Archeology and the bible???

[smalltlalk_2k]

A while back I saw a show on some station about the Ark of the Covenant and how it has been found in ethiopia. It was being held by some natives in a building, the only thing was that their high priest was the only one that is allowed in the building. (very convenient). So i did some searching on archealogical proof of biblical statements. I've found a few websites that are interesting reads for skeptics and religious people.

BiblePlus (http://www.bibleplus.org/)
BiblePlus amaZING discoveries (http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/discoveries.htm) it seems they have actually found chariots from the pharoah's drowned army that chased the isrealites. hmm... They found Sodom and Gomorrah?? Seems like the big find of Troy. Just a ruined city that seems to be in the right place. But I don't think they've found a sign that says this is Troy, or sodom or gomorrah. They have found the Ark of the Covenant also, but alas the Isreali government has locked it up tight so noone can see. Those cursed governments!!


Of course there is alot of stuff you can order also, that further explains these factual discoveries.

[Upchurch]

I thought the Troy discovery was generally accepted as genuine and was not based on the Bible so much as the writings of Homer?

[hgc]

Here's the problem with saying, "we found the site of Troy, or Sodom & Gomorrah:" Since we don't know if those were ever real places or not, how can we say that the ruined city we found is or isn't it? I'm not doubting necessarily that there was a city in Ionia where the Aecheans fought some big battle. Probably more than one similar occurence. Nor is it implausible that some desert cities near the Dead Sea got showers of flaming sulfur balls (brimstone) set off by an earthquake. But that information comes to us through so many layers of oral tradition before it was recorded in writing, that we're probably in the zone of 'half right, half not' in the sense that these legends are composites of real events and fantasies anyway.

[arcticpenguin]

Here's a complete list of all the archaeological findings supporting the Mormon claims of a Christian society in pre-Columbian North America:

[Marc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Here's a complete list of all the archaeological findings supporting the Mormon claims of a Christian society in pre-Columbian North America:

In a discussion on Mormons here is what Bernie, an archeologist friend, had to say:

You mention the lack of archeological support for their notions. Of course.

However, there is a curious twist to this. Due to their belief that Jesus preached in the New World, and that American Indians are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes and all, the Brigham Young University long ago developed quite a modern and progressive archeological department to do research and field archeology in North American studies. (I am speaking now of back to the '50's).

Back when I was much more active in archeological affairs, I used to see their published field work and read their reports some, etc. I have to tell you that as far as field technique and adherence to standards, their work was exemplary! Their digs were crisp and well-done. The subsequent reports models of organization, illustration, etc. The only glitch would always come toward the end when one gets to the "Summary" or "Conclusion" of these otherwise scientific papers... here, of course, they would go wildly awry as to what they would infer or thought they had determined, etc.

It was sort of a commonplace among many of us to read (even anticipate!) the field reports of the Mormon workers - knowing that all you had to do was just skip their final, concluding remarks!

bernie

[smalltlalk_2k]

As for Troy. To me it seems shaky. They found a city that had been destroyed that was in the approximate place that the city of Troy was supposed to be as descriped by Homer. That doesn't mean that it was Troy, just accepted as being Troy. I don't think(but i could be wrong) they ever found some kind of tablet or writing that said this is Troy. Something like a buried tax record or other thing. I just like proof, not accepted views. But on a side note. I hope it is Troy. I like it when things work out.

[mort]

If you are interested in "real" biblical archeology I would reccommend the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. The general idea of the book is that virtually no evidence exists for anything in the Old Testament prior to 850 BC or so. After that a suprising amount (well, suprising to me) of non-Jewish inscriptions and whatnot exist that refer to various Jewish kings and battles that are reported in the bible. If I recall, the bible was also fairly consistent with the archeological evidence as far as dates go. The kings referenced in the inscriptions, according to the Old Testament, lived around the same time the inscriptions supposidly were made.

[hgc]

Originally posted by mort
If you are interested in "real" biblical archeology I would reccommend the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. The general idea of the book is that virtually no evidence exists for anything in the Old Testament prior to 850 BC or so. After that a suprising amount (well, suprising to me) of non-Jewish inscriptions and whatnot exist that refer to various Jewish kings and battles that are reported in the bible. If I recall, the bible was also fairly consistent with the archeological evidence as far as dates go. The kings referenced in the inscriptions, according to the Old Testament, lived around the same time the inscriptions supposidly were made. Of course the line between old legend from the oral tradition (later written down) and old legend from the written record of contemporaneous events (and then add in literary fiction) can be set at when the Hebrews picked up literacy from the Phonecians. All was compiled during the Babylonian exile.

Funny to note that in the time that Hebrews were supposed to have received the 10 commandments, they were an illiterate tribe. How then to read God's commandments? I know not.

[Dancing David]

The search for troy is a somewhat proselike discussion of the arcaeology of troy.

Why should there have to be a sign that says troy, it is where the story says that it should be. Stories can often contain some accuracy. And then there is the whole issue of provenance, what if this just happens to be the place where they make the signs for the cities, so heres one that says thesolonica, and another that say constantnople, and another that says instanbul.

What si questionable is if the battle of troy took place as related in the illiad. There are two levels of troy that look to be substantialy destroyed, schlieman probably didn't recognise the one he wanted.

But chariots on the bottom of the red sea, yeah right! Sounds like questionable science to me, do you know how much that would be worth? It would certainly be quite the discovery.

The problem with the bible and archaeology is this, they didn't find the Noah's ark, the ark of the covenant is not contempoary but a great story, there is a jericho, and a soddom and a gemorah, but as to wether the events alleged to take place there actualy did....

Remeber people, the ancients were no stupider than you, when they describe a city on a trade route or the good from there, this is economics and not fiction.

Other interesting thing,

It should be Jesus the Nazarene, not jesus of nazareth,

byblos the city from which we get the word bible was a city of sin

modern judaism is not ancient judaism, which is why the dead sea scrolls have remanied unpublished, they were not from the essenes and monthesits but from polytheists and saducees

Most of the hebrew laws were written at 500 bc , long after the time of Moshesh, who by the way was an egyptian, not a hebrew.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Most of the hebrew laws were written at 500 bc , long after the time of Moshesh, who by the way was an egyptian, not a hebrew.
He's the one the mosh pit is named after.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by smalltlalk_2k
As for Troy. To me it seems shaky. They found a city that had been destroyed that was in the approximate place that the city of Troy was supposed to be as descriped by Homer. That doesn't mean that it was Troy, just accepted as being Troy. I don't think(but i could be wrong) they ever found some kind of tablet or writing that said this is Troy. Something like a buried tax record or other thing. I just like proof, not accepted views. But on a side note. I hope it is Troy. I like it when things work out. Well, and as far as we know, Homer could based a fictional city he called "Troy" on this real city that they found, I suppose.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Dancing David
snip...

... what if this just happens to be the place where they make the signs for the cities, so heres one that says thesolonica, and another that say constantnople, and another that says instanbul.

... snip One for Constantinople and another for Istanbul? Well, you know what they say, all roads lead to ... um ... Rome?

"Istanbul" 1953

Words by Jimmy Kennedy
Music by Nat Simon

Lyrics:

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul (Istanbul)
Istanbul (Istanbul)

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That's nobody's business but the Turks

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul

[Starrman]

I read a Tom Clancy novel the other week, and it was set in this place called New York. Then I went east and actually found a city called New York! So everything that happened in the novel must be true!

HGC - Excelent TMBG reference.

[Upchurch]

I live just about an hour from Troy, Missouri, for whatever that's worth.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by smalltlalk_2k
A while back I saw a show on some station about the Ark of the Covenant and how it has been found in ethiopia. It was being held by some natives in a building, the only thing was that their high priest was the only one that is allowed in the building. (very convenient). So i did some searching on archealogical proof of biblical statements. I've found a few websites that are interesting reads for skeptics and religious people.

BiblePlus (http://www.bibleplus.org/)
BiblePlus amaZING discoveries (http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/discoveries.htm) it seems they have actually found chariots from the pharoah's drowned army that chased the isrealites. hmm... They found Sodom and Gomorrah?? Seems like the big find of Troy. Just a ruined city that seems to be in the right place. But I don't think they've found a sign that says this is Troy, or sodom or gomorrah. They have found the Ark of the Covenant also, but alas the Isreali government has locked it up tight so noone can see. Those cursed governments!!

Of course there is alot of stuff you can order also, that further explains these factual discoveries.

Ron Wyatt (who died a few years ago) was a fraud and a charlatan.
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

[Bikewer]

Alas, the most convincing proof for the Sodom and Gommorah story was ground up and sprinkled on lamb kebabs long ago.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by mort
If you are interested in "real" biblical archeology I would reccommend the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.

Agree. Great book

[triadboy]

The whole story of Lot is a laughable exercise in bias tribal storytelling.

- the destruction of Sodom is a 'just so' tale about a big-ass burn spot where a city used to be on the edge of the Dead Sea

- Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt. This is a 'just so' story to that has fun with the many salt pillars that can be found around the dead sea.

- Lot's daughters give birth to incestuous, bastard children:

19:30
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

19:37
And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

19:38
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Moabites and Ammonites were the tribal enemies of the Israelites. So in the Israelite history there is an account of how their enemies came to be - by daughters getting their father drunk and playing 'hide the salami'. That's hi-larious!

[Gulliamo]

I thought that they had found the actual Babylon. And that it was dated to be about 5000 years old. And that they had full scale reading and writing at that time (on clay tablets).

If this is not accurate please let me know.

[FireGarden]

I was going to start a thread on this!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168
The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C.

Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.
There are other sites that talk about human bones, but so far no mention of a ship wreck.

[FireGarden]

I just had to highlight this for the people who don't read links in threads

From smalltlalk's (extra "L" there?!) link:
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/discoveries.htm
Also, Jesus' genetic composition._ Would one expect it to be different from you and me as He came of a virgin birth?_ Learn the startling facts! Click http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/arkintro.htm
Skimming through the link, I think the claim is that Jesus was crucified above the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant. Then ....
"It is likely that the earthquake that took place at Jesus Christ's death, " opened a route for the blood to reach the holy relic (of Raiders of the Lost Ark fame) when Jesus was stabbed by a Roman soldier.

Samples of the blood stains have been analyzed and.....







Wait for it.......







Jesus had 23 chromosomes from a woman (presumably Mary) and one Y-chromosome from a man (presumably God) instead of the usual 46 (23 from each parent) They say "This condition is extremely rare, if present at all in other than this blood." Then go on to give an account of a boy who had only X-Chromosomes in his white blood cells.

Please let this be a parody site.
I'm trying to look at it that way, really I am.
But they seem to be selling stuff that supports this guff.

Anyway, I've also read UnrepentantSinner's link on Ron Wyatt http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
At least that shows that there ARE Christians out there willing to do a bit of basic research.

Here are some points from a letter from Joe Zias, Curator of Anthropology-Archaeology in Israel http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/Zias.html
- - - Ron Wyatt has never received a license from the IAA to excavate here in Jerusalem.
- - - Finding a coin at the so called Mt. Sinai. This shows the total ignorance of RW and his public who want to believe rather than to know! Coins were not around at the times of Moses, even an amauter archaeologist should know this simple fact!!!

(I didn't know that simple fact, but there you go! Where's Joshua when you need him?)

[Nucular]

Here is an interesting excerpt (https://secure.agoramedia.com/jesus/popup/sample_top10.asp) from Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, outlining what in their view are the top 10 most important archaeological discoveries relating to the NT.

The problem sometimes - I suspect this might be the case with Peter's house (number 3) - is that archaeologists are, understandably, extremely ready to leap to the conclusion that what they've found is what they'd hoped to find, sometimes on less than conclusive evidence.

Incidentally, the list has an omission I was not expecting: the bones of St. Peter. I've got a book, cleverly entitled The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh, which describes the discovery of Peter's bones (suspiciously, somewhere within the Vatican, IIRC). It's been a long time since I read it, but I seem to remember it was actually rather convincing, if somewhat convenient. Quite an extraordinary story, and though I tend to read lots about this stuff I haven't seen it disconfirmed yet. But I would have thought it would have been number one on the list, had it been true, and throughout the whole recent debate thing around the fake James ossuary I haven't seen it mentioned either.

Anybody know anything about this?

[TeaBag420]

Don't we get the word "Bible" from the Greek word for "book"?


Originally posted by Dancing David
The search for troy is a somewhat proselike discussion of the arcaeology of troy.



Remeber people, the ancients were no stupider than you, when they describe a city on a trade route or the good from there, this is economics and not fiction.

Other interesting thing,

It should be Jesus the Nazarene, not jesus of nazareth,

byblos the city from which we get the word bible was a city of sin

modern judaism is not ancient judaism, which is why the dead sea scrolls have remanied unpublished, they were not from the essenes and monthesits but from polytheists and saducees

Most of the hebrew laws were written at 500 bc , long after the time of Moshesh, who by the way was an egyptian, not a hebrew.

[Beanbag]

There's a really interesting book called "The Texas/Israeli War 1999" that tells of a battle between Israeli mercenaries and Republic of Texas armies in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. The geographic details are quite good, even down to which highways they came down (even if the Trinity Ship Canal never got built, though it was a good place to have the light cruiser Judge Roy Bean available to serve as a floating artillery battery).

Most of the geography matches, therefore it must be true.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
Don't we get the word "Bible" from the Greek word for "book"?




Most likely, but it is also a babylonian city, but I could be way wrong!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by smalltlalk_2k
As for Troy. To me it seems shaky. They found a city that had been destroyed that was in the approximate place that the city of Troy was supposed to be as descriped by Homer. That doesn't mean that it was Troy, just accepted as being Troy. I don't think(but i could be wrong) they ever found some kind of tablet or writing that said this is Troy. Something like a buried tax record or other thing. I just like proof, not accepted views. But on a side note. I hope it is Troy. I like it when things work out.

Actually they have found seven cities and the problem that archaeologists are trying to solve is whether the (Troy VI) 6th or the 7th Troy( Troy VII) is the "Homeric" one.

Two are the critical questions that their answers will judge which one is " the city".

1. Is " Iliad" based strickly on 8th ce BC sources or does it contain elements that date back to the Mycenean era?

2.Was Troy VI / VII an important center of political power and trade in the second half of the 2nd millenium BC or it was an unimportant small residence ?

As you understand if it turns out that Troy was just a village during the Mycenean Era, then a war against it wasn't justified also, it it's proven that Homen wasn't aware of the Mycenean tradition while composing his poem, then the Troy that corresponds to the Early Geometric period ( 800BC) wasn't destroyed by a fire. [ Troy VI and Troy VII have been destroyed by fire]

Last year I read that some scientists question the existence of Troy VI and if this is true the whole image changes significantly

In any case, Troy is an important archaeological excavation because its nearly continuous occupation for more than 3000 years makes it a solid reference for the chronology of the ancient world from the early Bronze Age through the Roman Empire.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Most likely, but it is also a babylonian city, but I could be way wrong!

Bible in Greek means a collection of Books. It was the Phoenician city Byblos that gave its name to the books ( biblion in Greek) because it produced the papyrus on which books were scribed.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Actually they have found seven cities and the problem that archaeologists are trying to solve is whether the (Troy VI) 6th or the 7th Troy( Troy VII) is the "Homeric" one.Wouldn't the fact that they're unsure which is 'the' Troy indicate that it could be neither of them? It could indicate either that the literary Troy was fictional, or that there is another 'real' Troy (Troy VIII presumably) waiting to be discovered?

Edited for spelling/anal retention

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Beanbag
There's a really interesting book called "The Texas/Israeli War 1999" that tells of a battle between Israeli mercenaries and Republic of Texas armies in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. The geographic details are quite good, even down to which highways they came down (even if the Trinity Ship Canal never got built, though it was a good place to have the light cruiser Judge Roy Bean available to serve as a floating artillery battery).


Didn't Richard Ray do a special for Channel 4 on this over the summer? I swear I saw it as a segment on Good Day Dallas back in June...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Actually they have found seven cities and the problem that archaeologists are trying to solve is whether the (Troy VI) 6th or the 7th Troy( Troy VII) is the "Homeric" one.

Well duh, it's the one with the giant wooden horse.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nucular
Wouldn't the fact that they're unsure which is 'the' Troy indicate that it could be neither of them? It could indicate either that the literary Troy was fictional, or that there is another 'real' Troy (Troy VIII presumably) waiting to be discovered?

Edited for spelling/anal retention

Uh huh. I wasn't clear and this proves for one more time that it is not a good idea for me not to talk seriously in passed midnight hours...

What so ever, they were seven or six cities that predated the Homeric one. The total sum of the cities they were succeeded one by the other is nine. Troy VIII for example exists and it is the Archaic "Ilion. "--the Greek colony of the people of the island of Lesbos that was founded around 700BC

The question whether the literary Troy was fictional or not is known as the "Homeric Problem" .

The prevailing opinion among archaeologists, linguists and scholars is that Homer was aware of the Mycenaean tradition ( Late Bronze Age) when he composed both his poems ( Iliad and Odyssey -- we believe that it was the Odyssey that he composed first) in the Geometric Period-800BC.

The expansion of the Mycenean Greeks to the North-East started at the Late Bronze Age and they might have attempted to cross Pontus Euxinus ( that interstingly back then they called Pontus Axenos: unhospitable sea) and during one of those attempts the might have conquered the city of Troy but back then they didn't proceed further to the Black Sea.

A later myth,of the 8th ce, the Myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece marks the successful passage of Axenos Pontus and the colonization of the Black Sea. From the 8th ce BC Greeks stopped calling the sea Axenos Pontus and they renamed it to Euxeinus, meaning hospitable :)

Let me take the example of the horse, Arctic Penguin mentions. Well, this is one of the chapters that causes headache to the scientists that deal with the Homeric problem.

Homer describes the Troyans as "horse-tamers" or as owners of " fine foals" a unique description among all the cultures Homer describes. So how does he know? Did he have access to info we ignore or he just reflected beliefs about the Troyans that they were widely held in his days?

Only one example of what we call "The Homeric Problem" :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Nucular
Wouldn't the fact that they're unsure which is 'the' Troy indicate that it could be neither of them? It could indicate either that the literary Troy was fictional, or that there is another 'real' Troy (Troy VIII presumably) waiting to be discovered?

Edited for spelling/anal retention

The numbers refer to the levels assigned by the arcaeologists to the city of troy, which does exist exactly where homer said it did. The fact that the city is troy is not in dispute by archaeologist, what happened there is. I tale it that you don't believe that the city of Rome exists either?

[Checkmite]

I'd love to participate here, but it seems I've been beaten to the punch...by Cleopatra. She really seems to know her stuff....I'm all impressed like... :eek:

...but I don't really see anything else to add.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by smalltlalk_2k
A while back I saw a show on some station about the Ark of the Covenant and how it has been found in ethiopia. It was being held by some natives in a building, the only thing was that their high priest was the only one that is allowed in the building. (very convenient).

Hah! What bunk. We know that the Ark is crated, stored and forgotten in the back of some American wharehouse, saw it at the end of Raiders.

[smalltlalk_2k]

lol

Letter to the government...

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I am demanding that the government turn over any and all information pertaining to the Ark of the Covenant. It has been proven via videological documentation in the Raders of the Lost Ark documentary that you(government) have this ever precious artifact. It is well known that you market government documentaries as Hollywood fictional movies to cause doubt in the truth of these facts. I will be writing you about other documentaries that are being passed as Hollywood movies also... JFK, Roswell, Outbreak. The Day the Earth Stood Still.

[Cleopatra]

Well, we have to admit though that it was the quest of such legendary treasures --like The Ark-- that expanded our knowledge about Archaeology.

[smalltlalk_2k]

Too true cleo.

[swstephe]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671865412/qid=1064992168/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-1453330-6623860?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

From the 80's, Graham Hancock decided to investigate reports of the Ark of the Covenant being in Ethiopia ... story was that it was taken there by one of Solomon's decendents. What Hancock found was that *every* church he went to had an Ark of the Covenant(!!) which turned out to be some pieces of wood with Hebrew written on it sometimes in wooden boxes, sometimes just the pieces of wood and nothing else. The churches decided they were the *true* children of Israel. One church, in one town, was supposed to have the really real Ark of the Covenant, but Hancock was denied entrance. Spent the rest of the book trying to convince himself that it was real ... but kept providing evidence that it probably was just more pieces of wood and the whole Ark thing was figurative or something.

He seems to be a bit more rational than all the other guys who try to convince people that they found the *real* Mt. Ararat, or that the events of the Bible all took place in some other area of the middle East and so on. I guess, as long as books like that sell ...

[homunculus]

Here's the problem with saying, "we found the site of Troy, or Sodom & Gomorrah:" Since we don't know if those were ever real places or not, how can we say that the ruined city we found is or isn't it?

I saw an hilarious programme on UK TV which purported to investigate the historicity of the Bible using "scientific" methods. The guy leading the investigation was a mindless fanatic, but his team were skeptical.

They found a salty rock (I really mean, it was nothing more than a shapeless, salt-encrusted protuberance) on a flat, sandy ocean bed. The Christian bloke says to one of his team:

"Could it be a wall? I mean, is there any possibility?"

"Well, it...it's a rock. I don't know"

"But COULD it have been a wall?"

(silence, unwilling to commit)

"COULD IT CONCIEVABLY HAVE BEEN A WALL?"

(sighs) "I suppose, maybe, yes. Perhaps"

That was enough for the Christian guy. He nodded his head triumphantly, as though his work here was done. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A WALL FROM A BIBLICAL CITY, AND AN EXPERT AGREED!

Paul.

[Skeptic]

There is significant evidence that most of the historical events described in the bible--i.e., what kind ruled where and when, etc.--are (substantially) true, if of course recorded with religious and national bias. This, of course, does not mean that the miracle stories or patriarch stories are true.

[Checkmite]

A long, long time ago, I watched a program dealing with the scientific explanation of Biblical miracles. I remember most strongly the section which concentrated on the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. The assertion was that a section of the Red Sea or Persian Gulf was contoured in such a way that a fierce gale would be able to "push" the water more or less off the land in a particular spot. They demonstrated this too, with a plastic cross-section of the "sea bed" in that location, filled with water, and they turned a high-powered fan on. Sure enough, the shallow spot was uncovered...

...but jaxtaposing this experiment on the real world, how high would that wind end up being? Nobody could stand still in such a gale, let alone walk. If the ability of the Israelites to withstand the gale would be attributed to a "miracle", what's the point of trying to find a scientific explanation for the Sea of Reeds crossing at all?

[Correa Neto]

There´s some speculation that the level of the Sea of Reeds was lowered due to an incoming tsunami. The jews passed and when the tsunami came, the egyptians were crossing (bad timing)... The tsunami would have ben originated by the climax of the volcanic eruption that destroyed Akrotiri A.K.A. Thera A.K.A. Santorini (and a possible inspiration for Atlantis myth). The ash collumn from the early stages of the eruption during the day would be the "pillar of smoke" and during the night the "pillar of fire" that guided the jews. It is also speculated that minoic populations affected by the tsunami on Crete and surrounding islands (ports were affected and crops suffered due to the ashfall) migrated to the Middle East and became the people that were the "standard enemy" from the Jews in a large part of the old testament (can´t remember their names, I´m typing in a hurry, my memory failed - alcohol corroded my neurons).

Now, what a benevolent God... Wrecks a civilization to help a bunch of nomads... Or was God guiding the evolution, preserving the tribe that had more potential for development? Is the Bible God somehow a follower of Darwinism?

[Checkmite]

I've heard of the Santorini explanation; in fact, it is asserted in the link given in the opening post. However, if the Bible is to be given the benefit of the doubt, the Santorini explanation does not work.

Firstly, a few things must be understood. If we are to use the Bible as our primary reference for the story of the Exodus (actually, it's the only reference in history of the story of the Exodus), then we must pay attention to the way it describes the crossing itself.

Exodus 14
19 ¶ And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

20 and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

21 ¶ And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: Heb. 11.29 and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,

25 and took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.

26 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.

27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.

29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

30 ¶ Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore.

This account clearly identifies the pillar of smoke and fire as a dynamic and immediate phenomenon, rather than a static marker on the horizon. Further, the story describes the water as being divided in a specific location, with "a wall on the right and left" of water. This is not consistent with the extreme low tide effect caused by an incoming tsunami. Of course, we may allow that this account (having been written long after the alleged event) is somewhat stylized and "decorated". But there are other problems as well.

Exodus refers to the king of Egypt continually as "Pharaoh", a term which - unknown to most - wasn't used as a title in Egypt until the reign of Horemheb in 1323 BC. That sets the events alleged in the Book of Exodus as having happened in Horemheb's reign or later. Contextual clues in Exodus point to later.

Exodus 1:11
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raam'ses.

"Pithom" can't be found; however, "Raam'ses" (b.k.a. Pi-Ramses, literally, "the House of Ramses") is well known. Ramses II had the city of Pi-Ramses built for himself during the reign of his father, Seti, and moved his capital there upon his accession to the throne. This places the slavery of the Israelites in the reign of Seti (1294-1279) and later. Since Moses was raised in the "house of Pharaoh", but was 80 years old when he actually came to Pharaoh to demand the release of his people (Exodus 7:7), this places the time of the plagues and all that either in the reign of Ramses II (1279-1213) or Merneptah (1213-1203), so the actual exodus itself would've taken place during or very shortly after that time (This, by the way, is why all the movies name Ramses II as the Pharaoh during the time of the exodus).

Santorini erupted in 1650 BC, during the reign of one Ay (1664-1641), last Egyptian king of the Middle Kingdom, and nearly 400 years before Moses would've been born. It was also what is known nowadays as a Krakatoan eruption, in which a huge underground magma chamber is suddenly and violently evacuated, causing the land above it to collapse into the empty space left behind, forming a caldera. This type of eruption lasts only a matter of hours, and is paroxysmal. It would have produced a column of smoke for only a day or two, but not a column of "fire", and neither would be visible from way down in Egypt anyway.

If we accept the Bible As Truth, the Santorini explanation does not meet the time-and-place criteria. If we insist that the Santorini theory is the most plausible scientific explanation for the events detailed in Exodus, then we must concede that Exodus is in error, and so the entire account would be suspect anyway.

[LW]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I
Exodus refers to the king of Egypt continually as "Pharaoh", a term which - unknown to most - wasn't used as a title in Egypt until the reign of Horemheb in 1323 BC.

Are you certain about that? I've read from several sources (e.g. Alan Gardner's Egyptian Grammar) that "Pharaoh" occurs as a title from the reign of Ankhaten (though, the time difference is not great since apparently Horemheb served Ankhaten under the name Ptahemheb).

However, the literary change that happened in Ankhaten's time was apparently a modernization of language. The written text and spoken language had diverged and Ankhaten made the texts to correspond to the usage of his time. So, it is possible that in common speach "Pharaoh" had already been one of the titles of the King of Two Lands for a considerable time.

As for the history of the title, it originally meant "The Great House", that is, king's palace. Later the meaning shifted to king's court, and finally to king himself.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I thought that they had found the actual Babylon. And that it was dated to be about 5000 years old. And that they had full scale reading and writing at that time (on clay tablets).

If this is not accurate please let me know.

Based on this,we can speculate with reasonable confidence, they knew how to write.. It is harder to prove they knew how to read..:D

[Correa Neto]

Santorini was a caldera, sure, but only the collapse itself is fast. Caldera collapses are preceeded by Plininan-type eruptions that may last days. Study of ash layers in Thera show that several ash plumes have been liberated by the volcano before the collapse, possible for weeks with some quite episodes. This gave Akrotiri population plenty of time to evacuate the island and even return briefly to grab what they left behind or try to bring their lives back to normal. Archeologica findings seem to favor this view. Whne the empty magma chamber collapsed, after a major ash emmission, there was intense explosive activity, since sea water infiltrated along fractures and encountered hot rocks and what remained of the magma on the magma chamber.

But you are right. The Bible mentions a moving pillar (I never had actually noticed that!), while, Satorini´s plume (supposing it could be seen), was static. And the dates also do not match.

Thanks for the clarification!

[ShottleBop]

Incidentally, the list has an omission I was not expecting: the bones of St. Peter. I've got a book, cleverly entitled The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh, which describes the discovery of Peter's bones (suspiciously, somewhere within the Vatican, IIRC). It's been a long time since I read it, but I seem to remember it was actually rather convincing, if somewhat convenient. Quite an extraordinary story, and though I tend to read lots about this stuff I haven't seen it disconfirmed yet. But I would have thought it would have been number one on the list, had it been true, and throughout the whole recent debate thing around the fake James ossuary I haven't seen it mentioned either.

http://www.atheists.org/church/bones.html

Just this past weekend I read an article in a new issue of "Smithsonian" or "Scientific American" or somesuch (wish I could remember which) lending credence to the view that the bones are NOT those of St. Peter.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
If we accept the Bible As Truth, the Santorini explanation does not meet the time-and-place criteria. If we insist that the Santorini theory is the most plausible scientific explanation for the events detailed in Exodus, then we must concede that Exodus is in error, and so the entire account would be suspect anyway. Exactly. Furthermore ...
Can archaeology throw light on the question of the origin of Israel? The answer is not affirmative, as the interpretation of the archaeological evidence is not clear-cut. ...

I. Finkelstein pointed to the resemblance between the settlement process in the central hill country in Iron Age I and a similar phenomenon in the region during MB II. He proposed that the MB II sedentary population, after having been forced to adopt a pastoralist and seminomadic existence in the Late Bronze Age, exploited the opportunity of changing conditions in Iron Age I to return to sedentary life. This interpretation can be linked with the theory that the Israelites emerged from local unsettled Late Bronze groups, such as the Habiru and Shasu known from Egyptian sources. Such a theory perhaps explains the origin of most of the components of the Israelite confederation, but it still does not elucidate the identity of that confederation's nuclear group, which initiated Yahwism and was responsible for the traditions concerning slavery in Egypt, Mount Sinai, and the role of Moses. At present archaeology can contribute nothing to answering this question.

-- Archaeology of the land of the Bible; 10,000-586 B.C.E. by Amihai Mazar (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0I8KEZ75XV&isbn=0385425902&itm=1)

The event is suppose to take place in Egypt, yet Egyptian sources know it not. On the morrow of the Exodus Israel numbered approximately 2.5 million (extrapolated from Num. 1:46); yet the entire population of Egypt at that time was only 3 to 4.5 million! The effct on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society.

[and later ...]

... we can now genuinely speak of unanimity of the evidence. Whoever supplied the geographic information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overloards: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidence for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1075 to 725 B.C., ...

-- Egypt, Cannan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0I8KEZ75XV&isbn=0691000867&TXT=Y&itm=4)