no bearing on the accuracy of the story of the exodus. It's a red herring. That's what I said originally.

The consequent has no bearing on the antecedent.

And you should know why it is thought to be myth. Far too many people leaving Egypt to survive in the Sinai. Stories of magic. Later works, such as that of Joshua with internal inconsistencies. There are quite a few reasons not to think of it as historical.

Not historical =/= Unresolvable problems in archaeology

Not Historical=/= unresolvable contradictions

Not Historical is not a problem at all.

Calling it myth doesn't matter, calling it magic doesn't matter.

I won't be posting for several days now. This is my last post before the holiday. Hopefully you will find some other way to amuse yourself.