Quote:
A mountain no. But far more than nothing, enough to substantiate it's existence, which is far more than what we have earlier, and unlike earlier, there is nothing explicitly contradicting this. The bible actually makes very specific claims that would leave very big footprints. If we abandon literal text, the footprints can grow smaller.
1) So I guess we somewhat agree there is not much physical evidence in 1000 BC (No mountain but also no contradictions)
2) Other than 600K men in Exodus, which we have discussed,
Question- what are the big footprints you speak of? What are the contradictions? Note: I don't think that number of 600K men during exodus adds up if you work from starting point of Israel (Jacob)- 12 tribes going into Egypt and sticking around for 250-400 years.
Quote:
As I stated previous, the entire origin story is what is false, not the early kingdom and captivity. The jews were never Egyptian slaves in huge (or any significant number). They were never outsiders who brutally conquered canaan. They were canaanite, and evolved out of that culture as a distinct group. Generally speaking, from a literal sense the bible is flat out false through joshua, and highly exaggerated until about 1 Samuel.
1) Why do you say the origin story is false? Based on what evidence? Why do you say never? Where is your smoking gun? Is it no pig bones? Egypt not talking about slaves, or a military defeat? Note the OT smoking gun is the Merneptah Stele places the Jews at same time and place the bible places them -that gets us to about 1200BC.
2) Disagee with "Brutally Conquered Canann" .It is not a dominant take over but a constant struggle, battles, intermarriage, idol worship and struggles with the other tribes all the way from Joshua Judges, Samuel, Kings- through Saul (250-300 years?). Also mixed bag on the battles, they won some, lost, walked into other section of the promised land with no battles (hornets driving out their enemies). No religious symbols the Jews used to distinquish themselves example- no Christian crosses. In short they are just fighting for survival.
3) Question- if it was a myth- why say you come from slaves? If I am making up history, why say this? Answer- because it was probably true.
4) Thanks for giving some credit to the historical accuracy of OT at least up to King David. What I find interesting is you give credit on OT being somewhat accurate up until the point and then once there is lacking historical evidence/details and then you jump to it is false/myth. Seems if they are accurate for 1000 years they might be accurate for at least another 250-300 years?
That being said, there are multiple books of the OT, these books are group together (tell the continous story) but also stand on their own. Each have unique styles, authors and audiences. Example: the book of Judith (in Catholic Bible) is pretty crazy and over the top, not at all historically accurate.
Quote:
It's not just missing evidence. As has been stated frustratingly many times there is very good evidence that the events in the exodus and Joshua did not happen. Evidence strong enough that you've had to acquiesce the books are at best a major exaggeration. And you should also note, that while fine to quote kitchen, it should be understood that his opinion is very much a minority one and the field has overwhelmingly abandoned the plausibility of the exodus for the reasons we've discussed before
. please send me the good evidence. Agreed Kitchen is not the only opinion, lots of opinions, speculation out there, because we are lacking hard evidence. This will change once we uncover something concrete.