Not Quite

12 Oct

We are sure you have heard about this recent discovery

Historical Evidence for the Exodus May Have Been Found

Well we have read about it and our title is our opinion. There are several reasons for our not accepting this possibility. We go through the article mixing our reasons with comment son other tidbits we find inside the article.

Experts are currently analyzing ruins near the River Jordan as potential proof that the story of the Exodus, is more than a legend and indeed a historical fact.

Only unbelievers consider the Exodus a legend. if you gather what facts we have and look at them closely, you would see that there is enough evidence to prove the biblical account true.

According to U.K. Daily Express, a United Kingdom media outlet, archaeologists generally agree that the Israelites were natives of Canaan, which contradicts the account in the Biblical book of Exodus.

Yes there are some and maybe it is quite a large group. Yet, scholarly beliefs do not dictate history or historical events. Israel Finkelstein is one such archaeologist but he cannot provide any evidence to support that theory. What they have found is evidence for a large influx of people around the time of the Exodus. But archaeologists being who they are, do not accept the evidence.

Archaeologists Ralph K. Hawkins and David Ben-Shlomo have now found some evidence in the Jordan Valley site of Khirbet el-Mastarah, which they believe are remnants of ruins from a nomadic people who they believe to be the Hebrews coming from Egypt.

Archaeological belief also doesn’t prove an historical event either. This is one of our reasons why we reject their theory. The Israelites were not building any buildings during the Exodus. They were given marching orders and had to conquer the land first. Plus, the wandered continuously for 40 years. They did not stop to build anything. Then, they moved from the Exodus to the conquering stage and attack Jericho. No building was done.

We have not proved that these camps are from the period of the early Israelites, but it is possible,” noted Ben-Shlomo.

This is leading into another reason why we reject their theory. It would be impossible to link those ruins to the ancient Israelites of the Exodus.

he Christian Post reports that the archaeologists found stone ruins and pottery fragments at the site and were able to preliminarily date them to a period of time between the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 B.C.) and the Iron Age (1200–1000).

The dating is moot. It may give us a ballpark figure but the pottery may come after the conquest or from the people living in the area when the Israeites arrived. This is another reason we reject the theory. KA Kitchen wrote in his book On The Reliability of the OT that the Israelites were expecting to be in the promised land very soon after leaving Egypt. He said that it is highly doubtful that the Israelites took heavy pottery with them. Desert travel, whether for a short time or long time does not facilitate carrying heavy equipment or kitchen ware.

Especially when the Israelites could make more once they settled in the new land.

Within a range of just a couple of miles, we may be able to see the evolution of early Israel from a domestic-scale culture [at Khirbet el-Mastarah] to a political-scale culture [at Khirbet ‘Auja el-Foqa].”

No, not really. But nice try. There are just too many mitigating factors that come into play before that could be established. So  given the reasons above, we still say not quite. The archaeologists may have come close but they do not get a cigar. Those ruins and pottery do not tie into the Exodus.


6 responses to “Not Quite

  1. Jeremy Jones

    October 12, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    First there is no evidence of an exodus or of a factual person named Moses.
    Secondly, nomads and Bedouins do not have permanent shelters, the exodus is about a people fleeing not putting down roots in the desert and building homes.


    • theologyarchaeology

      October 13, 2018 at 8:18 am

      Yes there is for both. it is called the Bible and we take the bible by faith. Evidence is not needed. Faith is where you believe God and take him at his word

      • Jeremy Jones

        October 17, 2018 at 1:20 pm

        If I am to quote modern biblical scholarship, the Bible is more of a biographical book for the faithful, but not for factual historical use. Again quoting Ehrman: most of the NT books are Pseudepigraphical text, that is books written not by the stated authors, but anonymous Greek scribes.
        Cofion (regards)

        • theologyarchaeology

          October 17, 2018 at 9:07 pm

          Bart Ehrman has never been right about anything concerning the Bible. I have read his books, listened to his lectures and even watched some of his debates. he has no evidence to support his statements

          • Jeremy Jones

            October 18, 2018 at 9:09 am

            Ehrman is not the only modern scholar, there are numerous scholar past and present that are like minded and on the same wavelength as Ehrman and many Christian blog sites who are now confirming what the likes of Ehrman and Metzger are saying. If you have read his book you will see that he get other highly respectable biblical scholars to check and add their own comment before publishing.
            And on Paul you should read what the German scholars (Baur and Tübingen School of theology) have been and are saying of him. Check out Jewish-Christianity by Hans-Joachim Schoeps.
            Cofion (regards)

  2. theologyarchaeology

    October 18, 2018 at 9:26 am

    It is clear that you do not understand the difference between true and false teaching. I am well aware of what is going on in the academic world. You seem to be confused and think that agreeance equals truth. You would be in error

%d bloggers like this: