How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

At about 12:00 of this video Falk starts to make some great points about how David Rohl (one of the experts Mahoney uses) confirms his biases by being off by 300 years in his chronology and how Mahoney extends that by an additional 100 years, citing cherry-picked data and confirmation bias.

What is at issue is either the early date or the late date of the Exodus chronology. This is a huge area of debate and we can spend much time on this subject alone. As I've argued, archaeology and the Bible happen to align quite well with the early date. If you or someone else wants to present the case for the late date, that'd be great so we can analyze which one is more reasonable.

You know very well that the evangelical community will see that as the ‘Enemy’ versus the ‘Heroes’, and so the enemy also equals secular scholars/academics versus evangelical Christians who favour God’s heroic Israelites. That is propaganda, not truth-seeking.

Mahoney does say he believes the early date is better, but he does not demonize any position.

As for the Red Sea crossing, Mahoney actually does not claim which position is the best, which I found to be unsatisfying. It's leaving you with the cliffhanger without any resolution.

Removal from history by whom? These are unfounded speculations.

The removal of Hatshepsut from history by the Egyptians. Do you dispute this?

[Diogenes]

At about 12:00 of this video Falk starts to make some great points about how David Rohl (one of the experts Mahoney uses) confirms his biases by being off by 300 years in his chronology and how Mahoney extends that by an additional 100 years, citing cherry-picked data and confirmation bias.

What is at issue is either the early date or the late date of the Exodus chronology. This is a huge area of debate and we can spend much time on this subject alone. As I've argued, archaeology and the Bible happen to align quite well with the early date. If you or someone else wants to present the case for the late date, that'd be great so we can analyze which one is more reasonable.

You know very well that the evangelical community will see that as the ‘Enemy’ versus the ‘Heroes’, and so the enemy also equals secular scholars/academics versus evangelical Christians who favour God’s heroic Israelites. That is propaganda, not truth-seeking.

Mahoney does say he believes the early date is better, but he does not demonize any position.

As for the Red Sea crossing, Mahoney actually does not claim which position is the best, which I found to be unsatisfying. It's leaving you with the cliffhanger without any resolution.

Removal from history by whom? These are unfounded speculations.

The removal of Hatshepsut from history by the Egyptians. Do you dispute this?

I don't argue for any date, early or late. I don't pretend to be a scholar in this area (or any). I don't have an interest in the issue except to point out confirmation bias and lapses in logic. In that regard, I have no reason not to agree with the experts in the field. They agree "... the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE...." [citing the same source you gave, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus ]

The Torah is dated to 5th Century BCE. As for the dating of the Exodus, this is of minor interest to me since the Biblical account in considered by modern scholars to not be accurate at all, while agreeing there may be historical inspiration for the myth. This should not surprise because it is the nature of myths:

Something happens. People talk about it. The story is retold a thousand times with variations springing from variations while being sifted thru the filters of personal or tribal influence. So, the exact timing of a mythic event, seems to miss the point.

My question about "who was removed from history by whom" was simply because I did not know to whom you were referring. I knew nothing about Hatshepsut. Apparently she had been removed from my memory. But it DOES look like an interesting subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Tcg in post #954]

Ok, noted,

When I say correct me if I'm wrong, I don't need to be instructed in the rite but on whether or not Moses would have been circumcised before being discarded in a reed -boat.

I already showed you this. Moses was in the basket when he was 3 months old, which is later than the prescribed circumcision of 8 days old.

As I recall burials were found during the excavations at Avaris. They showed human and donkey - burials. Please show the reason that donkey -burials are not obviously funerary.

Yes, it shows they were buried. I've never claimed there was any sacrifice involved, only you.

So, yes, it seems clear that the Hyksos were not Hebrews as such and the point is that you have failed to show anything that supports a Hebrew element at all.

I've presented arguments already arguing for Israelite presence. I'll review them all in a later post.

It is relevant for the reason I said - it did not exist until after Ramesses III and I have explained this before.

As the article said, what is not clear is what is being referred to - Philistines as a people group, as a kingdom, a great nation, etc. It is entirely possible for the Philistines to exist as a people group prior to being a ruling nation. Similar to what does it mean to refer to Americans.

I do not care what the Bible says.

If you're going to have an honest debate about the Bible, you'll have to care. I'm not saying you need to accept everything it says, but it has to be on the table as a source of evidence that is at least on par with any other ancient document.

I explained it Stone blocks or metal - working or basket -weaving, whatever the Bible might have said it was, you could have pointed to such an activity in Egypt and made the putrid argument that this somehow proves the Bible.

Here was your "explanation"...

Since the workforce did haul stone blocks, that is a reasonable analogy of how, even if the Bible story differed, you could make that fit just as well, the point being that it is Not evidence that the Exodus story is true just because you can get it to fit the history.

viewtopic.php?p=1073509#p1073509

This is not an explanation why hauling stone blocks makes more sense than making bricks.

I've already explained why bricks make much more sense than hauling stone blocks...

Also, the last pyramid built was by Ahmose I.

"In ancient Egypt, pyramid construction appeared to wane after the reign of Ahmose ... The last king's pyramid — that of Ahmose I, at Abydos"
https://www.livescience.com/why-ancient ... g-pyramids

"This building program culminated in the construction of the last pyramid built by native Egyptian rulers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I

Also, the pyramid of Ahmose I was not built of stones, but the remains is now just sand and rubble.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyra ... ,_1998.png

"The Pyramid of Ahmose was built not as a tomb, but a cenotaph for pharaoh Ahmose I at the necropolis of Abydos, Egypt.[1] It was the only royal pyramid built in this area. Today only a pile of rubble remains, reaching a height of about 10 m. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Ahmose

Ahmose I, who was the one who would've enslaved the Hyksos, did not make any stone pyramids, but since the remains is only sand and rubble, it would've been constructed of mud bricks.

In addition, there is no evidence that stone pyramid building or hauling stone blocks was ever done by slaves in Egypt. In fact, stone pyramid construction was done by paid workers.

Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment (levy) until the construction was completed, pointing to workers' cemeteries discovered in 1990. For the Middle Kingdom Pyramid of Amenemhat II, there is evidence from the annal stone of the king that foreigners from Canaan were employed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_ ... techniques

I don't know why you are ignoring or evading the point. Blocks or bricks, making or hauling either would not confirm the Bible because non Hebrews in Egypt also did it., I have seen your review of your evidence.I have already refuted all of it.

Come to think of it I can't recall pork being eaten Egypt at all. I'll check on that. And I seem to recall that donkeys were associated with human burial complexes and grave goods. 'Sacrificial' is implies as animals aren't buried when they died in those days so much as sacrificed to accompany their masters.

What has it to do with anything whether Ahmose I made pyramiids or not Please explain.

[TRANSPONDER]

Partial statue head of the pharaoh Amenhotep II
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... Boston.png

Amenhotep II (sometimes called Amenophis II and meaning 'Amun is Satisfied') was the seventh pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Amenhotep inherited a vast kingdom from his father Thutmose III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

It is claimed he had great athletic skills and was even more powerful than the great Thutmose III.

Amenhotep has left several inscriptions touting his athletic skills while he was a leader of the army before his crowning. Amenhotep was no less athletic than his powerful father. He claims to have been able to shoot an arrow through a copper target one palm thick, and that he was able to row his ship faster and farther than two hundred members of the navy could row theirs.

The king was well known for his physical prowess and is said to have singlehandedly killed 7 rebel Princes at Kadesh, which successfully terminated his first Syrian campaign on a victorious note.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

There are two different possible dates for the reign of Amenhotep II - 1453 to 1419 BC and 1427 to 1400 BC.

"As usual, different resources provide different time frames for Amenhotep II's reign. While the Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter A. Clayton gives his reign lasting from 1453 until 1419 BC, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt provides a reign between 1427 until 1400 BC."
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm

These sightings limit the date of Thutmose's accession to either 1504 or 1479 BC.[16] Thutmose died after 54 years of reign,[17] at which time Amenhotep would have acceded to the throne. Amenhotep's short coregency with his father would then move his accession two years and four months earlier,[7] dating his accession to either 1427 BC in the low chronology,[18] or in 1454 BC in the high chronology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

Unlike his predecessors, his home was originally in the northern kingdom.

"Amenhotep II was born and raised in Memphis in the north, instead of in Thebes, the traditional capital.[5] While a prince, he oversaw deliveries of wood sent to the dockyard of Peru-nūfe in Memphis, and was made the Setem, the high priest over Lower Egypt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

He became king when he as 18 years old and reigned between 26 and 35 years.

"When he assumed power, Amenhotep II was 18 years old according to an inscription from his great Sphinx stela"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

The beginning of his reign, he went on many campaigns, but ceased campaigns after his ninth year.

"Amenhotep's last campaign took place in his ninth year, however it apparently did not proceed farther north than the Sea of Galilee.[29] According to the list of plunder from this campaign, Amenhotep claims to have taken 101,128 slaves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

His scribes attributes the end of his campaigns to his enemies seeking to make peace.

"Amenhotep records that the kings of Babylon, the Hittites, and Mitanni came to make peace and pay tribute to him after his ninth year, although this may be outlandish boasting."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

At the height of his military career at age 27, why would he have retired from campaigns? Could it be his army had been crushed by attempting to chase the Hebrews in the parting sea?

Amenhotep II also was a part of erasing the memory of Hatshepsut.

"They point to the fact that he participated in his father's removal of Hatshepsut's name from her monuments and the destruction of her image."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

Since Hatshepsut was closely associated with Moses, could that be the main reason for her removal from history?

Thutmose IV succeeded Amenhotep II, however he was not the first born of Amenhotep II. Apparently Thutmose IV had an older brother that we know little about and died under unknown circumstances.

Thutmose IV was born to Amenhotep II and Tiaa, but was not actually the crown prince and Amenhotep II's chosen successor to the throne. Some scholars speculate that Thutmose ousted his older brother in order to usurp power and then commissioned the Dream Stele in order to justify his unexpected kingship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_IV

If the first born son was killed by the 10th plague, could that be why we know so little of his first born son?

I have heard similar claims about a number of Egyptian kings including Ramesses II who was succeeded by Merneptah rather than his first -born son. It was heavily hinted that made him the Pharaoh of the Exodus. You can do that with several Egyptian Pharaohs.

And could you clarify whether it's Ahmose I or one of the successors that is the Phraroah of the Exodus? There seems to be three possible candidates.

The point about the pyramid might possibly be that Egypt stopped using stone blocks and switched to bricks? It's a point I'll look up - as well as pork consumtion.

btw. I repeat that Hebrew sounding names in Egypt are better explained as Hebrew borrowing of Canaanit names - just as they borrowed Phoenecian litters rather than Canaanite script which suggests, doesn't it that they appeared next to Phoenecian culture rather than Hyksos.

[TRANSPONDER]

There is not a shred of evidence that put Hebrews in Hyksos Avaris.

You may not believe the arguments, but I certainly have presented evidence Israelites were in Egypt. To recap...

One is the four-room house that have been excavated in several locations throughout Egypt.

Another interesting find in Tell El-Dab'a is the four-room house. The four-room house is also known as an "Israelite house".



"A four-room house, also known as an "Israelite house" or a "pillared house" is the name given to the mud and stone houses characteristic of the Iron Age of Levant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_room_house

I've also presented evidence of the palace at Avaris.

Evidence linking Joseph and Israel with the Hyksos...



There is a palace in Avaris (Tell El-Dab'a) that has 12 pillars at the entrance and 12 primary tombs at the back. And one of the tombs was in the shape of a pyramid with a statue of a Semitic ruler wearing a multi-colored coat. The remains are missing from the tomb.
https://patternsofevidence.com/2018/09/ ... rom-egypt/

Another evidence is the seal with the alignment with the blessings of Jacob.

According to author, Michael Bar-Ron, the reason it is supportive of the 12 tribes of Israel is the Biblical references the seal has. It also reflect the birth order of the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin.

Another evidence is the statue in the Avaris palace, the origin of the name "Avaris", no bones found in the tombs at the Avaris palace, and severed hands found buried near the palace.

Some more comments about the palace and Avaris:

Hebraic slaves names from the Brooklen Papyrus.

The Brooklyn Papyrus is from the 13th Dynasty that contains a list of Canaanite servants, several of which are Hebraic names.

Though most scholars reject the Exodus account, surprisingly, they do not totally reject the idea that Israelites had a connection with Egypt.

According to Avraham Faust "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... the_Exodus

One "evidence" of Israelites is the absence of pig bones.

Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... the_Exodus

In Avaris, no pig bones have yet been found.

"No pig bones were found, possibly indicating that the Canaanite settlers already had some sort of taboo concerning the consumption of pig meat, at least as a temple ofering."
https://www.academia.edu/10071070/Avari ... the_Hyksos

Some more on burials of donkeys. A potential reason is symbolism of being in a chariot.

Males were buried “with bronze weaponry in constructed tombs without scarabs or other protective amulets,” and “[t]he most elite had equids of some sort (potentially donkeys) buried outside the tombs, often in pairs as though ready to pull a chariot.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180975354/

Donkeys could also have been used to seal treaties.

"One should recall that within the Mari correspondence the expression 'to butcher a donkey' was synonymous for making a treaty."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/

I had a quick check and bricks and stone were both used in Egypt from early times. Stone for Temples, and the like and bricks for less monumental buildings. If that was a point you were trying to make, forget it.

As to pig bones, pig was eaten in Egypt but was less common than other meats. But even if no middens with pig bones are ever found in Hyksos middens, the problem is, you have to make up your mind whether the Hyksos were Hebrews or not. If they ate no pigs when they were not the Hebrews it cannot be used as evidence that Hebrews were even there.

I know exactly what you are doing and it's understandable - Taking the Bible story and trying to find something that seems to fit. But just because it doesn't refute the Bible does not make it evidence for it. But some of it does.

I presume that you will drop Senusret as the Pharoah with Joseph the principal adviser and opted for Joseph as boss of the Hyksos when Ahmose ended Hyksos rule. But there again, while I can wangle it to fit myself, does three colours on a statue equate to 'many colours', other than technically (being more than two)? On top of this the end of Hyksos rule was Not the Exodus. Supposedly that was something that happened under one of the successors of Ahmose I, though I doubt that you can wangle Hatsheptsut into the story, unless you deny the accepted Chronology.

The lack of a trace of evidence of the Exodus (and I repeat that the Hebrews adopted the Phoenecian alphabet rather than Canaanite script as used in Egypt) is explained by you as being suppressed by the Egyptians and you cite the attempt to obliterate Hatshepsut. I saw the point was made online, however that, while attempts at obliteration were made, we know about them. If Egypt had its' chariots sunk in the sea, wouldn't they have focussed instead on trumpetting about how they ran the Israelites out of Egypt after the havoc they caused? They'd spin it but they wouldn't say nothing at all.

I also reiterate that the post 11th c and Mesopotamian elements suggests that this is all a lot later in writing and draws on myth as well as (I suggest) fiddled history such as a record of Egypt kicking the Hyksos (or some of them) out of Egypt which was picked up by Manetho, true or not. And of course that the archaeology suggests a post Ramessid appearance of the Israelites in Canaan as suggested by some Israeli archaeologists, and archaeological refutation of the fall of Jericho and indeed Jerusalem as per the Bible

[TRANSPONDER]

....erred to - Philistines as a people group, as a kingdom, a great nation, etc. It is entirely possible for the Philistines to exist as a people group prior to being a ruling nation. Similar to what does it mean to refer to Americans.

I do not care what the Bible says.

If you're going to have an honest debate about the Bible, you'll have to care. I'm not saying you need to accept everything it says, but it has to be on the table as a source of evidence that is at least on par with any other ancient document./

I saw what you did there. In fact I suspect we all did.

Of course I'm debating the Bible claims but that uis not the same as not caring about the Bible claims - as you say yourself - as particularly authoritative just because they are in the Bible. I fact I'd bet my poinjt was occasioned by you trying to assert Bible authority.

Wiki had this on Hyksos burial customs.
Second Intermediate Period, Foreigner Burials
Known graves from the Second Intermediate Period reveal the presence of non-Egyptians buried in the country. In the north, graves associated with the Hyksos, a western Semitic people ruling the north from the northeast delta, include small mudbrick structures containing the body, pottery vessels, a dagger in a men's graves and often a nearby donkey burial.

So far as I can recall Israelites were not in the habit of burying donkeys, sacrificed or expired in their cemeteries. I did recall something about human burials that appeared to be what they callfoundation -burials. And Templkes are mentioned which doesn't sound very Hebrew. And I'm not sure that Egyptians didn't do circumcision, too, though not for ritual reasons. I'm not sure that it would have suddenly hit Moses that he was a Hebrew at all. He wouldn't have been given a Hebrew name would he, considering he was raised as an Egyptian? You don't see anything odd about the story?

[otseng]

I don't argue for any date, early or late. I don't pretend to be a scholar in this area (or any). I don't have an interest in the issue except to point out confirmation bias and lapses in logic. In that regard, I have no reason not to agree with the experts in the field. They agree "... the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE...." [citing the same source you gave, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus ]

Simply saying what authorities state should be accepted as true is the appeal to authority fallacy. Ultimately, it should be based on the evidence, not on whether it is from authorities or a non-authority like myself. As for the evidence, I have looked into their reasoning and I still find the early date to be more reasonable. Again, I'm open for any to present the evidence for the late date and we can compare it with evidence for the early date.

As for the origin of the Torah written in post-exilic times, I don't find that argument convincing as well. So far, I've presented archaeological evidence that lines up with the Biblical account and for all of these to line up would border on the miraculous if it was not historically accurate. Or put it another way, if the Biblical account is fictional, what are the odds of me finding a multitude of archaeological findings to coincidentally line up with the Biblical account?

[Diogenes]

Oliver, I agree we should not just automatically agree with 'authorities;' however, when it comes to very technical fields like linguistics, archeology, evolution, radiometric dating, I tend to accept the peer reviewed experts' opinions even if they conflict with my own prior views.
This is not accepting the logical fallacy of an 'appeal to authority.' The distinction is that in hyper technical and ever more specialized fields, few if any can take the time, the years of dedication and study required to earn a Ph.D and keep up with the journals in every field. The best most of us can do is to accept scientific consensus.

My principle gripe is that you and others on this forum invariably agree with fringe authors whenever it fits your preconceived ideas about a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So far, the weight of academic authority disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible on:
1. Evolution
2. The age of the Earth
3. Biblical scholarship and interpretation
4. Archaeological support for the Bible regarding the Exodus
5. The Bible's depiction of the Earth as flat and covered with a dome (the 'firmament')
6. The Bible's claim of an immovable Earth that is the center of the universe.

The only 'principle' involved in so much of this is the steadfast and unfounded agreement that whatever the Bible saiys is true, and agreeing with what ever phony, fringe 'authority' agrees with such a viewpoint.

NONE of the arguments offered in support of these archaic views are convincing in the least. Yet none of the authoritative arguments refuting them are considered by the literalists.

The absurdity of all this finally reaches its nadir in the assertions of JW that if God decrees, then murder, rape, slavery, torture, and child abuse are all moral acts because "God says so." This strikes me as irrational and indefensible.

My conclusion:
We can not trust the Bible because it is filled with errors, inaccuracies, and obvious contradictions of fact.

I realize this sounds harsh to 'true believers,' so I want to add that I know many wonderful people who believe the Bible and try to live exemplary lives... people who would help anyone in need without questioning their beliefs. I am attacking the basis of their beliefs, not the people

[otseng]

I don't know why you are ignoring or evading the point. Blocks or bricks, making or hauling either would not confirm the Bible because non Hebrews in Egypt also did it., I have seen your review of your evidence.I have already refuted all of it.

No, I have not evaded your point and you have not refuted any of it. Here was the point you made at first which I addressed.

If Exodus has accounts of them forced to haul stone blocks or make pots without...say, glazing, you could show models and pictures of Egyptians doing that (as they always did) and claim that supports the Bible.

A story of Hebrew slaves hauling stone blocks would not have made any sense as I've covered in post 953. So, your claim that the Bible can say anything it wants and it would all be plausible is false.

If you're going to present counter-arguments, you'll need to not just make up claims without any evidence to back up the claims. If you claim hauling stone blocks is just as plausible as making mud bricks, you'll need to justify it.

Again, all I'm showing is the Biblical account aligns with the archaeological evidence. I'm not claiming that from archaeological alone can you tell what specific people group made mud bricks.

I have heard similar claims about a number of Egyptian kings including Ramesses II who was succeeded by Merneptah rather than his first -born son. It was heavily hinted that made him the Pharaoh of the Exodus. You can do that with several Egyptian Pharaohs.

Sure, there are some arguments for the late date. But it is the cumulative evidence that should be considered. Again, if anyone wants to argue for the late date, we can compare the evidence against the early date.

And could you clarify whether it's Ahmose I or one of the successors that is the Phraroah of the Exodus? There seems to be three possible candidates.

I claim Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

I repeat that Hebrew sounding names in Egypt are better explained as Hebrew borrowing of Canaanit names - just as they borrowed Phoenecian litters rather than Canaanite script which suggests, doesn't it that they appeared next to Phoenecian culture rather than Hyksos.

Please present the evidence that non-Hebrew cultures had used Hebrew names that I had presented:

The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14).

viewtopic.php?p=1071590#p1071590

I had a quick check and bricks and stone were both used in Egypt from early times. Stone for Temples, and the like and bricks for less monumental buildings.

Yes, stone and brick have been used for construction in Egypt.

But, unlike popular belief, ancient Greek belief, and Cecil B. DeMille's portrayal of Hebrew slaves hauling stone blocks, it would not have aligned with archaeological data.

If they ate no pigs when they were not the Hebrews it cannot be used as evidence that Hebrews were even there.

I agree not finding much pig bones in Goshen is not conclusive evidence, but it is an interesting alignment.

I presume that you will drop Senusret as the Pharoah with Joseph the principal adviser and opted for Joseph as boss of the Hyksos when Ahmose ended Hyksos rule. But there again, while I can wangle it to fit myself, does three colours on a statue equate to 'many colours', other than technically (being more than two)? On top of this the end of Hyksos rule was Not the Exodus. Supposedly that was something that happened under one of the successors of Ahmose I, though I doubt that you can wangle Hatsheptsut into the story, unless you deny the accepted Chronology.

I already talked about all of these, so not sure exactly what you are claiming.

The lack of a trace of evidence of the Exodus (and I repeat that the Hebrews adopted the Phoenecian alphabet rather than Canaanite script as used in Egypt) is explained by you as being suppressed by the Egyptians and you cite the attempt to obliterate Hatshepsut.

I haven't yet gotten to the point of the exodus out of Egypt. We'll see if there's no evidence or not. As for Egyptians erasing the memory of Hatshepsut, if they could do that for a Pharaoh, why could they not as well do that for a bunch of slaves?

[otseng]

Oliver, I agree we should not just automatically agree with 'authorities;' however, when it comes to very technical fields like linguistics, archeology, evolution, radiometric dating, I tend to accept the peer reviewed experts' opinions even if they conflict with my own prior views.

Note that there is no scholarly consensus on the late date of the Exodus. Neither is there scholarly consensus on the dating and authorship of the Torah. So, when you say you need to defer to the authorities, you are choosing which authority to base your belief on.

To a degree, we do need to accept what the authorities say. Obviously we can't dig at sites ourselves and be fluent in hieroglyphics. But, the entire principle of this forum is to base our arguments on evidence and sound arguments. And though none of us are experts in any of the fields we are debating in, we are free to challenge anything and to argue for anything, provided we present evidence to support our arguments.