"Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them." ~ Daryl Zero
Well, after the _Yom Kippur War,_ which lasted from October 6th - 25th 1973, the Sinai Peninsular (which is where any 'Exodus' would have taken place) mostly remained in Israeli hands until April 26, 1982. During those years, Jewish archeologists made massive efforts to identify artefacts in that area associated with the Exodus. Result - _NOTHING._
That's probably because Sinai is actually probably located in modern Saudi Arabia despite longstanding tradition. The story makes way more sense and you can follow their trail of landmarks much easier if you don't assume they lingered in the so-called Sinai peninsula.
Sinai being in what we call today the Sinai Peninsula dates back to Constantines mother having a dream identifying that as the location. Not a very reliable foundation if you ask me
@@racingace9959 Because a couple of million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years would have left traces. Kennedy Shaw, in his book _The Long Range Desert Group,_ talks about exploring the Western Desert between the wars, and running across the remains of Roman camps, right on the surface of the desert. If a small group of Romans left traces, then two million or more Israelites would have left traces.
The ultimate problem is that their faith is based on faith. They're looking at the front of the puzzle box and telling everyone that the puzzle looks like that... never having put it together.
When I began studying history as an undergraduate I promised myself that I'd never allow my personal beliefs and desires to get in the way of the truth of an historical event. When I got to graduate school, the first required class was all about how to evaluate evidence and even spent a significant amount of time answering the question of what history even was. When I wrote my thesis on religion and the Founding Fathers I discovered some things that didn't jibe with my prior beliefs about some people and I had to stop believing those things. When it comes to the Exodus I'm extremely bothered that professional historians are afraid to come out and state in no uncertain terms that the biblical exodus simply did not happen and moreover, it's an absurd notion. The only reason any time is even spent on this topic is because billions of people believe nonsense. If this was a story written in almost any other book it wouldn't get a second thought from professional historians. There is a bias here. The bias is that it isn't history.
+Ed Gloss When I started reading Egyptian history, I knew the exodus couldn't have happened. Especially when they found the pyramid builders village. They found a ton of scrolls, they contained songs, poems, complaints about their wives divorcing them, them divorcing their wives, etc. You know what they didn't find? Oh, all our first born children died last night.
The Cynical Christian how did you manage to translate the Ipuwer Papyrus? So far it is not successfully translated. Nor can you say that over 2000+ Egyptian Cursive hieroglyphics are successfully translated. No claimed Egyptologist successfully used any language whether it is the Demotic alphabet, Heirotic alphabet, Greek alphabet or even Coptic alphabet can translate the cursive hieroglyphs. Not one. Because the characters by letters does not the symbols or graphemes, general principles of letters that represent phonemes and yllabaries (in which each character represents a syllable) and logographies (in which each character represents a word, morpheme, or semantic unit). Show me how any hieroglyph is successfully deciphered because all accredited historian depends upon the Certain Philippus which that individual is unknown. No one knows of him or anything for that matter. Because Thomas Young (scientist) Egyptologist claimed that he successfully translated the hieroglyphs and Jean-François Champollion also claimed to translate the cursive hieroglyphics. Which they used the heiroglythica which identifying Horapollo with Horus himself, or with a pharaoh (debatable in itself) And the Heiroglythica books profess to be a translation from an Egyptian original into Greek by a certain Philippus, of whom nothing is known. The Certain Philippus has no archeological, geographical, topographical, chronological and even historical valid accounts. Furthermore
The Cynical Christian Now when we see the demotic alphabet, as I mentioned, it consist of only twenty nine characters, the Greek alphabet also consist of twenty four characters, the heirotic alphabet also consist of twenty four and the Coptic alphabet consist of thirty one alphabetical characters, bare in mind that almost half of the demotic translation is wrong, but continuing forward. How did any one of all these so claimed translations deciphered over 2000+ characters of the Egyptian hieroglyphs Using any languages and text that match or even equate the same characteristics of the cursive hieroglyphics. Because if we see the origin or foundation of the alphabet, An alphabet is a standard set of letters (basic written symbols or graphemes) that is used to write one or more languages based upon the general principle that the letters represent phonemes (basic significant sounds) of the spoken language. This is in contrast to other types of writing systems, such as syllabaries. Substantial, irrefutable evidence to how you manage to believe or conclude by the writing system of my people saying that the "Israel" or "Israelites" are within the writing of that stone or any place using what Method and techniques and authenticity. How did that claimed scholar manage to read that, how do you know that he did not just made that up. I want evidence to this. And if you claim it was the Greek text/language that understood this, scholars also admit that the Greek language is an unspoken language. There is no linguistic evidence to this.
The Cynical Christian And if indeed the Egyptian language is translated by the Greeks, they need to account for the additional 1,976+ characters in the Egyptian hieroglyphics they have to hold into account. So that being said, each Greek letter must hold at least 82 different meanings to account for the one thousand nine hundred and seventy six plus hieroglyphs and which until today new hieroglyphs are being discovered until this day.
Anything remotely roundish is 100% proof that the story is true. But where is all the heavy metal from the wheels, shields, weapons, etc.? Just floated away?
*QUESTIONS:* - Ipuwar wasn't a slave - You didn't answer the hieroglyphics found in the time Rameses - How do you go about researching a topic when only secularists have overpopulated the genre with their opinion? - You didnt answer the evidence in Avaris - You intentionally intertwined different subjects and dates that you think would contradict but have no connection to one another such as "dating Adam" as you say. As well as saying you have to move all of history just for the later date to be accommodated for. - There obviously won't be evidence for anything Pre-Flood as all remote evidence would have been destroyed or removed especially when the continental drift occured - There is evidence for both events prior to the Exodus (plagues and slavery) and evidence post-exodus (destruction of Jericho, conquering of Canaan) - No one colors in their personal and cultural evidence. List people have done so and included tragedy etc. - Assumptions that religious people are complete idiots and aren't credible - Where is this 12 and 40 coming from? That only appears in prophecy and a few other exceptions in Jesus's case and the 40 years of the Exodus. - There would be very little evidence of their journey because the Israelites were nomads and never planted crops or made cities either. - You contradicted yourself. You said the dates did not matter than went onto to talks about the dates more - You don't need complete stories, heck evolution is not a undisputable school of thought. That is what the entire documentary is made out of, patterns, there are still questions, but the puzzle are there. And you can leave the rest to an unbiased Occam's razor To dismiss all the evidence is almost impossible, you just didn't supply a pleasing answer. Sure great questions and analysis but your analysis was less than adequate due to the lack of evidence and plausible errors.
"There would be very little evidence of their journey because the Israelites were nomads and never planted crops or made cities either." Forty years to make a 200-300 mile trek and nobody died? pots never broke? or tools? wheels never came apart? animals were never slaughtered? Forty years and tents never wore out, their pegs never replaced? Where are the innumerable quail bones? The broken tablets of the Law? Whatever happened to the Brazen Serpent? "There obviously won't be evidence for anything Pre-Flood as all remote evidence would have been destroyed or removed especially when the continental drift occured." There was flood ?
Risk I'd say evolution is pretty darn indisputable. There has never been a good piece of evidence against evolution. The changes to the Theory of Evolution have been nothing more than tweaks. When scientists find fossils, they often aren't surprised because they predict them using the theory of evolution ahead of time. Also, to your question about how to research a topic overpopulated with bias, you can use any number of scientifically proven methods. Cross-examining, or even just looking for logical fallacies. Secularism is propelled by doubt and science, which have many methods of eliminating bias. If it showed an answer you liked to not necessarily be true, it may have been biased. If secularists are being biased, they aren't being very good secularists (at least in that moment). And finally, whether or not his answer is satisfactory is unimportant. What matters is whether it's true. Sometimes, "I don't know," is the most honest answer you can give. Also, Matt KNOWS that religious people aren't stupid. He has gone on record saying this many times, because he used to be religious.
It's a straight-line distance of 300 km. That would take two months at best, walking 8 hrs a day. They would not have spend all of every day traveling. They didn't go by straight line. The route they took was probably around 1500 km. They had to transport belongings with them, along with the aged and young children. Not all flat terrain either, certainly not paved. There were also 140 000 of them. They would have had to move as fast as their slowest person.
@@allanmoorhead6546 the point you're missing is it's not possible for them to have wandered the desert lost for 40 fucking years unless god is literally incompetent. Had they followed the coast they'd be there in weeks at most.
The nature of fantasy and reality denial works extremely well to protect a sense of self, give purpose and meaning while protecting against harsh realities of being a mortal, biological minds barely able to maintain psychological coherence. The drive to insulate the mind from undesirable introspection, metacognition and knowledge formation gives a certain shape to fantasies that neatly fit into our personal psychological landscape. The comprehensive nature of organized religion appeals to minds wanting to secure psychological protection at the expense of an accurate mental model of reality.
Good video. Half of this video can be summarized by this one minute ~ 22:59 - 23:53. I didn’t watch it all but you did a good job of analyzing this movie and the claim of the Exodus
Erm, no. How would you plan to show something happened (in history, at least), if you don't even have rough coordinates of when and where that event happened? :)
sorsocksfake There would need to be some evidence, my point is that all the evidence for it is all across the board, because it's probably like alot of biblical stories they were made up decades/centuries later by people that didn't know the actual facts of the time just using the stuff they know. There is quiet a few biblical stories that are like this, they supposedly take place around 0 BC when jesus was born, but all the terms for cities and such were based around 70AD.
That is kind of the point of the Patterns of Evidence documentary: Was there ever a time where we have evidence of events even remotely matching the narrative? Turns out there are some. But then we must decide if it is conclusive or even good evidence.
Uhm, I've recently learned that the Egyptians were ruling the Canaanite regions around 1456 BC, so I suspect that the supposed "exodus" (in which the Israelites supposedly went into Egypt with only 70 people but came out with several hundred thousand people, & somehow failed to find their way along the 250 miles or so between the Nile delta & the Canaanite lands) never took place, but was instead a set of tales told as a series of insults to the Egyptians - & their gods. Though I can't quite figure out where the volcanic eruption fits in - it certainly didn't take place on the Sinai peninsula, & probably wasn't a volcano of the Harrat ar Rahah volcanic field in Saudi Arabia, as that field, though the closest to the Mt. Sinai peninsula area & of a relatively recent eruptive age, is over 300 miles from the Nile Delta as the crow flies & is closer to 415+ miles from said delta by a land route - nearly twice the distance into the Canaanite lands ("Israel"), too. I suspect that volcanic eruption took place east of the Golan Heights area at some point prior to the Egyptian occupation of Canaan, & it was incorporated into the later tales of the alleged humiliation of the Egyptians with absolutely no regard for its actual time of occurrence.
A pretty good documentary I watched is Buried Secrets of the Bible. It gets into the evidence there is, and isn't, for the Exodus, and gives a different perspective on what some experts think actually happened. It also gets into evidence, or lack of it, for other things afterwards that the Bible claims happened, like the conquest of Canaan, king David, etc.
Patterns of Evidence-Exodus presents incredible evidences that most people are unaware of. The claims by experts that no evidence exists of Israel in Egypt is based upon their guess of when the Exodus may have occurred. However, if they would simply set aside the accepted chronology for a moment, they would be unable to simply dismiss the evidences. But again, because these evidences do not appear in the time period that they expect, then they simply dismiss the facts as evidence. I highly recommend viewing it and making your own decision.
I watched this and I was impressed by it. The atheist man simply believes there's no God. He saw the movie but his bias prevented him from seeing the truth.
There also seems to be a problem with how time may have been measured then. Either there are discrepancies, or humans lived for hundreds of years instead of 80 years.
+mka2qg2s Great question. If you really want a brief answer it is this: Archbishop Ussher and Ken Ham are wrong: the world was not created 4004bc or thereabouts, because the genealogies of Genesis chapters 5 and 11 are telescoped genealogies, meaning there are gaps in them. The writers of the Bible genealogies did not follow modern requirements for a genealogy: the purpose for genealogies was different and completeness of generations was not needed, or desired. So the creation was earlier. However, Abraham died at 175 years of age (Genesis 25:7), and Isaac at 180 (Gen 38:28) and these are ages which suggest the era in which men lived to much greater ages was not hundreds of thousands of years before Abraham and Isaac. So it would also be a mistake to add hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years to these chronologies. The building of the pyramids surely required a significant population in Egypt. The Great Cheops pyramid was built around 2570 bc. My own view is that the Bible cannot be used to determine a date for the creation, it can only be used to produce an approximate date: I go for a date somewhere between 10,000 bc and 60,000 bc. For a more complete development of this viewpoint see:- www.reasons.org/files/articles/The-Genesis-Genealogies.pdf by Dr John Millam.
I'm an atheist in the process of rereading Exodus, and this is a very interesting video. I feel so sorry for people who spend their years basing their historical "knowledge" on numbers given in genealogies of 900 y.o. people mentioned in the Bible.
@@boblarson7694 It might indicate that Rholee baby might have a conscience for just a little bit of honesty that is not required if one becomes an apologist. I know you might not believe me, but houses in my street all have odd numbers. Unless you go to each letterbox, I put a paper bag on them to cover the even numbers. It could be Rholee sold books and videos to the gullible. www.debunking-christianity.com/2016/01/why-david-rohls-response-fails.html
Regardless of when it was supposed to have happened, it would have left physical evidence, and, to my knowledge, no physical evidence has ever been found.
I look at myself as a religious Darwinist. After seeing PoE, it struck me that everyone's problem relates to the concept of time. Creationists and their 7 days theory based on A literal read. And Egyptologists based on their views on the chronology. There is clearly ample evidence for the existence of a Semitic people in the Nile delta before the time of Ramses. But as it inconsistent with accepted wisdom representing the life work of acclaimed historians and scientists, the evidence is ignored, discounted or dissed.... the irony is the funniest thing ever - by vigorously defending the old chronology because they're too lazy to contemplate or process the implications of different data, the scientists have become dogmatics. The "evidence led" fundamentalist agnostic has turned part of his science into a religion, because the basis for a part of his thesis is his subjective interpretation and - dare I say it - belief... hahaha, you agnostic old school nerds take yourselves so seriously? Only 2 things can transcend space time - gravity and love. Go figure.
Well, I hope people watch the documentary. Dillahunty does make some good points. Yet, he complains about the oversimplification found within the documentary (which is correct, but, it's a documentary after all), while severely over simplifying the documentary. Dillahunty does not interact with the documentary very well. Most humorous is his attempt to decipher the maker of the documentary's intention as if he could know. My conclusion from watching the documentary was that archeology cannot prove the Exodus, but it does not disprove it as well.
Simply Separate the Old Testament from the New Testament and the pattern of evidence is more clear that these 2 books are not quite connected. These 2 books are seemingly and weakly coupled together.
I recommend the the book A test of time by egyptologist David Rohl. He has a phd from university of London. He is an agnostic and has no stake in proving the Bible but he does really manage to put some of the stories of the Bible in a historical context . I think he was used as an expert consulted for the movie.
One could more easily argue that the entire "Books of Moses" were invented during the Babylonian exile of the Judean aristocracy (yep, that is what was done in those days, not an entire nation brought to the capital city)
During the 1967 6-Day war, the Jewish military took possession of the Sinai Peninsula. The territory was not returned to Egypt until 1982 - adequate time for several teams of Jewish archeologists to have serious attempts at finding evidence for the biblical Exodus. As I understand it, plenty of pottery fragments and other detritus were found; but nothing significant from the period in question.
+Adam Mangler I just thought that I might add the fact of the Babylonian Exile. We know this happened, not because of (rather confused) biblical records of the time (Nebuchadnezzar II _et al_) but because detailed Babylonian records also exist. It is possible that Exodus and Babylon became rather bound up together, given the method of oral histories lending inaccuracies to the history. General article here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
David Rohl's proposal to revise ancient chronology actually began from anomalies in the internal chronology of Egypt. Similarly, Peter James' "Centuries of Darkness" seeks to provide evidence from the relative chronologies of Egypt and the Near East that there has been a 250 year mis-dating of Egypt. So the case didn't actually begin with an effort to prove biblical historicity. These scholars would suggest that the evidence is indeed overwhelming, others would disagree. Are round numbers a reason for suspicion? I don't see how if one is a believer- one would expect, if God ordains history, that He could ordain it in such patterns. That said, the case for the synchronization of biblical history with a revised chronology only depends on the approximate accuracy of Israelite chronology, not its exactness. Even without the 480 year date provided in the book of Kings, it is very difficult to compress the history of the judges into about 200 years, as would be required for a 1260 BC date for the invasion. The chronology of Genesis 5 and 11 doesn't have to do with Rohl's proposal, since this deals with the chronology of the antediluvian and immediate postdiluvian world, whereas Rohl's chronology has to do with the period of the slavery and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. I think you exaggerate the possibility of discovering a pattern whether or not such a pattern really exists. After all, Egyptian civilization only collapsed suddenly twice in its history- in the first intermediate period and in the second intermediate period. If the exodus happened (Exodus 10 declares that Egypt is destroyed, so proposals outside of this time period are impossible), a pattern must be found in one of these two places. Overall, however, I think this was a fairer assessment than many. Folks shouldn't take one documentary's word for it, but pursue this subject for themselves. Much has been published on this. The book to start with is James' "Centuries of Darkness."
And David Rohl is a "real" expert in this field and qualified to discuss the topic. Not to mention that he is agnostic as well, which I think lends to his credibility.
Kabane What was the definition of 'a year' in biblical times? My understanding is that our current annual cycle is only a few hundred years old. Meaning the bible, as a historical record, if it had not been adjusted to our current meaning of 'year' would hsve been using a completely different unit of measurement.
@@moimeself1088 A year was 365 days. Because of the quarter day at the end of every year, without leap years it can create problems over the long term but there's no question that the year was known to be 365 days: after all, it's not like the seven-day week, where there's nothing in nature which correlates with it. The 365 day year is based on objective measurements common to many ancient civilizations.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton look up the history of calendars and time keeping. You're making declarative statements about the 365 day year when there was no such consensus at the time. I can't imagine people who thought the sun revolves around the earth would measure time in terms of a solar year, as we do today.
Matt, you don't believe because you don't want to believe, all the rest is commentary. I'll pray for you that the eyes of your heart and mind be opened, God bless! :o)
Matt, I would like to begin by saying I enjoyed your effort at being objective on the topic of the film Patterns Of Evidence. Good work. In watching your presentation I was put in essentially the same position with regard to your train of reasoning that you were put in with regard to the movie-makers train of reasoning, just as I would expect someone reading what I am saying in response to you to do the same to me should they have the same level of interest in what I am saying that I have in what you have said (and you had in what the film makers proposed). Here’s my take on your take. It seems your primary issue with the filmmakers is that they, in your words, cherry pick facts to support their train of reasoning. They do not address facts that conflict with their train of reasoning anywhere near enough to generate confidence in you that they are handing out an objective position of the topic of the Exodus event. Here is my issue with this issue you raise. 1. First of all, cherry picking is how humans begin the process of any kind of research. The thing that makes their research science is that they thoroughly vet the facts and the reasoned path and the conclusions drawn from them. Cherry picking is a human psychological necessity. It should not be raised as a proof of subjectivity. Leaving one’s research un-vetted is proof of subjectivity. 2. Whether or not the filmmakers achieved the level of self-vetting of their reasoning path or not, it is also clear that there are camps of viewpoints that all humans to one extent or another form into. We are a herd animal. We form up into groups. Academicians form up. Religious people form up. You do. I do. We all form up into groups of people who agree with our view of things. Whether we allow this instinctual drive to color our research is the question. 3. It seems clear to me that there is plenty of subjective, herd instinct-driven subjectivity on all sides of this research. Because the position and influence of the Christian Church has for so long been a threat to the freedom of thought I the academic world, there is an understandable (and I would say, a still terribly unresolved emotional issue with) unconscious reactionary state of mind I those who see themselves as being academicians. And this reactionary impulse in academicians results in them unconsciously forming into a school of thought (a group viewpoint) that is afraid to weigh facts presented by those they view outside of their camp. For clear and overwhelming evidence of this reactionary subjective mindset I academia, refer to the Immanuel Velikovsky incident. Apart from the validity or lack there of Velikovsky’s reasoned arguments (some of which, interestingly enough are central to your question of establishing an evidence chain for the dating of Ancient Middle Eastern History), the highly, enormously emotional backlash (I believe an official attempt at book burning, or the academic version of book burning {the black-mailing of a prominent publisher into giving up the rights to V’s books, while they were still best sellers}establish h quite effectively that there is deeply rooted emotional bias within the academic world). 4. Thus, I would suggest that your implied belief in the objectivity of the academic establishment, is unfounded and their (in not also your own) emotional reaction to the probable subjectivity of alternative schools of thought (in this case, religious ones), represent a clear case of projection of their own un-faced subjectivity. We humans are famous for our capacity to project what we do not want to see in ourselves onto those we view as other. 5. On a practical level, this issue of projected subjectivity on the part of Western academicians, has led to an unfortunate suppression of a terribly useful part of the process of research, intuition (and by extension, the unconscious mind). We have, in the West, come to view the insertion of intuition into the path of reason, as the worst of all possible things. This is a reactionary construct that Western academicians will need to resolve. Many of the worlds greatest scientific discoveries were aided greatly, or even pivotally, by an unconsciously generated event, such as a dream or a moment of un-reasoned insight. 6. I liked and admired your objective position that regardless of the possible subjectivity of the filmmakers further interest in this topic is warranted. This is important just because we are not really ever going to find a group of humans researchers who are completely free of unconscious emotionally generated agendas. We will need to be able to set aside our defensive resistance to alternative schools of thought, and even look for them periodically to provide us with fresh perspectives on the topics we have been researching. We are a highly emotional species. We each have to factor this subjectivity into our own personal quest for objective reality, not ignore it or deny it. 7. It is probably incumbent upon me, given your own forthcoming transparency about your world view, to say that my own world view is that of a believer. I should also state that my belief has empowered me (and not limited me) to question everything, including whether sacred texts are viable sources of information. If it turned out, for example, that they were proved to be complete rubbish that would not change my beliefs at all. My most durable beliefs are constructed on my own experiences, not on dogma. I constantly question my own viewpoints, deeply. And I do because I feel emotionally safe to do so. My spiritual experiences have been primarily responsible for this security (My childhood religious culture could not provide this security, in as much as it based so much of its belief system on received dogma). 8. I would recommend you look at Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos. You won’t agree with a lot of what he proposes, but his approach was that of a secular Psychiatrist, not that of a religionist, and the fact of the emotional reaction the American academic world had (and still today has) against anything relating to Velikovsky, in itself argues for the objectivity-loving person to look into it. There is a wealth of historical research (by academically accepted historians and sources) in that book you won’t find anywhere else. Oh, and when and if you do look into Velikovsky’s work, note the interesting emotional issues that arise inside you at the prospect of doing so (I assume you will google Veliokovsky first, and when you do, you will immediately wade into the emotional backlash still present today with respect to V.). Remember, you, too, belong to an ideological school of thought/herd. This will have to be accounted for by you if you are going to not be biased in your research.
Blindly projecting your ideological blinders on your interlocutor is not actually refuting the points he made. Neither is making broad and unsubstantiated insinuations of subjectivity and mistakes on the part of the historical consensus and the research it's based upon.
These are typically excellent videos, Matt. You're not, as you concede, an expert (and neither am I) and the one thing with which I'd sort of quibble is your comments on the methodology of the film. Trying to place the biblical narrative in history by looking for patterns of events that match it may superficially appear a solid idea but it's actually starting with a conclusion and working backwards to try to prove it. Pretty much the polar opposite of any sort of scientific approach. And you cover that--it was just that initial assessment that poked me a bit. We can pretty much say unequivocally that the literal biblical Exodus narrative never happened at all. The text describes the departing cohort as consisting of 700,000 men of fighting age. The women would outnumber them and the children would outnumber both adult men and women combined (probably significantly). There would be some old people in there too (though not many, because people didn't live very long), The total number departing would be 2 million to 5 million people. Depending on what period in which one wants to try to set the Exodus narrative (and the range), that's anywhere from 1/3 of the total estimated population of Egypt to more than the total estimated population. By even the most conservative estimate, the result of that sort of mass exist would be absolutely disastrous and the effects would be felt for centuries. There's absolutely nothing in the archaeological record to support that sort of mass exit. There's nothing in it to support any large number of Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt in the first place. Relying simply on some math, the text describes the departing cohort as walking in ranks of five. If we allow for close ranks--a yard between them--that would mean a train of people 230-570 miles long. By the most conservative estimate, that's nearly the distance to Canaan; by the least, it's enough to stretch to Canaan and back and get a good start on a second round-trip. The text describes the cohort taking a longer route out of fear of a fight with the Philistines, though they outnumbered that entire nation and would dwarf its military. The pharaoh of the exodus is said to have built the city of Ramesses and if that's accepted, that means it was Ramesses II, a.k.a. Ramesses the Great, who ruled from 1279-1213 BC. As the "great" part suggests, the rule of Ramesses II was a golden age for Egypt, its historical high point. Exactly the opposite of the disastrous time the biblical narrative would suggest. Other problems: the city of Ramesses (or Pi-Ramses) was described in the texts as a store-city built of mud-brick, rather than stone. The city was discovered in the '60s; it was built of stone, not of mud-brick, and it wasn't any store-city--it was constructed as the capitol of Lower Egypt, which it remained for two centuries. One runs into the same problem with setting the exodus c. 1450 BC. That places it during the reign of Thutmose III, another period of spectacular prosperity, not disaster. Under this king, the Egyptians conquered Canaan and Syria and ruled them throughout this period. This unbelievably huge nation of Hebrews was said to have stayed for decades at the Kadesh-Barnea oasis; the oasis has been excavated down to the virgin soil; they were never there. The conquest of Canaan is said to have been accomplished via a lightning military campaign led by Joshua. In reality, the Canaanite city-states in question went into slow decline and collapse over a period of nearly a thousand years. The consensus view among the experts today is that what came to be known as the Hebrews are the descendants of the Canaanites. And so on. This is why it's best to let the history sort itself out from what can be learned, rather than trying to impose a predetermined conclusion on it then work backwards to try to "prove" that conclusion. I don't think there's any reason to assume this was "their version of their history" either, as opposed to some fabricated "history" that was imposed upon them later. Elements of both the creation myth and most of the flood narrative from Genesis were derived from preexisting Babylonian/Sumerian tales during the period of the Babylonian conquest. There's no reason to believe all of this isn't just some concoction imposed upon them at some point by an elite.
what the fuck you on about.. whether you start at the beginning and work forward with the evidence or start from the end and work backwards with the evidence both ways should produce the same conclusions.. the rest of what you wrote no doubts writes a bunch of drivel too deny it based on your stupid comment
Another piece of non-evidence for the Exodus is the complete lack, in the archaeological record, of Egyptian gold and other currencies, being sent out of the country to other nations in large quantities to buy food. According to the story, Egypt suffers multiple plagues that basically wipe out their food supply. Okay, in that scenario, we should have evidence of Egyptian merchants leaving the country in large numbers, going to other nations, spending vast quantities of gold or whatever currency they used and then bringing back as much food as they could. This hasn't been found. No other nations at the time recorded panicked Egyptian traders demanding food and willing to pay anything for it.
You weren't listening to the documentary when you watched it. They weren't modifying the histories of all the surrounding nations to match up with the bible. But rather, they were modifying Egypt's history to match up with the histories of all the surrounding nations (Greece, Syria, Nubia, etc.). And when you do that, it just so happens, coincidentally, that Egypt's history matches up with the Bible as well. Why? Because Israel is also one of the surrounding nations. So when you alter Egypt's timeline to match up with the timelines of all the other surrounding nations, then it also lines up with Israel's history as well. Makes sense to me. I think you should have waited for the DVD release of this film and maybe watched it 2 or 3 times before making a video review about it, because you obviously were not paying close enough attention when you saw it in theaters.
If we apply the same logic used in criticising “Patterns Of Evidence” then how does an atheist justify atheism as anything other than cherry-picking things they want to believe while ignoring contrary evidence?
Science has two key ‘laws’ that have never been disproven, or even realistically challenged: 1. Nothing (neither time, space, energy, matter, life, information, or action) can be created, destroyed or occur without an adequate precursor: hence all necessary precursors must have always been here - eternally, 2. Everything is running down to inevitable wearing out towards death, extinction, decay and universal heat death: hence all entities discussed in 1. can not have been here eternally and there must have been a beginning to them all - in violation of ALL known laws of science.
In other words, Science can NOT answer the question of origins, and atheists ignore that inconvenient truth.
Science by its very nature can’t answer the question of origins. So we have three alternatives: a) Faith that we can safely ignore the issue; or b) Faith that a 'god' outside of time and space created the universe, life, the ‘laws’ of science, and information (coded information being the key to life); or, c) Faith that nothing turned into everything and life for no known reason against all known laws of science.
Now Option a) is cop-out; Option b) at least proposes a prime cause of universe and life which is compatible with known laws of science; Option c) is arguably irrational blind faith.
So why should I believe the opinion of an atheist who apparently subscribes to Option c)?
Did humans ever live for 900+ years? If God created everything ‘very good’, as Genesis says, then there were no deleterious mutations in the beginning and indeed the Bible does not ban brother-sister marriages until Moses’ time.
Further, when scientists actually measure human mutation rates and work out when our common population founders lived: A. They date “y-Chromosome Adam” at about 4,500 years ago (that agrees with the Biblical date for Noah’s flood, noting that, according to the Bible, all men alive today descended from Noah). So they date Noah, not Adam! B. They date “Mitochrondial Eve” about 6,000 years ago (that agrees with the Biblical date for creation, noting that Noah’s 3 daughter in-laws were on the Ark and would have accumulated 1,500 years-worth of mutation difference from Eve.
A key issue in mutation rates is that actual measured time-rates-of-mutations from known direct parent-son/daughter relationships are so high that all life is devolving towards extinction at such as fast rate that scientist have wondered “why we aren’t extinct 100-times over?”. One obvious possibility is that life is of recent origin.
When it comes to many of these athiests, and when it comes done to even the final judgement, it will be clear that the only reason one didn't believe is because they kept choosing not too.
Our Y-MRCA is dated at between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago, and the mt-MRCA sits roughly between 100,000 and 230,000 years ago, depending on who you ask. You’re also lying about mutation rates and extinction, but points for making an argument I haven’t seen before.
@Luke Barron Luke, you need to read up on it a tad more rather than commenting on things 'you haven't seen before' and apparently have not researched in depth. The circa 4,500 and 6,000 years ago dates are based on actual measurements of Y and mtDNA DNA differences over time between direct family linkages of real know individuals that occurred over known times and then compared with actual measurements of other families, with different Y and mtDNA variants, and measuring their DNA changes over time, and then extrapolating back to find a date for 'Adam' & 'Eve'. That's real experimental science with the minimum of assumptions. In contrast, the 100-300K year dates you cite are not based on known family linkage and known timescales: rather, they are based on ASSUMED separation times between Y and mitochondial DNA differences between individuals with NO KNOWN family relationships and only using ASSUMED time separation in genetic linkage. So if you assume a long separation time you get an older date for Adam/Eve. That's not reliable science, it simply affirms the supposition. creation.com/search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Y-chromasone%20Adam&gsc.page=1 has a brief explanation.
This review or assessment is HILARIOUS! Man, if atheists can only apply this scrutiny and reasoning to evolution and radiometric dating and "transitional" fossils and species drastically changing over time, etc,, etc. But they don't and would rather not because their worldview would crumble right before them.
+MosheMYY M We do. You just choose to ignore that fact. When any new evidence is brought up in any of those fields every expert in that field attempts to falsify the evidence. If they can then it goes to the way side. Too bad for you ppl things like evolution stood up to the tests.
Man this was a waist of time. I came here looking for the "counter view" of the documentary like ... "semitic population found there has also been found at X." Or "That weird mini Pyramid" was actually X." ... but this whole video was droning on about the dates. The surprising material of the film is the findings and the sequence of them. The "Dates" was the contention as stated by the film. It just felt like this "Assessment" spent 30+ minutes leaving us with literally no more than after watching the doc.
This video is about how they presented a case for the date they preferred without showing the points against it, while for all other proposals they showed the points against. It's not just "droning on about the dates", it's about doubting everything but your preferred conclusion.
Another issue rarely discussed: during most of the proposed dates, Egypt was very strong relative to other kingdoms and very influential or dominant in Palestine, the region the Israelites were fleeing to.
Israel Finkelstein argues convincingly that the Exodus as written can't have happened because the story contains historical anachronisms that clearly date it to the eighth century BC . However, the Israelites could have gained the concept of an exodus as a result of the forced expulsion of the Hyksos, from ancient Egypt . This appears to have been a seminal event in the dispersion of Semitic peoples in Canaan .
i haven't seen this "documentary" but things i've heard indicate that they're pulling a fast one with the hyksos. which is just plain dishonest. the story COULD partly originate with the hyksos, but all archaeological indications are that israel arose during the bronze age collapse, out of canaan. most of the details of the story are anachronistic. the story CAN'T have happened as written.
The exodus is a myth, but there must be some explanation for the common perception of Israel coming out of the rest of the world. The hyksos hypothesis could have been mythologized.
Gary Allen It was probably an initially involuntary resettlement closer to the 14th century BCE, later embellished with a mythologized account of destruction by the Sea peoples - but with Joshua given credit. The whole thing was propagandized as a guided tour by the hand of a god.
uncleanunicorn What was the definition of 'a year' in biblical times? My understanding is that our current annual cycle is only a few hundred years old. Meaning the bible, as a historical record, if it had not been adjusted to our current meaning of 'year' would hsve been using a completely different unit of measurement.
They chose the dating based on when they found Jericho in ruins. From the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua. From there they put it together with moses coming out of the wilderness. So in real life there is a real Jericho which left in ruins. You also failed to mention the findings of Joseph tomb. Outside historical writing of Jewish historian who even names the pharaoh that raised moses. Another significant thing about this the canal which named bahr Yosef ( waterway of Joseph) the name given by the people of that region from memory.
There is no Jospeh tomb. They baselessly assert that a semitic builiding was Joseph's palace with 12 graves. In reality semitic =/= Jewish and there were more than 12 graves. "Another significant thing about this the canal which named bahr Yosef ( waterway of Joseph) the name given by the people of that region from memory." False. It's the Arabic name given millennia after it was constructed. There's no evidence it had anything to do with the Exodus. Before the Arabic conquest it was simply called the canal, great canal or canal of Moeris: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahr_Yussef
He's misrepresenting the evidence discussed in the film. They didn't just find "shepherds", they found evidence of non-Egyptian, Caananite-style burials and buildings, etc. The evidence for Joseph in Egypt is actually incredible. See additional material on it by David Rohl and the filmmaker here: ua-cam.com/video/Y-x55kIgheA/v-deo.html&feature=share (gets into it around 28 min in). This guy makes no mention on the evidence presented supporting Joseph, or the settlement at Avaris (other than the briefly mentioned shepherd idea) He also completely ignores the destruction of Jerico with the walls falling, and other Canaanite cities that match the Biblical account (just too early to fit the given dates). The Hyksos can just move in and settle in Avaris and take over Egypt without a fight. There are other benefits to shifting the timeline, the Greek dark age that doesn't make sense goes away, the Bronze Age collapse makes more sense, and Troy becomes a real event not long before Homer lived that played an important role in history including some of the marauding Sea Peoples. David Rohl goes on in other works to demonstrate evidence and parallels for kings Saul, David, and Solomon and other characters from the Biblical narrative--some by name. There was way more than he mentions. At least he could discuss all of the major patterns found instead of focusing on the most tenuous... He seems to be talking about this objectively, but the apparently deliberate ignorance of the other evidence discussed in the film makes everything else he says seem disingenuous. He's essentially doing what he claims the documentary does. He makes some good points but having a slightly more rounded approach would make his overall criticism more fair and feel more genuine.
He's delusional. I'm actually returning to Christianity and breaking up with my boyfriend because there's so much evidence pointing to the Bible being true that I just have to accept that it is.
I watched the whole documentary. It's very good. It successfully shows that there is a lot of hard evidence closely matching the Bible's account and also that there is enough uncertainty in dating of ancient Egyptian and also Caananite remains for this evidence for Exodus to potentially be dated in accordance with the Bible's chronology.
I truly don't like disagreeing with Matt - or the experts, one of whom I am not - but I have a problem with his assertion that we can't say that "It didn't happen". Technically, he's correct. But, there are bits and pieces that support events in Greek and Roman mythology, that Atlantis existed, that aliens built the pyramids, etc. I think that, until you can show me compelling evidence that something has actually happened, I am completely justified in saying that it didn't. Israeli archaeologists, who have been searching for hard evidence of Exodus for decades, have admitted that they can't find any proof. I will continue to say it didn't happen until someone, anyone, can provide hard evidence that it did. I just won't indulge "possibilities" that are used as "proof". Question: I've read the Bible many times, but I don't remember 40 years being given as a "generation". Is that in the Bible, or has it been applied TO the Bible? If we have applied it, how do we know that the Bible authors thought that 40 years was a generation? Given the much shorter lifespans - Methuselah notwithstanding - perhaps they saw a generation as being 20 years, or 12, or whatever. Just curious.
mikkj1 Off-hand, (I'm not going to look up the actual quote) but the Exodus story has God saying to the Israelities that they will wander the desert until the current generation has died out a.k.a. 40 years. Perhaps that's where the 40 years = 1 generation thing came from.
exodiathecoolone Thanks, I did a google search, and they're (as usual) a bit iffy about it. In one case, it's actually 100 years. The reason I'm curious is that the 6000 year "young Earth" date is based on "generations' in the bible. If, for instance, they thought (the ancients) that a generation was actually 20 years, then the age of the Earth would only be 3000 years. If they thought it was 15 years, it would be 2250, or around the time jesus was supposed to have been born. I couldn't find (in a limited search) any confirmation that 40 years was definitively what they thought. Edited to correct my math - it's still probably wrong, but you get the idea, hopefully.
mikkj1 Asserting something didn't happen is not the same as concluding something didn't happen. You don't need to assert something didn't happen to justifiably conclude something didn't happen. The problem is that many people don't realize that a conclusion based on fallacy is generally just an assertion they think has been concluded as reasonable. So when you point out fallacy they often refuse to admit they are standing on assertion, not a justified conclusion.
mikkj1 The bible just says that the people over a certain age would have to die first because they disobeyed God and were no longer able to go into the Promised Land. This took 40 years. Not that 40 years is a whole generation.
MsWhosoever 40 is a magical or mystic number to the early Jews, apparently. It is used when a considerable length of time is needed. Rained 40 days and 40 nights...wandered 40 years in the desert....Jesus fasted in the wilderness 40 days and nights...etc.
David Rohl is a British Egyptologist who has reinterpreted Egyptian history, creating an alternate chronology. Guess what? His new chronology makes all of the Old Testament historically accurate. Gee. I'm surprised the US evangelists haven't jumped all over his theory. Three books, and matching video docs. He's also on You Tube.
The problem with perfection is that nothing changes - no need. Without change, there can be no time. Other than the continual "And there was evening, and there was morning-the next day" - every day was like the last. Having been given access to the Tree of Life (Eternal Youth) the adam and the woman could have been in the Garden for 3 years or 3 million years without ever having been aware of the difference. It was the introduction of the serpent which provided that novelty from which thenceforth Time could be calculated - the same day, ironically, on which the couple were evicted, denied access to the Tree of Life and so, began to age.
The exodus did not happen. 1) The land of Canaan was under Egyptian rule at the time. This is well attested in archaeology, inscriptions and linguistics to the point of being accepted without controversy. The authors of Exodus are apparently unaware of this. So the Israelites left Egypt I, order to travel to Egyptian lands? 2)The bible says that the Israelites had an army of some 600,000 (larger than the Romans?!). This entails a overall population of at least 2.5 million. If they were to walk 8 abreast then as the front of the procession enters Canaan the end of the procession would still be in Egypt. How would they feed such a vast host? Where is the extra biblical evidence as none exists? A group that large should have left some sort of evidence. 3) The bible fails to mention any of the other known events of the bronze age collapse documented by Egyptian inscriptions and tablets to say nothing of the archaeology. Again, they are seemingly ignorant of events of the 13th century BCE. Ex: The arrival of multiple groups of "sea peoples". 4) The amarna letters document events of this time. They do not mention the Exodus but do describe events in Canaan in detail.Ex: the "apiru" 5) Many of the themes present in the exodus have parallels in Egyptian literature and poetry written centuries before the bible. See Spark's video on the Exodus. (the closest viable theory to the exodus is that of Friedman who posits that a small group of Levites migrated and assimilated into the Israelite/Canaanite population.) 6. The authors of exodus clearly had an agenda which makes land claims, fabricates an origin myth for the Israelites and establishes the levites as the most prominent tribe. The real value of exodus is that it shines light on the importation of YHWH into the Israelite pantheon likely from Mt Seir.
Jerad Clark I got some questions for you like How do you know that Egypt could do anything about losing there land if acording to the story itself the Egyptian army took a horrificly hard blow and I know this sounds very superstitious but wouldn't it make more sense if God wanted to hide the evidence of her doings because If she didn't it would ultimately be meaningless to be religous if it was undeniable that the Bible is historical and also a great historian once said " A lack of evidence is not a lack of existence" or something like that and If you ask me which one.im not sure but I do know a famous historian once said that or at least something like that. And another thing just because there are similar stories to exodus does not guarantee it is a false story because acording to this logic every piece of money has to look different to actually be valuable. I in no means want or intend to affend you and yes I am a Christian but I did my very best to look at this from the point of view of an agnostic.
Jerad Clark oh and about the 60,000 troops part do you think anyone had the time to accurately measure all those troops if they where running for there lives?
Really...that is interesting since it only took me 10 minutes to find archaeological evidence to support the existence of King Solomon. David Rohl is a genius and he ,along with Timothy Mahoney has exposed the appalling error in Egyptian Chronology. Patterns of evidence is based on facts, and Finklestein and his chronies will have no place to hide once more evidence is discovered to prove they were and are wrong.
Maybe this is my bias but when religious people do any kind of academic work like looking for the Exodus, it's always suspect to me. Now there are good serious scientists and historians that are religious but with something like this their track record isn't so great. They want it to be true. That's the problem. It should be that if you find something consistent with the Bible, yay. If you find something inconsistent with the Bible, yay. Truth is what we're looking for but sometimes that's not always how it goes. A lot of times it's, we found something inconsistent with the Bible. Hmm, what can we do about this?
Well actually the leading archaeologist in the film shows evidence for a good handful of the events and is actually agnostic. His name is David Rohl, he wrote a book on the chronology of Egypt which is what the film centers around. So you can't say it was only religious people because it wasn't. That's where Matt had that wrong.
And I don't blame you for being suspicious. I'm christian and whenever I hear a christian found something I find it a little hard to believe. That's what intrigued me about David Rohl. The fact he wasn't religious made him more intriguing to me.
redkidrocks1 Well, if it did happen, it doesn't really matter. The Exodus I mean of course. The Bible certainly has some names and places that are actual names and places. If it didn't, it's a problem for the Biblical literalist. That said, Rohl and his hypothesis aren't well accepted by the academic community. That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong but that doesn't really matter anyway because Biblical literalists have way bigger issues than this. Whatever the case, I'd rather the truth came to light. Whatever that truth might be.
I can agree with that. That's perfectly fine. I think these things will be solved eventually as time goes on and our technology and intelligence as a human race advances. But for now we still have a long way to go. But humans will keep growing and advancing. Eventually we will have all the answers I am sure.
The 480 years between Solomon and the Exodus, from the way I understood it, they actually demonstrated that it didn't quite meet where they were proposing the Exodus took place, and they then explained how during that deficiency, Egypt was taken by unknown invaders from the north. Unless I'm understanding their explanation wrong, they never satisfied that discrepancy in their theory.
Matt, may I ask a qualifying question just to better understand your point of view? You used the phrase "REAL HISTORIANS." What criteria do you use to define an ancient, "real" historian? Or, if you have not already defined it, how would you?
Presumably anyone with actual experience and credentials relevant to the subject. Nobody cares what a mechanic had to say about chemistry, or what a theologian has to say about archaeology.
***** That is a very generalized and subjective answer, I am asking for specifics; even names. As long as someone defines who a "real" historian" is, they can cherry pick who they want to believe and dismiss anyone they don't want to believe. If you decide you will believe certain historians over others, then you must have a specific criteria you apply to all of them equally.
Small amounts of evidence scattered here and there may not create a pattern so to speak, but key bits of information can stick out enough to make your brain notice something. I know that sounds a little bit odd lol, but it's true. Its like when you find a puzzle piece that doesn't have any matching parts, yet, but you have an idea of where it goes by looking at the bigger picture's pparticular patterns.
Dennis Prager said why would they make up a negative story of their history? It’s not negative. It’s an inspiring story of the Israelites being slaves in a very powerful kingdom and God freeing them and destroying the Egyptians.
You will know if they're really historians if there is a part two where they then verify with earlier dates. That would be the exact historian kind of thing to do. Making a shift in chronology doesn't feel like a conclusion to a documentary in search of a pattern, but the part where it finally gets interesting.
You're correct about searching for what he wanted to find BUT proving and disproving any theory runs similarly ! We search for evidence for theories in science.
Patterns of Evidence is based on Revised Chronologist David Rohl who wrote a book called " A TEST OF TIME " he had made a similar documentary back in 1996 , he tried to reduce the Egyptian dynasties to fit the bible , he (Rohl ) claimed the opposite that he was doing .
What you said around 31:30 is awesome. I had thought this but am not even remotely a Biblical scholar. It is gratifying that one so learned as you can provide some support for this idea I had. I know many people who are believers are extremely impressed when archaeologists uncover actual evidence for things the Bible mentions when there was no evidence previously for those things. It seems to me that the Bible could be 100% accurate about all the historical information in it, but how does that prove anything supernatural?
Matt Dillahunty Have you read the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts" and do you recommend it? Also, what other books would you recommend for this subject?
I have to admit, when I first heard you reference the *date*, my thought was, "Who cares? It's not important.". What's important to me is whether the Egyptians recorded the events described by the Bible. If those incredible events actually happened, I'm pretty sure they would have been momentous enough for many people to have commented on it. Another aspect that seems important is whether the believers really believe the magic occurred and that Pharaoh had magicians too. Another important aspect to me is the fact that according to the Bible, God took away Pharaoh's free will (assuming we actually have free will) so he could, as Matt has commented before and I agree, could show off. One of the most troubling stories is that God would murder all the first born babies at houses that didn't have the mark over their door. Murdering babies to make a point? Whew.
All I would say is that, having watched the associated lecture series that comes with the documentary, the film on its own is a very limited depiction of the overall argument. Might be worth examining the lecture series as well!
Sure you can calculate dates It is possible to calculate back from the destruction of the Second Temple until the end of the first exile, from the end of the first exile until the destruction of the First Temple, from the destruction of the First Temple until the construction of the first temple, the end of the construction of the first Temple to exodus. The relative timing between these events are written in the Bible
I recall a pretty good documentary I saw when I was younger, which pointed out how a bunch of the dating of the ancient egyptian timeline was historically waaaay out of whack, in many cases by centuries, all due to the earliest egyptologists having gone with a consensus based upon dating it BY THE BIBLE. And how actual archaeogical evidence had snowballed over the years which obviously massively contradicted the timeline everyone had just assumed was correct.
The Exodus happened at the time of Akhenaten, who become a monotheist. That's all the proof you need of the impact of the ten plagues. Thanks for discussing this! We can now date the Exodus reliably by radiocarbon-14 dating and astronomy. RC14 dates Shishak's invasion to year 39 of Solomon in 871 BCE. Supporting this is an eclipse over Assyria occurring in month 3 in 709 BCE. That eclipse also dates Shishak's invasion in 871 BCE. That means year 4 of Solomon falls in 906 BCE and the Exodus is dated to 1386 BCE. An astronomical text from Ugarit also dates year 12 of Akhenaten to 1375 BCE (KTU 1.78), which also dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. Also, Kathleen Kenyon says that Jericho fell at the hands of the Israelites sometime between 1350-1325 BCE, which fits 1346 BCE as the date Jericho fell. So lots of archaeological proof for when the Exodus must occur, which is 1386 BCE. But also, if you follow Bible prophecy, the return of the Jews to their homeland to spend the last week of their covenant in their homeland also dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. 1947 ends Jewish exile, beginning the final week, that is, the 70th week of their covenant of 70 weeks of 49 years each. Add 49 to 1947 to end the covenant in 1996. 70 x 49 = 3430 years. So the covenant began in 1435 BCE. The Exodus occurs 49 years later, thus in 1386 BCE. (1435 - 49 = 1386 BCE). So we can now confirm the dating of the Exodus to 1386 BCE, at the beginning of the rule of Akhenaten. Of course, as noted, Akhenaten converted to monotheism and started suppressing the "worthless" God's of Egypt, confirming the impact of the 10 plagues. Plus one of his hymns is compared to a psalm of David!! So it's the same God. "Aten" and YHWH were the same god. The Exodus did, indeed, happen!! Thanks for posting on this.
@LiberalGooner 1450 BCE? I've never heard that. Archaeology dates the fall of Jerricho by the Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE. That dates the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE, 40 years earlier. Radiocarbon 14 dating dates Shishack's invasion to 871 BCE, supplemented and confirmed by an eclipse in 709 BCE mentioned in the Assyrian eponym. Dated to year 39 of Solomon, the Exodus would occur in 1386 BCE. So 1450 BCE is too early. The Exodus is a jubilee event coordinated with the jubilee event for the return from Babylon exactly 19 jubilees later. 19 jubillees is 931 years. 1450 - 931= 519 BCE. The advent of the 1st coming is 483 years after the return; 519 - 482 = 37 BCE. Christ was baptized in 29 CE, not 37 BCE. Where in the Bible does it say the Exodus happened in 1450 BCE?
@LiberalGooner Thank you for that information. 1 Kings 6:1 actually says, "in the 480th year after the sons of Israel came out from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year" of Solomon. So the Exodus should be calculated 480 years earlier than the 4th of Solomon. David Rohl has a different timeline than most. Thus 1386 BCE is likewise a qualified date based on various archaeological sources. Of primary note, though, 1386 BCE would be the year of the Exodus as the first jubilee of the covenant when 1947 becomes the last jubilee of the covenant of 70 jubilees. That is, if 1947 begins the 70th jubilee, then the covenant would end in 1996, 49 years later. 70 jubillees of 49 years each is 3430 years beginning in 1435 BCE. The Exodus would occur as the 1st jubilee of the covenant in 1386 BCE, which is a date directly supported by radiocarbon 14 dating. Of note, David Rohl's theories potentially work except for RC14. He has to dismiss all RC14 dating to so drastically redate the Egyptian timeline. Using 1947 to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE is supported by lots RC14 from Jericho and Rehov and samples taken from various dynasties based on stored grain samples collected from various museums. The 1386 BCE date only works with Christ's baptism in 29 CE. But different people use different timelines they prefer. Jehovah's Witnesses date the Exodus even earlier than 1450 BCE; they date the Exodus as early as 1513 BCE. This means they must ignore all archaeological, astronomical and RC14 evidence now in place. It is impossible to harmonize the baptism of Christ in 29 CE with an Exodus as early as 1513 BCE. Thanks for your reference. I like David Rohl otherwise.
@LiberalGooner RC14 limits options for dating theories. You have flexibility interpreting ancient records and even the Bible, which is all "relative" history. Astronomy provides absolute dating but is often nonspecific so you can have more than one match to select from. Stratigraphy also is controversial with sometimes wide ranges. But RC14 dating is unforgiving. It does not have much flexibility and is strategically consistent so far. Some 14 bushels of stored grain was found at the MBA destruction level at Jericho, dating that event c. 1550 BCE, the time of Ahmose and the Hyksos expulsion. Based on that, the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites is dated between 1350-1325 BCE supported and harmonized by LBA pottery finds. Thus the Exodus in either 1513 BCE or 1450 BCE must throw out the archaeology and RC14. In the meantime, 1386 BCE based on 1947 and 29 CE completely agrees with both archaeology and RC14 from both MBA Jericho and Rehov, which dates year 39 of Solomon specifically to 871 BCE. Your choice.
@LiberalGooner Oh yes, absolutely. Akhenaten became a monotheist after the Exodus. Once you date the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten, everything gets confirmed and falls in place. ua-cam.com/video/lpkK6XoqRQo/v-deo.html
@LiberalGooner Hi Jay the comedian! Matthew 24:30 speaks of the "sign of the son of man" appearing in the sky to the anointed, and when they see it, they beat themselves in lamentation. That's because the image they see is of a dead black messiah's face. (Acts 8:27-39) Page 159 of the "Revelation" book shows this dead black child's face in the hand of Jesus, thus clearly connecting the two. So that sign of the last days was actually fulfilled, beginning in 1950 when the new "pre-messiah" was born. Here's that image. No one can say the sign never appeared to anointed ones. images.app.goo.gl/rs5zvLB4nCxX9NCRA
I as a christian enjoyed this video very much. Im glad to say that i came to a similar conclussion and have not been telling people we have proof, but as you do point out there is evidence and it may not outweigh the burden of proof yet but i do still have faith that we will find more evidence along this vain (the 1450 bc date) but we may very well not. Either way i like your fair presentation of the complexity of this topic and your reasonable aproach to some of the more fanatic christians.
They cannot assert a later date as exodus 1:11 mentions Pithom,and Ramses "supply centers for the king". Ramses was built in the 13th century BCE not the 15th. Pithom was used as a supply city much much later. This is one of the very few verses that could possibly yield a date, the founding of a city. It is 13th century or bust and bust it is for reasons explained elsewhere.
There’s also archeological evidence that indicates that Hebrew culture emerged from Canaanite culture. Material culture archeology shows that Hebrews were culturally Canaanite. They never arrived in the levant. They were just canaanites who lived in remote goat herding villages who eventually developed a unique cultural identity separate from other canaanites.
Issue rarely discussed: Moses or any other occupants of Egypt would have learned Egyptian writing, if any. Hebrew writing did not exist. So if a witness wrote about Exodus, it would have been in Egyptian. There are a smattering of Egyptian loan words in Hebrew. If Exodus were accurate, Hebrew would be full of Egyptian loan words.
Nice debate. Who was the opponent? Kiddin'. It's a nice documentary though isn't it? Gotta admit it's pretty compelling. I get that you can't easily accept it all as one coherent thing, but the individual evidences do lend themselves to biblical characters and details quite nicely.
Given what we know of Egypt in the mid-15th century BCE, I find the hypothesis of the 1450 BCE date highly unlikely to be anything but an ass pull on the part of "bible historians" Egypt in the 1450s was in a period of aggressive expansion and martial glory. From its tremendous victory against the Canaanite alliance at Meggido in 1457 BCE, Thutmose III in the following years went so far as crossing the Euphrates to strike at the heartland of the Mitanni in what is now Southeastern Turkey. This almost unrivaled projection of strength did not indicate an Egypt wracked by famine, plague, and various catastrophes of supernatural origin. While a part of me chuckles at the mental image of Moses sitting in the desert eating goat shit with his followers while his brother was off adventuring from Turkey to the Sudan, the most likely explanation is that the story is just another bible myth with no basis in reality. Israelites didn't even appear in any Egyptian record until the Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1208-1203 BCE, and I am sick and tired of bible apologists trying to twist and distort everyone else's history in a pathetic attempt to retroactively colonize the world in Allah-Yahweh's image. Edit: Just read that Patterns of Evidence is based on the work of David Rohl and his "revised chronology." Rohl apparently made a documentary of his own where he moved around Egyptian dynasties in order to fit biblical timescales. Well, well, well . . .
Having read Finkelstein (I can see it from here but its not close enough to confirm the spelling of his name) the evidence for the exodus is extremely thin at whatever time you date it. However, the physical evidence since about 1400 BCE, for a small hill dwelling group of Canaanites slowly separating themselves from the groups of Canaanites that lived on the plains and coast of ancient Palestine, by developing different practices like eschewing pork and designing their villages to a different plan, is extremely compelling. The exodus is an extraordinary claim, a bunch of middle easterners becoming xenophobic over time(imo) isn't. The extraordinary claim has way less evidence than the everyday claim. The Canaanites by 800-600 BCE who were now calling themselves Israelites and Judeans, looked around and wondered why they were so different to the other cultures around them and needed a myth to explain it.
Dead Kennedy Or not so slowly. Some Canaanite cities show signs of rebellion about the time many kingdoms were failing, apparently from famine and other calamities, such as volcanoes.
Jaroslav, yes you are right. Except in the Sinai, where there IS firm evidence for the Exodus. Maybe the atheist will revert to a religious belief, when he reads my book 'Where Moses Stood'. 1250 BCE is about right and there are numerous trajectories that all point to this period. 1450 BCE just does not work. The book identifies the exact mountain where the Ten Comms Commandments were received.
I like that you addressed the age of people in Genesis as preposterous. Also, why would God strike down a man for "pulling out" when with a woman. If you follow the story, he was not a good man. So God was essentially upset that a "bad man" didn't fertilize a young woman. So god struck him dead. Crazy story
I don't know what Finkelstein said in this film, but if he still holds to the "different kind" of Exodus he did at the time of publishing The Bible Unearthed, then that is all but saying the Exodus never happened as it is so far removed from the Biblical account as to be unrecognisable
Well we do have archeological evidence in regards to Solomons son Rehoboam. The bible says the Pharaoh Shishak, attack Jerusalem. We do have on the Bubastite Portal showing the Pharaoh Shoeshenq attack several towns in Judah right around the time the bible says Shishak attacked. And thats around 924B.C. So Solomon's reign happening during the early to mid 10th century B.C. seems reasonable. Considering their is archeological evidence to support events that happened during his son's reign.
It wasn't just shepherds in Goshen, they had Hebrew names and left behind Proto-Sinaitic Hebrew tablets mentioning Moses and other biblical characters by name.
I saw a thing on super old people in the old testament. Said their ages work if you count by a lunar cycle instead of a solar one. 700 years (lunar cycle) divided by 12.5 to get solar years 56 yo 900\12.5=72 yo
As for the one guy's "why record negative history?" I would disagree with him on principle. After reading Exodus I didn't see much "negative history," what I read was an "underdog story." It states how bad it was, how hard things were and how "impossible" escaping the bondage would have been without their "all powerful gawd." And a few of the "negative events" caused by the Israelites are told as object lessons about doing wrong in Gawd's eyes and how it brought punishment.
Did the movie bring up other alleged "proofs" for the Exodus, like suspected locations of Mount Sinai or split rocks thought to have been broken by Moses? Or did they just focus on trying to determine the rough date?
According to the Exodus story, moses was serving Pharoah in Egypt for 40 years. But where is the documentation from Egypt on that? 40 years is a looong time to go without documenting.
The most sound conclusion is that The Exodus account certainly happened for there was/is a Jewish people, Jewish Book (Torah or Bible), Jewish religious culture, history, traditions, historical Jewish land (Israel) and empire, and in their traditions they indict (in one manner or another) numerous other peoples and empires throughout periods in history who offer no conflicting account, if only to defend these indictments. There is not a shred of history contributing to any alternative account which ought to be expected, if even from a break-away from among the same people, neighboring peoples,. warring peoples, or just some historical context for some supposed alternative origin. Who are they really (before they "supposedly became Jews")? Where did they come from? How did their intricate life encompassing practices develop? Where did their text come from? Why does no one expose this purported alternative account through-out history, especially all those empires (greeks, romans, persians) who sought to eradicate them and/or their culture and practices? Etc etc etc etc etc Bear in-mind they were located at the crossroads of other civilizations about which we know much, and who have recorded much about those surrounding them etc... It is more preposterous to hypothesize a conspiracy among all people's to hide their supposed "true origin", than that nature has the capacity to perform (miraculously) different than we observe it mundanely perform today, given the right circumstances... Either way, the critic surely has a lot of fiction writing to do to create even a simple structure of an alternative account for a most basic explanation that can even begin to answer the above questions, and yet leave the most challenging of them unanswered, least of all how no nation makes no mention of this alternative account EVER, ANYWHERE, let alone as a challenge to the given account (which very likely indicts them). So again, the most sound conclusion is, that it happened. This would certainly explain everything about the Jewish people. To hypothesize anything else is to disregard historical testimony of an entire people's existence and concoct a fiction. Only a madman would favor this over the original, especially considering the implications about nature and it's hidden potential. To the skeptical, baselessly nature-limiting naysayers... You've gone mad! Get well soon, quacks.
Ori Matisyohu *There is not a shred of history contributing to any alternative account which ought to be expected, if even from a break-away from among the same people, neighboring peoples,. warring peoples, or just some historical context for some supposed alternative origin* Why? It's not like anyone really gave a shit about the Jews. *Who are they really (before they "supposedly became Jews")?**Where did they come from?* *How did their intricate life encompassing practices develop?* *Where did their text come from?* Their text is a recompilation of older Sumerian myths. The jews appear to be merely a fragmented sect of earlier peoples. Again, no one really gave a shit about the jews until much, much later. *Bear in-mind they were located at the crossroads of other civilizations about which we know much, and who have recorded much about those surrounding them etc* Not even remotely true. The Romans recorded a bunch, but there are plenty of other barbarian tribes of which we know little about. *It is more preposterous to hypothesize a conspiracy among all people's to hide their supposed "true origin", than that nature has the capacity to perform (miraculously) different than we observe it mundanely perform today, given the right circumstances* Might want to see a doctor.
Not just our God is good but our God is superior is the underlying foundation of the story. The importance is not the provable History, rather the sometimes moral of the story.
There’s still a wall standing of Solomon’s temple, so what are you talking about at 13:08? The beams found underneath the dome of the rock when it was renovated after an earthquake in 1927 were dated to as far back as the 9th century BCE.
Another thing that points to the Exodus narrative as not historical is the writers use of the image of Hammurabi receiving his Law Code from his God Shamash/Marduk from on top of the mountains. There's no way this is historical.
I think the first point of evidence that's very important to acknowledge is the fact that the bible clearly dates the Exodus before the Dynasty of Ramses. So right there we know that there would be no evidence in that time period.
People of this era don't understand the purpose of scriptures. An idea is converted into an action in seven stages. In scriptures, each stage is associated with an element of nature. The seven stages, and the element of nature associated with them, are, 1. Day dreaming - Sky 2. Illusion of satisfaction and courage - Air (symbolized by enslavement of Jews by Pharaoh) 3. Creativity - Fire (Moses finds god in bush fire) 4. Stability / flexibility of life - Water (Red sea. Also, Moses first appears on water). 5. Determination / discipline - Land (Promised land - Israel). 6. Status alteration - Sun 7. Compulsion - Sun Thus, the history of Moses is allegorically about conversion of illusory satisfaction and courage into real and permanent achievement. Why are scriptures written allegorically? What are the seven levels mentioned above, actually? The 320 pairs of muscles in our body can isometrically synchronize to functionally become one single unified muscle. The contraction of the unified muscle to seven levels viz. feet, knees, hip, abdomen, chest, neck and head, that converts an idea into action in seven stages. Unfortunately, no one can unify the 320 pairs of muscles and make it contract towards the seven levels. Scriptures enables this indirectly. Thus, reading the religious history of Moses one move the unified muscle that has contracted permanently towards the knees to contract to the level of chest. This would enable one to discard illusory achievements and have real achievement. Jesus mechanism, which is an extension of Moses mechanism, enables day dreams to be converted into the stage of status alteration. The next prophet mechanism, obviously would convert ideas into the stage of compulsion. Thus, history of Moses would make the mechanism rigid. One can reduce Moses mechanism into an isometric exercise. However, it would result in never ending changes in life. It should be mentioned here that to make Moses eternal, his history should be precisely 50% reliable.
I’m wondering who the sources are that the movie uses. If they not secular archaeologists then there’s reason to doubt. All the secular sources I’ve seen like Finkelstein and Stavrakopoulou say that there’s not a shred of evidence for the enslavement, wandering, the Exodus or Moses himself. And the dates attributed to the actual writing of the OT coincide with about the 9th to 7th century BCE and later, not the 12 or 14th century as biblically oriented scholars
I think you are misunderstanding the logical basis for the New Chronology. The New Chronology was developed as an explanation for Egyptian archaeology, not Israelite archaeology. The Egyptian shift came first and then the Israelite history was shifted.
There's an old saying: Why ruin a good* story with the truth?... I think what may be happening here is people are losing their religion in record numbers each year. It's losing its grip on our collective consciousnesses, esp. in light recent terror events (which is also actually a direct reaction to this process - so it's circular, but there's clear a trajectory to the good, so it's really a spiral or looping pattern). Anyway, also due to this process, films like "Heaven is for Real" and "God's Not Dead" are starting to crop up (along with the big Hollywood blockbusters - recognizing our recent heightened interest), along with "docs" such as this one. Docs like this are likely only meant to attempt (however honestly) to justify the filmmakers' own (perhaps waning) beliefs and to bring a doubting audience back into the fold. But I'd argue that they're actually doing themselves, and the church, a disservice by 1., looking for "facts" or "evidence" to support the claim, which, to Matt's point, can only make the story more secular (see above adage); and 2., as Matt describes here, showing just how unscientific this process actually is, or can ever hope to be.
Hmmm. There is enough evidence for me. Before I watched the film I was happy with books like "the Bible as history" revealing where archaeologists said, Abraham couldn't have existed at all becuase there was no such place as "Ur of the chaldeas". Then eventually they discovered Ur!! God isn't into playing, "peek a boo. Here I am" . As time passes evidence of biblical events have and are being revealed. The film and even this clip make clear timing is a mish mash of conflicting evidence and so be it, but he didn't refer to Joseph's tomb and other very compelling evidence of the reality of events at some point in time. Why wouldn't we give some credence to an account in a book written shortly after these events by Moses himself and after that, Joseph as well as contemporary writers??
Moses is a copy of the Greek Ganymede and others. Baby Abraham was nursed by a goat goddess, the same one that nursed baby Zeus. .........and there is Dinah/Danae the daughter of Jacob and Leah (winter) who was impregnated by Zeus in a shower of gold. This resulted in the birth of Perseus whom we can still see in the night skies with his flaming sword that guards the eastern gate to the Garden of Eden (spring - summer).
Of course the issue is more complex than the move attempts to make known. It is already WAY over most peoples heads, it is a documentary with a wider sweeping target audience, not a piece of comprehensive scholarship for intensive attacks by the cynical.
My father is a Bible teacher and we were "discussing" the improbable ages of these characters, he pointed out to me that all these characters were pre-flood as if that were supposed to mean something...But, what I really want to know is what were these pre-flood peoples teeth made of? I mean I'm 40 and if not for modern dentistry I'd already be dead from infection from a broken tooth, so either these folks were living hundreds of years with no teeth or else they had some fucking resilient chompers.
"Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them." ~ Daryl Zero
Well, after the _Yom Kippur War,_ which lasted from October 6th - 25th 1973, the Sinai Peninsular (which is where any 'Exodus' would have taken place) mostly remained in Israeli hands until April 26, 1982. During those years, Jewish archeologists made massive efforts to identify artefacts in that area associated with the Exodus. Result - _NOTHING._
That's probably because Sinai is actually probably located in modern Saudi Arabia despite longstanding tradition. The story makes way more sense and you can follow their trail of landmarks much easier if you don't assume they lingered in the so-called Sinai peninsula.
Sinai being in what we call today the Sinai Peninsula dates back to Constantines mother having a dream identifying that as the location. Not a very reliable foundation if you ask me
@@thestarwarsguy1821 On the other hand, if you are going from Egypt to Canaan, it would be rather odd to take a detour through the Arabian peninsula.
Why would they find anything if the Jewish were their temporarily?
@@racingace9959 Because a couple of million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years would have left traces. Kennedy Shaw, in his book _The Long Range Desert Group,_ talks about exploring the Western Desert between the wars, and running across the remains of Roman camps, right on the surface of the desert. If a small group of Romans left traces, then two million or more Israelites would have left traces.
The ultimate problem is that their faith is based on faith. They're looking at the front of the puzzle box and telling everyone that the puzzle looks like that... never having put it together.
Best episode of the Casting Couch that I’ve seen
Stephen E lmao, I also own that couch
Thanks for the intrusive thoughts. Poor Matt.
When I began studying history as an undergraduate I promised myself that I'd never allow my personal beliefs and desires to get in the way of the truth of an historical event. When I got to graduate school, the first required class was all about how to evaluate evidence and even spent a significant amount of time answering the question of what history even was. When I wrote my thesis on religion and the Founding Fathers I discovered some things that didn't jibe with my prior beliefs about some people and I had to stop believing those things. When it comes to the Exodus I'm extremely bothered that professional historians are afraid to come out and state in no uncertain terms that the biblical exodus simply did not happen and moreover, it's an absurd notion. The only reason any time is even spent on this topic is because billions of people believe nonsense. If this was a story written in almost any other book it wouldn't get a second thought from professional historians. There is a bias here. The bias is that it isn't history.
+Ed Gloss When I started reading Egyptian history, I knew the exodus couldn't have happened. Especially when they found the pyramid builders village. They found a ton of scrolls, they contained songs, poems, complaints about their wives divorcing them, them divorcing their wives, etc. You know what they didn't find? Oh, all our first born children died last night.
+Todd Richards there's an Egyptian history site, study it yourself. Learn something. Grow up.
The Cynical Christian how did you manage to translate the Ipuwer Papyrus? So far it is not successfully translated. Nor can you say that over 2000+ Egyptian Cursive hieroglyphics are successfully translated. No claimed Egyptologist successfully used any language whether it is the Demotic alphabet, Heirotic alphabet, Greek alphabet or even Coptic alphabet can translate the cursive hieroglyphs. Not one. Because the characters by letters does not the symbols or graphemes, general principles of letters that represent phonemes and yllabaries (in which each character represents a syllable) and logographies (in which each character represents a word, morpheme, or semantic unit).
Show me how any hieroglyph is successfully deciphered because all accredited historian depends upon the Certain Philippus which that individual is unknown. No one knows of him or anything for that matter. Because Thomas Young (scientist) Egyptologist claimed that he successfully translated the hieroglyphs and Jean-François Champollion also claimed to translate the cursive hieroglyphics.
Which they used the heiroglythica which identifying Horapollo with Horus himself, or with a pharaoh (debatable in itself)
And the Heiroglythica books profess to be a translation from an Egyptian original into Greek by a certain Philippus, of whom nothing is known.
The Certain Philippus has no archeological, geographical, topographical, chronological and even historical valid accounts.
Furthermore
The Cynical Christian Now when we see the demotic alphabet, as I mentioned, it consist of only twenty nine characters, the Greek alphabet also consist of twenty four characters, the heirotic alphabet also consist of twenty four and the Coptic alphabet consist of thirty one alphabetical characters, bare in mind that almost half of the demotic translation is wrong, but continuing forward. How did any one of all these so claimed translations deciphered over 2000+ characters of the Egyptian hieroglyphs
Using any languages and text that match or even equate the same characteristics of the cursive hieroglyphics. Because if we see the origin or foundation of the alphabet, An alphabet is a standard set of letters (basic written symbols or graphemes) that is used to write one or more languages based upon the general principle that the letters represent phonemes (basic significant sounds) of the spoken language. This is in contrast to other types of writing systems, such as syllabaries.
Substantial, irrefutable evidence to how you manage to believe or conclude by the writing system of my people saying that the "Israel" or "Israelites" are within the writing of that stone or any place using what Method and techniques and authenticity. How did that claimed scholar manage to read that, how do you know that he did not just made that up. I want evidence to this. And if you claim it was the Greek text/language that understood this, scholars also admit that the Greek language is an unspoken language. There is no linguistic evidence to this.
The Cynical Christian And if indeed the Egyptian language is translated by the Greeks, they need to account for the additional 1,976+ characters in the Egyptian hieroglyphics they have to hold into account. So that being said, each Greek letter must hold at least 82 different meanings to account for the one thousand nine hundred and seventy six plus hieroglyphs and which until today new hieroglyphs are being discovered until this day.
At least they didn't point to chariot wheels on the red sea floor!
They still do this.
Egypt used chariots that is a fact, but yes it still doesn't prove the Exodus if we find chariot wheels.
I actually thought the supposed chariot wheels they found seemed real. Whether that's proof or not is another issue.
@@ryanspackman548 it was a pretty poorly sourced hoax from that I've read.
Anything remotely roundish is 100% proof that the story is true. But where is all the heavy metal from the wheels, shields, weapons, etc.? Just floated away?
*QUESTIONS:*
- Ipuwar wasn't a slave
- You didn't answer the hieroglyphics found in the time Rameses
- How do you go about researching a topic when only secularists have overpopulated the genre with their opinion?
- You didnt answer the evidence in Avaris
- You intentionally intertwined different subjects and dates that you think would contradict but have no connection to one another such as "dating Adam" as you say. As well as saying you have to move all of history just for the later date to be accommodated for.
- There obviously won't be evidence for anything Pre-Flood as all remote evidence would have been destroyed or removed especially when the continental drift occured
- There is evidence for both events prior to the Exodus (plagues and slavery) and evidence post-exodus (destruction of Jericho, conquering of Canaan)
- No one colors in their personal and cultural evidence. List people have done so and included tragedy etc.
- Assumptions that religious people are complete idiots and aren't credible
- Where is this 12 and 40 coming from? That only appears in prophecy and a few other exceptions in Jesus's case and the 40 years of the Exodus.
- There would be very little evidence of their journey because the Israelites were nomads and never planted crops or made cities either.
- You contradicted yourself. You said the dates did not matter than went onto to talks about the dates more
- You don't need complete stories, heck evolution is not a undisputable school of thought. That is what the entire documentary is made out of, patterns, there are still questions, but the puzzle are there. And you can leave the rest to an unbiased Occam's razor
To dismiss all the evidence is almost impossible, you just didn't supply a pleasing answer. Sure great questions and analysis but your analysis was less than adequate due to the lack of evidence and plausible errors.
"There would be very little evidence of their journey because the Israelites were nomads and never planted crops or made cities either."
Forty years to make a 200-300 mile trek and nobody died? pots never broke? or tools? wheels never came apart? animals were never slaughtered? Forty years and tents never wore out, their pegs never replaced? Where are the innumerable quail bones? The broken tablets of the Law? Whatever happened to the Brazen Serpent?
"There obviously won't be evidence for anything Pre-Flood as all remote evidence would have been destroyed or removed especially when the continental drift occured."
There was flood ?
Risk I'd say evolution is pretty darn indisputable. There has never been a good piece of evidence against evolution. The changes to the Theory of Evolution have been nothing more than tweaks. When scientists find fossils, they often aren't surprised because they predict them using the theory of evolution ahead of time.
Also, to your question about how to research a topic overpopulated with bias, you can use any number of scientifically proven methods. Cross-examining, or even just looking for logical fallacies. Secularism is propelled by doubt and science, which have many methods of eliminating bias. If it showed an answer you liked to not necessarily be true, it may have been biased. If secularists are being biased, they aren't being very good secularists (at least in that moment).
And finally, whether or not his answer is satisfactory is unimportant. What matters is whether it's true. Sometimes, "I don't know," is the most honest answer you can give.
Also, Matt KNOWS that religious people aren't stupid. He has gone on record saying this many times, because he used to be religious.
Dry and factual. Great video (note this is NOT sarcasm).
The video he is commenting on is better.
@@allanmoorhead6546 doubtful.
@@Vivi2372 You won't know unless you see it.
Exodus, where the number of people could have held hands and spanned the entire distance of a less than a week walk along a coastline.
What use would that have been?
It's a straight-line distance of 300 km. That would take two months at best, walking 8 hrs a day. They would not have spend all of every day traveling. They didn't go by straight line. The route they took was probably around 1500 km. They had to transport belongings with them, along with the aged and young children. Not all flat terrain either, certainly not paved. There were also 140 000 of them. They would have had to move as fast as their slowest person.
@@allanmoorhead6546 the point you're missing is it's not possible for them to have wandered the desert lost for 40 fucking years unless god is literally incompetent. Had they followed the coast they'd be there in weeks at most.
It would have been better than Hands Across America.
It would have been better than Hands Across America.
The nature of fantasy and reality denial works extremely well to protect a sense of self, give purpose and meaning while protecting against harsh realities of being a mortal, biological minds barely able to maintain psychological coherence. The drive to insulate the mind from undesirable introspection, metacognition and knowledge formation gives a certain shape to fantasies that neatly fit into our personal psychological landscape. The comprehensive nature of organized religion appeals to minds wanting to secure psychological protection at the expense of an accurate mental model of reality.
Care to translate?
Good video. Half of this video can be summarized by this one minute ~ 22:59 - 23:53.
I didn’t watch it all but you did a good job of analyzing this movie and the claim of the Exodus
Isn't exedos a bit of unicorn science? Your trying to figure out when it happened, without first showing it ever happened to begin with.
Erm, no. How would you plan to show something happened (in history, at least), if you don't even have rough coordinates of when and where that event happened? :)
sorsocksfake There would need to be some evidence, my point is that all the evidence for it is all across the board, because it's probably like alot of biblical stories they were made up decades/centuries later by people that didn't know the actual facts of the time just using the stuff they know.
There is quiet a few biblical stories that are like this, they supposedly take place around 0 BC when jesus was born, but all the terms for cities and such were based around 70AD.
@Breaking Brad what ?
That is kind of the point of the Patterns of Evidence documentary: Was there ever a time where we have evidence of events even remotely matching the narrative? Turns out there are some. But then we must decide if it is conclusive or even good evidence.
Uhm, I've recently learned that the Egyptians were ruling the Canaanite regions around 1456 BC, so I suspect that the supposed "exodus" (in which the Israelites supposedly went into Egypt with only 70 people but came out with several hundred thousand people, & somehow failed to find their way along the 250 miles or so between the Nile delta & the Canaanite lands) never took place, but was instead a set of tales told as a series of insults to the Egyptians - & their gods.
Though I can't quite figure out where the volcanic eruption fits in - it certainly didn't take place on the Sinai peninsula, & probably wasn't a volcano of the Harrat ar Rahah volcanic field in Saudi Arabia, as that field, though the closest to the Mt. Sinai peninsula area & of a relatively recent eruptive age, is over 300 miles from the Nile Delta as the crow flies & is closer to 415+ miles from said delta by a land route - nearly twice the distance into the Canaanite lands ("Israel"), too.
I suspect that volcanic eruption took place east of the Golan Heights area at some point prior to the Egyptian occupation of Canaan, & it was incorporated into the later tales of the alleged humiliation of the Egyptians with absolutely no regard for its actual time of occurrence.
A pretty good documentary I watched is Buried Secrets of the Bible. It gets into the evidence there is, and isn't, for the Exodus, and gives a different perspective on what some experts think actually happened. It also gets into evidence, or lack of it, for other things afterwards that the Bible claims happened, like the conquest of Canaan, king David, etc.
Patterns of Evidence-Exodus presents incredible evidences that most people are unaware of. The claims by experts that no evidence exists of Israel in Egypt is based upon their guess of when the Exodus may have occurred. However, if they would simply set aside the accepted chronology for a moment, they would be unable to simply dismiss the evidences. But again, because these evidences do not appear in the time period that they expect, then they simply dismiss the facts as evidence.
I highly recommend viewing it and making your own decision.
I watched this and I was impressed by it. The atheist man simply believes there's no God. He saw the movie but his bias prevented him from seeing the truth.
@@DavidRodriguez-hg6kq how does these prove that there is a god?
There also seems to be a problem with how time may have been measured then. Either there are discrepancies, or humans lived for hundreds of years instead of 80 years.
what I always wondered is how did they get such a high population so soon after the entire earth was flooded from only Noah and his 3 sons?
+mka2qg2s thats easy. magic.
+mka2qg2s Great question. If you really want a brief answer it is this: Archbishop Ussher and Ken Ham are wrong: the world was not created 4004bc or thereabouts, because the genealogies of Genesis chapters 5 and 11 are telescoped genealogies, meaning there are gaps in them. The writers of the Bible genealogies did not follow modern requirements for a genealogy: the purpose for genealogies was different and completeness of generations was not needed, or desired. So the creation was earlier.
However, Abraham died at 175 years of age (Genesis 25:7), and Isaac at 180 (Gen 38:28) and these are ages which suggest the era in which men lived to much greater ages was not hundreds of thousands of years before Abraham and Isaac. So it would also be a mistake to add hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years to these chronologies.
The building of the pyramids surely required a significant population in Egypt. The Great Cheops pyramid was built around 2570 bc.
My own view is that the Bible cannot be used to determine a date for the creation, it can only be used to produce an approximate date: I go for a date somewhere between 10,000 bc and 60,000 bc.
For a more complete development of this viewpoint see:- www.reasons.org/files/articles/The-Genesis-Genealogies.pdf by Dr John Millam.
Andrew Shanks The earth is 4.54 billion years old. You're off by about 4.54 billion years
lots of rapes and incest.
Because the flood happened in the area Noah was in not the whole world like biblical fundamentals would tell you.
I'm an atheist in the process of rereading Exodus, and this is a very interesting video. I feel so sorry for people who spend their years basing their historical "knowledge" on numbers given in genealogies of 900 y.o. people mentioned in the Bible.
Please don't forget that the main historian used as a resource for the patterns of evidence is also an agnostic/ athiest.
SO what??
@@boblarson7694 It might indicate that Rholee baby might have a conscience for just a little bit of honesty that is not required if one becomes an apologist.
I know you might not believe me, but houses in my street all have odd numbers. Unless you go to each letterbox, I put a paper bag on them to cover the even numbers. It could be Rholee sold books and videos to the gullible.
www.debunking-christianity.com/2016/01/why-david-rohls-response-fails.html
Regardless of when it was supposed to have happened, it would have left physical evidence, and, to my knowledge, no physical evidence has ever been found.
I look at myself as a religious Darwinist. After seeing PoE, it struck me that everyone's problem relates to the concept of time. Creationists and their 7 days theory based on A literal read. And Egyptologists based on their views on the chronology. There is clearly ample evidence for the existence of a Semitic people in the Nile delta before the time of Ramses. But as it inconsistent with accepted wisdom representing the life work of acclaimed historians and scientists, the evidence is ignored, discounted or dissed.... the irony is the funniest thing ever - by vigorously defending the old chronology because they're too lazy to contemplate or process the implications of different data, the scientists have become dogmatics. The "evidence led" fundamentalist agnostic has turned part of his science into a religion, because the basis for a part of his thesis is his subjective interpretation and - dare I say it - belief... hahaha, you agnostic old school nerds take yourselves so seriously? Only 2 things can transcend space time - gravity and love. Go figure.
Cough* Sinai inscriptions *Cough
Patterns of Evidence part 2 is being worked on. a friend of mine is helping on it.
+dan jensen when is it coming out on the internet, those guys did well
Who's your friend? What did he for the production?
Well, I hope people watch the documentary. Dillahunty does make some good points. Yet, he complains about the oversimplification found within the documentary (which is correct, but, it's a documentary after all), while severely over simplifying the documentary. Dillahunty does not interact with the documentary very well. Most humorous is his attempt to decipher the maker of the documentary's intention as if he could know. My conclusion from watching the documentary was that archeology cannot prove the Exodus, but it does not disprove it as well.
Simply Separate the Old Testament from the New Testament and the pattern of evidence is more clear that these 2 books are not quite connected. These 2 books are seemingly and weakly coupled together.
I recommend the the book A test of time by egyptologist David Rohl. He has a phd from university of London. He is an agnostic and has no stake in proving the Bible but he does really manage to put some of the stories of the Bible in a historical context . I think he was used as an expert consulted for the movie.
One could more easily argue that the entire "Books of Moses" were invented during the Babylonian exile of the Judean aristocracy (yep, that is what was done in those days, not an entire nation brought to the capital city)
During the 1967 6-Day war, the Jewish military took possession of the Sinai Peninsula. The territory was not returned to Egypt until 1982 - adequate time for several teams of Jewish archeologists to have serious attempts at finding evidence for the biblical Exodus. As I understand it, plenty of pottery fragments and other detritus were found; but nothing significant from the period in question.
+Adam Mangler
I just thought that I might add the fact of the Babylonian Exile. We know this happened, not because of (rather confused) biblical records of the time (Nebuchadnezzar II _et al_) but because detailed Babylonian records also exist. It is possible that Exodus and Babylon became rather bound up together, given the method of oral histories lending inaccuracies to the history. General article here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
David Rohl's proposal to revise ancient chronology actually began from anomalies in the internal chronology of Egypt. Similarly, Peter James' "Centuries of Darkness" seeks to provide evidence from the relative chronologies of Egypt and the Near East that there has been a 250 year mis-dating of Egypt. So the case didn't actually begin with an effort to prove biblical historicity. These scholars would suggest that the evidence is indeed overwhelming, others would disagree.
Are round numbers a reason for suspicion? I don't see how if one is a believer- one would expect, if God ordains history, that He could ordain it in such patterns. That said, the case for the synchronization of biblical history with a revised chronology only depends on the approximate accuracy of Israelite chronology, not its exactness. Even without the 480 year date provided in the book of Kings, it is very difficult to compress the history of the judges into about 200 years, as would be required for a 1260 BC date for the invasion.
The chronology of Genesis 5 and 11 doesn't have to do with Rohl's proposal, since this deals with the chronology of the antediluvian and immediate postdiluvian world, whereas Rohl's chronology has to do with the period of the slavery and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.
I think you exaggerate the possibility of discovering a pattern whether or not such a pattern really exists. After all, Egyptian civilization only collapsed suddenly twice in its history- in the first intermediate period and in the second intermediate period. If the exodus happened (Exodus 10 declares that Egypt is destroyed, so proposals outside of this time period are impossible), a pattern must be found in one of these two places.
Overall, however, I think this was a fairer assessment than many. Folks shouldn't take one documentary's word for it, but pursue this subject for themselves. Much has been published on this. The book to start with is James' "Centuries of Darkness."
And David Rohl is a "real" expert in this field and qualified to discuss the topic. Not to mention that he is agnostic as well, which I think lends to his credibility.
Kabane What was the definition of 'a year' in biblical times? My understanding is that our current annual cycle is only a few hundred years old. Meaning the bible, as a historical record, if it had not been adjusted to our current meaning of 'year' would hsve been using a completely different unit of measurement.
@@moimeself1088 A year was 365 days. Because of the quarter day at the end of every year, without leap years it can create problems over the long term but there's no question that the year was known to be 365 days: after all, it's not like the seven-day week, where there's nothing in nature which correlates with it. The 365 day year is based on objective measurements common to many ancient civilizations.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton look up the history of calendars and time keeping. You're making declarative statements about the 365 day year when there was no such consensus at the time. I can't imagine people who thought the sun revolves around the earth would measure time in terms of a solar year, as we do today.
@@moimeself1088 360 day year most ancient near eastern peoples measured time by the moon.
Matt, you don't believe because you don't want to believe, all the rest is commentary. I'll pray for you that the eyes of your heart and mind be opened, God bless! :o)
You believe because you DO want to believe
Matt, I would like to begin by saying I enjoyed your effort at being objective on the topic of the film Patterns Of Evidence. Good work.
In watching your presentation I was put in essentially the same position with regard to your train of reasoning that you were put in with regard to the movie-makers train of reasoning, just as I would expect someone reading what I am saying in response to you to do the same to me should they have the same level of interest in what I am saying that I have in what you have said (and you had in what the film makers proposed).
Here’s my take on your take.
It seems your primary issue with the filmmakers is that they, in your words, cherry pick facts to support their train of reasoning. They do not address facts that conflict with their train of reasoning anywhere near enough to generate confidence in you that they are handing out an objective position of the topic of the Exodus event.
Here is my issue with this issue you raise.
1. First of all, cherry picking is how humans begin the process of any kind of research. The thing that makes their research science is that they thoroughly vet the facts and the reasoned path and the conclusions drawn from them. Cherry picking is a human psychological necessity. It should not be raised as a proof of subjectivity. Leaving one’s research un-vetted is proof of subjectivity.
2. Whether or not the filmmakers achieved the level of self-vetting of their reasoning path or not, it is also clear that there are camps of viewpoints that all humans to one extent or another form into. We are a herd animal. We form up into groups. Academicians form up. Religious people form up. You do. I do. We all form up into groups of people who agree with our view of things. Whether we allow this instinctual drive to color our research is the question.
3. It seems clear to me that there is plenty of subjective, herd instinct-driven subjectivity on all sides of this research. Because the position and influence of the Christian Church has for so long been a threat to the freedom of thought I the academic world, there is an understandable (and I would say, a still terribly unresolved emotional issue with) unconscious reactionary state of mind I those who see themselves as being academicians. And this reactionary impulse in academicians results in them unconsciously forming into a school of thought (a group viewpoint) that is afraid to weigh facts presented by those they view outside of their camp. For clear and overwhelming evidence of this reactionary subjective mindset I academia, refer to the Immanuel Velikovsky incident. Apart from the validity or lack there of Velikovsky’s reasoned arguments (some of which, interestingly enough are central to your question of establishing an evidence chain for the dating of Ancient Middle Eastern History), the highly, enormously emotional backlash (I believe an official attempt at book burning, or the academic version of book burning {the black-mailing of a prominent publisher into giving up the rights to V’s books, while they were still best sellers}establish h quite effectively that there is deeply rooted emotional bias within the academic world).
4. Thus, I would suggest that your implied belief in the objectivity of the academic establishment, is unfounded and their (in not also your own) emotional reaction to the probable subjectivity of alternative schools of thought (in this case, religious ones), represent a clear case of projection of their own un-faced subjectivity. We humans are famous for our capacity to project what we do not want to see in ourselves onto those we view as other.
5. On a practical level, this issue of projected subjectivity on the part of Western academicians, has led to an unfortunate suppression of a terribly useful part of the process of research, intuition (and by extension, the unconscious mind). We have, in the West, come to view the insertion of intuition into the path of reason, as the worst of all possible things. This is a reactionary construct that Western academicians will need to resolve. Many of the worlds greatest scientific discoveries were aided greatly, or even pivotally, by an unconsciously generated event, such as a dream or a moment of un-reasoned insight.
6. I liked and admired your objective position that regardless of the possible subjectivity of the filmmakers further interest in this topic is warranted. This is important just because we are not really ever going to find a group of humans researchers who are completely free of unconscious emotionally generated agendas. We will need to be able to set aside our defensive resistance to alternative schools of thought, and even look for them periodically to provide us with fresh perspectives on the topics we have been researching. We are a highly emotional species. We each have to factor this subjectivity into our own personal quest for objective reality, not ignore it or deny it.
7. It is probably incumbent upon me, given your own forthcoming transparency about your world view, to say that my own world view is that of a believer. I should also state that my belief has empowered me (and not limited me) to question everything, including whether sacred texts are viable sources of information. If it turned out, for example, that they were proved to be complete rubbish that would not change my beliefs at all. My most durable beliefs are constructed on my own experiences, not on dogma. I constantly question my own viewpoints, deeply. And I do because I feel emotionally safe to do so. My spiritual experiences have been primarily responsible for this security (My childhood religious culture could not provide this security, in as much as it based so much of its belief system on received dogma).
8. I would recommend you look at Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos. You won’t agree with a lot of what he proposes, but his approach was that of a secular Psychiatrist, not that of a religionist, and the fact of the emotional reaction the American academic world had (and still today has) against anything relating to Velikovsky, in itself argues for the objectivity-loving person to look into it. There is a wealth of historical research (by academically accepted historians and sources) in that book you won’t find anywhere else. Oh, and when and if you do look into Velikovsky’s work, note the interesting emotional issues that arise inside you at the prospect of doing so (I assume you will google Veliokovsky first, and when you do, you will immediately wade into the emotional backlash still present today with respect to V.). Remember, you, too, belong to an ideological school of thought/herd. This will have to be accounted for by you if you are going to not be biased in your research.
I was reading this comment...then stopped. Too long. LIFE STORY bro.
Great comment and very good viewpoints.
Blindly projecting your ideological blinders on your interlocutor is not actually refuting the points he made. Neither is making broad and unsubstantiated insinuations of subjectivity and mistakes on the part of the historical consensus and the research it's based upon.
These are typically excellent videos, Matt. You're not, as you concede, an expert (and neither am I) and the one thing with which I'd sort of quibble is your comments on the methodology of the film. Trying to place the biblical narrative in history by looking for patterns of events that match it may superficially appear a solid idea but it's actually starting with a conclusion and working backwards to try to prove it. Pretty much the polar opposite of any sort of scientific approach. And you cover that--it was just that initial assessment that poked me a bit.
We can pretty much say unequivocally that the literal biblical Exodus narrative never happened at all. The text describes the departing cohort as consisting of 700,000 men of fighting age. The women would outnumber them and the children would outnumber both adult men and women combined (probably significantly). There would be some old people in there too (though not many, because people didn't live very long), The total number departing would be 2 million to 5 million people. Depending on what period in which one wants to try to set the Exodus narrative (and the range), that's anywhere from 1/3 of the total estimated population of Egypt to more than the total estimated population. By even the most conservative estimate, the result of that sort of mass exist would be absolutely disastrous and the effects would be felt for centuries. There's absolutely nothing in the archaeological record to support that sort of mass exit. There's nothing in it to support any large number of Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt in the first place.
Relying simply on some math, the text describes the departing cohort as walking in ranks of five. If we allow for close ranks--a yard between them--that would mean a train of people 230-570 miles long. By the most conservative estimate, that's nearly the distance to Canaan; by the least, it's enough to stretch to Canaan and back and get a good start on a second round-trip. The text describes the cohort taking a longer route out of fear of a fight with the Philistines, though they outnumbered that entire nation and would dwarf its military.
The pharaoh of the exodus is said to have built the city of Ramesses and if that's accepted, that means it was Ramesses II, a.k.a. Ramesses the Great, who ruled from 1279-1213 BC. As the "great" part suggests, the rule of Ramesses II was a golden age for Egypt, its historical high point. Exactly the opposite of the disastrous time the biblical narrative would suggest. Other problems: the city of Ramesses (or Pi-Ramses) was described in the texts as a store-city built of mud-brick, rather than stone. The city was discovered in the '60s; it was built of stone, not of mud-brick, and it wasn't any store-city--it was constructed as the capitol of Lower Egypt, which it remained for two centuries.
One runs into the same problem with setting the exodus c. 1450 BC. That places it during the reign of Thutmose III, another period of spectacular prosperity, not disaster. Under this king, the Egyptians conquered Canaan and Syria and ruled them throughout this period.
This unbelievably huge nation of Hebrews was said to have stayed for decades at the Kadesh-Barnea oasis; the oasis has been excavated down to the virgin soil; they were never there.
The conquest of Canaan is said to have been accomplished via a lightning military campaign led by Joshua. In reality, the Canaanite city-states in question went into slow decline and collapse over a period of nearly a thousand years. The consensus view among the experts today is that what came to be known as the Hebrews are the descendants of the Canaanites.
And so on. This is why it's best to let the history sort itself out from what can be learned, rather than trying to impose a predetermined conclusion on it then work backwards to try to "prove" that conclusion.
I don't think there's any reason to assume this was "their version of their history" either, as opposed to some fabricated "history" that was imposed upon them later. Elements of both the creation myth and most of the flood narrative from Genesis were derived from preexisting Babylonian/Sumerian tales during the period of the Babylonian conquest. There's no reason to believe all of this isn't just some concoction imposed upon them at some point by an elite.
what the fuck you on about.. whether you start at the beginning and work forward with the evidence or start from the end and work backwards with the evidence both ways should produce the same conclusions.. the rest of what you wrote no doubts writes a bunch of drivel too deny it based on your stupid comment
@@Explosivo55 Just spew your biblical shit in simple words, for fucks sake.
@@heyyo6050 come stand where i am
Another piece of non-evidence for the Exodus is the complete lack, in the archaeological record, of Egyptian gold and other currencies, being sent out of the country to other nations in large quantities to buy food. According to the story, Egypt suffers multiple plagues that basically wipe out their food supply. Okay, in that scenario, we should have evidence of Egyptian merchants leaving the country in large numbers, going to other nations, spending vast quantities of gold or whatever currency they used and then bringing back as much food as they could.
This hasn't been found. No other nations at the time recorded panicked Egyptian traders demanding food and willing to pay anything for it.
You weren't listening to the documentary when you watched it. They weren't modifying the histories of all the surrounding nations to match up with the bible. But rather, they were modifying Egypt's history to match up with the histories of all the surrounding nations (Greece, Syria, Nubia, etc.). And when you do that, it just so happens, coincidentally, that Egypt's history matches up with the Bible as well. Why? Because Israel is also one of the surrounding nations. So when you alter Egypt's timeline to match up with the timelines of all the other surrounding nations, then it also lines up with Israel's history as well. Makes sense to me.
I think you should have waited for the DVD release of this film and maybe watched it 2 or 3 times before making a video review about it, because you obviously were not paying close enough attention when you saw it in theaters.
If we apply the same logic used in criticising “Patterns Of Evidence” then how does an atheist justify atheism as anything other than cherry-picking things they want to believe while ignoring contrary evidence?
Science has two key ‘laws’ that have never been disproven, or even realistically challenged:
1. Nothing (neither time, space, energy, matter, life, information, or action) can be created, destroyed or occur without an adequate precursor: hence all necessary precursors must have always been here - eternally,
2. Everything is running down to inevitable wearing out towards death, extinction, decay and universal heat death: hence all entities discussed in 1. can not have been here eternally and there must have been a beginning to them all - in violation of ALL known laws of science.
In other words, Science can NOT answer the question of origins, and atheists ignore that inconvenient truth.
Science by its very nature can’t answer the question of origins. So we have three alternatives:
a) Faith that we can safely ignore the issue; or
b) Faith that a 'god' outside of time and space created the universe, life, the ‘laws’ of science, and information (coded information being the key to life); or,
c) Faith that nothing turned into everything and life for no known reason against all known laws of science.
Now Option a) is cop-out; Option b) at least proposes a prime cause of universe and life which is compatible with known laws of science; Option c) is arguably irrational blind faith.
So why should I believe the opinion of an atheist who apparently subscribes to Option c)?
Did humans ever live for 900+ years? If God created everything ‘very good’, as Genesis says, then there were no deleterious mutations in the beginning and indeed the Bible does not ban brother-sister marriages until Moses’ time.
Further, when scientists actually measure human mutation rates and work out when our common population founders lived:
A. They date “y-Chromosome Adam” at about 4,500 years ago (that agrees with the Biblical date for Noah’s flood, noting that, according to the Bible, all men alive today descended from Noah). So they date Noah, not Adam!
B. They date “Mitochrondial Eve” about 6,000 years ago (that agrees with the Biblical date for creation, noting that Noah’s 3 daughter in-laws were on the Ark and would have accumulated 1,500 years-worth of mutation difference from Eve.
A key issue in mutation rates is that actual measured time-rates-of-mutations from known direct parent-son/daughter relationships are so high that all life is devolving towards extinction at such as fast rate that scientist have wondered “why we aren’t extinct 100-times over?”. One obvious possibility is that life is of recent origin.
When it comes to many of these athiests, and when it comes done to even the final judgement, it will be clear that the only reason one didn't believe is because they kept choosing not too.
Our Y-MRCA is dated at between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago, and the mt-MRCA sits roughly between 100,000 and 230,000 years ago, depending on who you ask. You’re also lying about mutation rates and extinction, but points for making an argument I haven’t seen before.
@Luke Barron Luke, you need to read up on it a tad more rather than commenting on things 'you haven't seen before' and apparently have not researched in depth. The circa 4,500 and 6,000 years ago dates are based on actual measurements of Y and mtDNA DNA differences over time between direct family linkages of real know individuals that occurred over known times and then compared with actual measurements of other families, with different Y and mtDNA variants, and measuring their DNA changes over time, and then extrapolating back to find a date for 'Adam' & 'Eve'. That's real experimental science with the minimum of assumptions. In contrast, the 100-300K year dates you cite are not based on known family linkage and known timescales: rather, they are based on ASSUMED separation times between Y and mitochondial DNA differences between individuals with NO KNOWN family relationships and only using ASSUMED time separation in genetic linkage. So if you assume a long separation time you get an older date for Adam/Eve. That's not reliable science, it simply affirms the supposition. creation.com/search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Y-chromasone%20Adam&gsc.page=1 has a brief explanation.
This review or assessment is HILARIOUS! Man, if atheists can only apply this scrutiny and reasoning to evolution and radiometric dating and "transitional" fossils and species drastically changing over time, etc,, etc. But they don't and would rather not because their worldview would crumble right before them.
+MosheMYY M We do. You just choose to ignore that fact. When any new evidence is brought up in any of those fields every expert in that field attempts to falsify the evidence. If they can then it goes to the way side. Too bad for you ppl things like evolution stood up to the tests.
Man this was a waist of time. I came here looking for the "counter view" of the documentary like ... "semitic population found there has also been found at X." Or "That weird mini Pyramid" was actually X." ... but this whole video was droning on about the dates. The surprising material of the film is the findings and the sequence of them. The "Dates" was the contention as stated by the film. It just felt like this "Assessment" spent 30+ minutes leaving us with literally no more than after watching the doc.
This video is about how they presented a case for the date they preferred without showing the points against it, while for all other proposals they showed the points against. It's not just "droning on about the dates", it's about doubting everything but your preferred conclusion.
Another issue rarely discussed: during most of the proposed dates, Egypt was very strong relative to other kingdoms and very influential or dominant in Palestine, the region the Israelites were fleeing to.
Israel Finkelstein argues convincingly that the Exodus as written can't have happened because the story contains historical anachronisms that clearly date it to the eighth century BC . However, the Israelites could have gained the concept of an exodus as a result of the forced expulsion of the Hyksos, from ancient Egypt . This appears to have been a seminal event in the dispersion of Semitic peoples in Canaan .
i haven't seen this "documentary" but things i've heard indicate that they're pulling a fast one with the hyksos. which is just plain dishonest.
the story COULD partly originate with the hyksos, but all archaeological indications are that israel arose during the bronze age collapse, out of canaan. most of the details of the story are anachronistic. the story CAN'T have happened as written.
The exodus is a myth, but there must be some explanation for the common perception of Israel coming out of the rest of the world. The hyksos hypothesis could have been mythologized.
Gary Allen It was probably an initially involuntary resettlement closer to the 14th century BCE, later embellished with a mythologized account of destruction by the Sea peoples - but with Joshua given credit. The whole thing was propagandized as a guided tour by the hand of a god.
+Arachno Philia (arachnophilia) The confusion with the Hyksos story had already taken place in ancient times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osarseph
uncleanunicorn What was the definition of 'a year' in biblical times? My understanding is that our current annual cycle is only a few hundred years old. Meaning the bible, as a historical record, if it had not been adjusted to our current meaning of 'year' would hsve been using a completely different unit of measurement.
They chose the dating based on when they found Jericho in ruins. From the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua. From there they put it together with moses coming out of the wilderness. So in real life there is a real Jericho which left in ruins. You also failed to mention the findings of Joseph tomb. Outside historical writing of Jewish historian who even names the pharaoh that raised moses. Another significant thing about this the canal which named bahr Yosef ( waterway of Joseph) the name given by the people of that region from memory.
There is no Jospeh tomb. They baselessly assert that a semitic builiding was Joseph's palace with 12 graves. In reality semitic =/= Jewish and there were more than 12 graves.
"Another significant thing about this the canal which named bahr Yosef ( waterway of Joseph) the name given by the people of that region from memory."
False. It's the Arabic name given millennia after it was constructed. There's no evidence it had anything to do with the Exodus.
Before the Arabic conquest it was simply called the canal, great canal or canal of Moeris:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahr_Yussef
He's misrepresenting the evidence discussed in the film. They didn't just find "shepherds", they found evidence of non-Egyptian, Caananite-style burials and buildings, etc. The evidence for Joseph in Egypt is actually incredible. See additional material on it by David Rohl and the filmmaker here: ua-cam.com/video/Y-x55kIgheA/v-deo.html&feature=share (gets into it around 28 min in).
This guy makes no mention on the evidence presented supporting Joseph, or the settlement at Avaris (other than the briefly mentioned shepherd idea) He also completely ignores the destruction of Jerico with the walls falling, and other Canaanite cities that match the Biblical account (just too early to fit the given dates). The Hyksos can just move in and settle in Avaris and take over Egypt without a fight.
There are other benefits to shifting the timeline, the Greek dark age that doesn't make sense goes away, the Bronze Age collapse makes more sense, and Troy becomes a real event not long before Homer lived that played an important role in history including some of the marauding Sea Peoples. David Rohl goes on in other works to demonstrate evidence and parallels for kings Saul, David, and Solomon and other characters from the Biblical narrative--some by name.
There was way more than he mentions. At least he could discuss all of the major patterns found instead of focusing on the most tenuous... He seems to be talking about this objectively, but the apparently deliberate ignorance of the other evidence discussed in the film makes everything else he says seem disingenuous. He's essentially doing what he claims the documentary does. He makes some good points but having a slightly more rounded approach would make his overall criticism more fair and feel more genuine.
I agree. I was waiting for him to bring up the evidence of Joseph or of the Jewish inscriptions, or the Egyptian account of the plagues.
He's delusional. I'm actually returning to Christianity and breaking up with my boyfriend because there's so much evidence pointing to the Bible being true that I just have to accept that it is.
I watched the whole documentary. It's very good. It successfully shows that there is a lot of hard evidence closely matching the Bible's account and also that there is enough uncertainty in dating of ancient Egyptian and also Caananite remains for this evidence for Exodus to potentially be dated in accordance with the Bible's chronology.
@J H Meaning nobody can claim the historical and archaeological evidence rules it out.
I truly don't like disagreeing with Matt - or the experts, one of whom I am not - but I have a problem with his assertion that we can't say that "It didn't happen". Technically, he's correct. But, there are bits and pieces that support events in Greek and Roman mythology, that Atlantis existed, that aliens built the pyramids, etc. I think that, until you can show me compelling evidence that something has actually happened, I am completely justified in saying that it didn't. Israeli archaeologists, who have been searching for hard evidence of Exodus for decades, have admitted that they can't find any proof. I will continue to say it didn't happen until someone, anyone, can provide hard evidence that it did. I just won't indulge "possibilities" that are used as "proof".
Question: I've read the Bible many times, but I don't remember 40 years being given as a "generation". Is that in the Bible, or has it been applied TO the Bible? If we have applied it, how do we know that the Bible authors thought that 40 years was a generation? Given the much shorter lifespans - Methuselah notwithstanding - perhaps they saw a generation as being 20 years, or 12, or whatever. Just curious.
mikkj1 Off-hand, (I'm not going to look up the actual quote) but the Exodus story has God saying to the Israelities that they will wander the desert until the current generation has died out a.k.a. 40 years. Perhaps that's where the 40 years = 1 generation thing came from.
exodiathecoolone Thanks, I did a google search, and they're (as usual) a bit iffy about it. In one case, it's actually 100 years. The reason I'm curious is that the 6000 year "young Earth" date is based on "generations' in the bible. If, for instance, they thought (the ancients) that a generation was actually 20 years, then the age of the Earth would only be 3000 years. If they thought it was 15 years, it would be 2250, or around the time jesus was supposed to have been born. I couldn't find (in a limited search) any confirmation that 40 years was definitively what they thought.
Edited to correct my math - it's still probably wrong, but you get the idea, hopefully.
mikkj1
Asserting something didn't happen is not the same as concluding something didn't happen. You don't need to assert something didn't happen to justifiably conclude something didn't happen.
The problem is that many people don't realize that a conclusion based on fallacy is generally just an assertion they think has been concluded as reasonable. So when you point out fallacy they often refuse to admit they are standing on assertion, not a justified conclusion.
mikkj1 The bible just says that the people over a certain age would have to die first because they disobeyed God and were no longer able to go into the Promised Land. This took 40 years. Not that 40 years is a whole generation.
MsWhosoever 40 is a magical or mystic number to the early Jews, apparently. It is used when a considerable length of time is needed. Rained 40 days and 40 nights...wandered 40 years in the desert....Jesus fasted in the wilderness 40 days and nights...etc.
David Rohl is a British Egyptologist who has reinterpreted Egyptian history, creating an alternate chronology. Guess what? His new chronology makes all of the Old Testament historically accurate. Gee. I'm surprised the US evangelists haven't jumped all over his theory. Three books, and matching video docs. He's also on You Tube.
The problem with perfection is that nothing changes - no need. Without change, there can be no time. Other than the continual "And there was evening, and there was morning-the next day" - every day was like the last. Having been given access to the Tree of Life (Eternal Youth) the adam and the woman could have been in the Garden for 3 years or 3 million years without ever having been aware of the difference.
It was the introduction of the serpent which provided that novelty from which thenceforth Time could be calculated - the same day, ironically, on which the couple were evicted, denied access to the Tree of Life and so, began to age.
The exodus did not happen. 1) The land of Canaan was under Egyptian rule at the time. This is well attested in archaeology, inscriptions and linguistics to the point of being accepted without controversy. The authors of Exodus are apparently unaware of this. So the Israelites left Egypt I, order to travel to Egyptian lands? 2)The bible says that the Israelites had an army of some 600,000 (larger than the Romans?!). This entails a overall population of at least 2.5 million. If they were to walk 8 abreast then as the front of the procession enters Canaan the end of the procession would still be in Egypt. How would they feed such a vast host? Where is the extra biblical evidence as none exists? A group that large should have left some sort of evidence. 3) The bible fails to mention any of the other known events of the bronze age collapse documented by Egyptian inscriptions and tablets to say nothing of the archaeology. Again, they are seemingly ignorant of events of the 13th century BCE. Ex: The arrival of multiple groups of "sea peoples". 4) The amarna letters document events of this time. They do not mention the Exodus but do describe events in Canaan in detail.Ex: the "apiru" 5) Many of the themes present in the exodus have parallels in Egyptian literature and poetry written centuries before the bible. See Spark's video on the Exodus. (the closest viable theory to the exodus is that of Friedman who posits that a small group of Levites migrated and assimilated into the Israelite/Canaanite population.) 6. The authors of exodus clearly had an agenda which makes land claims, fabricates an origin myth for the Israelites and establishes the levites as the most prominent tribe. The real value of exodus is that it shines light on the importation of YHWH into the Israelite pantheon likely from Mt Seir.
Jerad Clark I got some questions for you like How do you know that Egypt could do anything about losing there land if acording to the story itself the Egyptian army took a horrificly hard blow and I know this sounds very superstitious but wouldn't it make more sense if God wanted to hide the evidence of her doings because If she didn't it would ultimately be meaningless to be religous if it was undeniable that the Bible is historical and also a great historian once said " A lack of evidence is not a lack of existence" or something like that and If you ask me which one.im not sure but I do know a famous historian once said that or at least something like that. And another thing just because there are similar stories to exodus does not guarantee it is a false story because acording to this logic every piece of money has to look different to actually be valuable. I in no means want or intend to affend you and yes I am a Christian but I did my very best to look at this from the point of view of an agnostic.
Jerad Clark oh and about the 60,000 troops part do you think anyone had the time to accurately measure all those troops if they where running for there lives?
Hmmm. When I do my own research I see a very clear pattern of evidence, That the entire religion is completely fictional.
Snuffy Wuffykiss ummm what research and what makes it reliable?
Really...that is interesting since it only took me 10 minutes to find archaeological evidence to support the existence of King Solomon.
David Rohl is a genius and he ,along with Timothy Mahoney has exposed the appalling error in Egyptian Chronology.
Patterns of evidence is based on facts, and Finklestein and his chronies will have no place to hide once more evidence is discovered to prove they were and are wrong.
So when is Jesus coming back? I'd like to know.
Snuffy Wuffykiss
Oh snuff. Just close your eyes
oops
Smh he did in his judgment 70ad.
Great video matt! I haven't seen it yet, but I will when it comes out. Keep making videos!
Have any of you even watched the movie?
Excellent exposition, Matt. I'd like to shake your hand on that one.
Maybe this is my bias but when religious people do any kind of academic work like looking for the Exodus, it's always suspect to me. Now there are good serious scientists and historians that are religious but with something like this their track record isn't so great. They want it to be true. That's the problem. It should be that if you find something consistent with the Bible, yay. If you find something inconsistent with the Bible, yay. Truth is what we're looking for but sometimes that's not always how it goes. A lot of times it's, we found something inconsistent with the Bible. Hmm, what can we do about this?
Well actually the leading archaeologist in the film shows evidence for a good handful of the events and is actually agnostic. His name is David Rohl, he wrote a book on the chronology of Egypt which is what the film centers around. So you can't say it was only religious people because it wasn't. That's where Matt had that wrong.
And I don't blame you for being suspicious. I'm christian and whenever I hear a christian found something I find it a little hard to believe. That's what intrigued me about David Rohl. The fact he wasn't religious made him more intriguing to me.
redkidrocks1 Well, if it did happen, it doesn't really matter. The Exodus I mean of course. The Bible certainly has some names and places that are actual names and places. If it didn't, it's a problem for the Biblical literalist. That said, Rohl and his hypothesis aren't well accepted by the academic community. That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong but that doesn't really matter anyway because Biblical literalists have way bigger issues than this. Whatever the case, I'd rather the truth came to light. Whatever that truth might be.
I can agree with that. That's perfectly fine. I think these things will be solved eventually as time goes on and our technology and intelligence as a human race advances. But for now we still have a long way to go. But humans will keep growing and advancing. Eventually we will have all the answers I am sure.
"We don't have archaeological evidence..."
...other than 5200 manuscripts and counting. That's far more evidence than that of Shakespeare.
As always, great video but this is a shorter version: no evidence except the claims of your bible, so, no, most likely it didn’t happen. Move on.
Right that's what the documentary said. Read out of the Bible for two hours. Get a clue.
The 480 years between Solomon and the Exodus, from the way I understood it, they actually demonstrated that it didn't quite meet where they were proposing the Exodus took place, and they then explained how during that deficiency, Egypt was taken by unknown invaders from the north.
Unless I'm understanding their explanation wrong, they never satisfied that discrepancy in their theory.
The invaders from the north, were the seven "summer' constellations. Egypt, in the bible, means winter season.
Matt, may I ask a qualifying question just to better understand your point of view? You used the phrase "REAL HISTORIANS." What criteria do you use to define an ancient, "real" historian? Or, if you have not already defined it, how would you?
Presumably anyone with actual experience and credentials relevant to the subject.
Nobody cares what a mechanic had to say about chemistry, or what a theologian has to say about archaeology.
***** That is a very generalized and subjective answer, I am asking for specifics; even names. As long as someone defines who a "real" historian" is, they can cherry pick who they want to believe and dismiss anyone they don't want to believe. If you decide you will believe certain historians over others, then you must have a specific criteria you apply to all of them equally.
DeathsHood
He isn't a historian lol
Credentialed, professional historians. Historians with relevant PhD's, academic positions and published, peer-reviewed work.
Ken Scaletta ^Those are all just buzzwords to make people feel confident.
Small amounts of evidence scattered here and there may not create a pattern so to speak, but key bits of information can stick out enough to make your brain notice something. I know that sounds a little bit odd lol, but it's true. Its like when you find a puzzle piece that doesn't have any matching parts, yet, but you have an idea of where it goes by looking at the bigger picture's pparticular patterns.
Dennis Prager said why would they make up a negative story of their history? It’s not negative. It’s an inspiring story of the Israelites being slaves in a very powerful kingdom and God freeing them and destroying the Egyptians.
You will know if they're really historians if there is a part two where they then verify with earlier dates. That would be the exact historian kind of thing to do. Making a shift in chronology doesn't feel like a conclusion to a documentary in search of a pattern, but the part where it finally gets interesting.
You're correct about searching for what he wanted to find BUT proving and disproving any theory runs similarly ! We search for evidence for theories in science.
Patterns of Evidence is based on Revised Chronologist David Rohl who wrote a book called " A TEST OF TIME " he had made a similar documentary back in 1996 , he tried to reduce the Egyptian dynasties to fit the bible , he (Rohl ) claimed the opposite that he was doing .
What you said around 31:30 is awesome. I had thought this but am not even remotely a Biblical scholar. It is gratifying that one so learned as you can provide some support for this idea I had. I know many people who are believers are extremely impressed when archaeologists uncover actual evidence for things the Bible mentions when there was no evidence previously for those things. It seems to me that the Bible could be 100% accurate about all the historical information in it, but how does that prove anything supernatural?
Matt Dillahunty
Have you read the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts" and do you recommend it? Also, what other books would you recommend for this subject?
Lol I posted the link and then heard him talk directly about it.
I have to admit, when I first heard you reference the *date*, my thought was, "Who cares? It's not important.". What's important to me is whether the Egyptians recorded the events described by the Bible. If those incredible events actually happened, I'm pretty sure they would have been momentous enough for many people to have commented on it. Another aspect that seems important is whether the believers really believe the magic occurred and that Pharaoh had magicians too. Another important aspect to me is the fact that according to the Bible, God took away Pharaoh's free will (assuming we actually have free will) so he could, as Matt has commented before and I agree, could show off. One of the most troubling stories is that God would murder all the first born babies at houses that didn't have the mark over their door. Murdering babies to make a point? Whew.
Matt, I miss the red goatee. Otherwise, phenomenal job in this channel. Absolutely love your work.
All I would say is that, having watched the associated lecture series that comes with the documentary, the film on its own is a very limited depiction of the overall argument. Might be worth examining the lecture series as well!
Sure you can calculate dates
It is possible to calculate back from the destruction of the Second Temple until the end of the first exile, from the end of the first exile until the destruction of the First Temple, from the destruction of the First Temple until the construction of the first temple, the end of the construction of the first Temple to exodus.
The relative timing between these events are written in the Bible
I recall a pretty good documentary I saw when I was younger, which pointed out how a bunch of the dating of the ancient egyptian timeline was historically waaaay out of whack, in many cases by centuries, all due to the earliest egyptologists having gone with a consensus based upon dating it BY THE BIBLE. And how actual archaeogical evidence had snowballed over the years which obviously massively contradicted the timeline everyone had just assumed was correct.
You mean there interpretation of the Bible of when they think it took place.
The Exodus happened at the time of Akhenaten, who become a monotheist. That's all the proof you need of the impact of the ten plagues. Thanks for discussing this!
We can now date the Exodus reliably by radiocarbon-14 dating and astronomy. RC14 dates Shishak's invasion to year 39 of Solomon in 871 BCE. Supporting this is an eclipse over Assyria occurring in month 3 in 709 BCE. That eclipse also dates Shishak's invasion in 871 BCE. That means year 4 of Solomon falls in 906 BCE and the Exodus is dated to 1386 BCE. An astronomical text from Ugarit also dates year 12 of Akhenaten to 1375 BCE (KTU 1.78), which also dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. Also, Kathleen Kenyon says that Jericho fell at the hands of the Israelites sometime between 1350-1325 BCE, which fits 1346 BCE as the date Jericho fell. So lots of archaeological proof for when the Exodus must occur, which is 1386 BCE.
But also, if you follow Bible prophecy, the return of the Jews to their homeland to spend the last week of their covenant in their homeland also dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. 1947 ends Jewish exile, beginning the final week, that is, the 70th week of their covenant of 70 weeks of 49 years each. Add 49 to 1947 to end the covenant in 1996. 70 x 49 = 3430 years. So the covenant began in 1435 BCE. The Exodus occurs 49 years later, thus in 1386 BCE. (1435 - 49 = 1386 BCE).
So we can now confirm the dating of the Exodus to 1386 BCE, at the beginning of the rule of Akhenaten. Of course, as noted, Akhenaten converted to monotheism and started suppressing the "worthless" God's of Egypt, confirming the impact of the 10 plagues. Plus one of his hymns is compared to a psalm of David!! So it's the same God. "Aten" and YHWH were the same god. The Exodus did, indeed, happen!!
Thanks for posting on this.
@LiberalGooner 1450 BCE? I've never heard that.
Archaeology dates the fall of Jerricho by the Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE. That dates the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE, 40 years earlier.
Radiocarbon 14 dating dates Shishack's invasion to 871 BCE, supplemented and confirmed by an eclipse in 709 BCE mentioned in the Assyrian eponym. Dated to year 39 of Solomon, the Exodus would occur in 1386 BCE. So 1450 BCE is too early.
The Exodus is a jubilee event coordinated with the jubilee event for the return from Babylon exactly 19 jubilees later. 19 jubillees is 931 years. 1450 - 931= 519 BCE. The advent of the 1st coming is 483 years after the return; 519 - 482 = 37 BCE. Christ was baptized in 29 CE, not 37 BCE.
Where in the Bible does it say the Exodus happened in 1450 BCE?
@LiberalGooner Thank you for that information.
1 Kings 6:1 actually says, "in the 480th year after the sons of Israel came out from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year" of Solomon. So the Exodus should be calculated 480 years earlier than the 4th of Solomon.
David Rohl has a different timeline than most. Thus 1386 BCE is likewise a qualified date based on various archaeological sources. Of primary note, though, 1386 BCE would be the year of the Exodus as the first jubilee of the covenant when 1947 becomes the last jubilee of the covenant of 70 jubilees.
That is, if 1947 begins the 70th jubilee, then the covenant would end in 1996, 49 years later. 70 jubillees of 49 years each is 3430 years beginning in 1435 BCE. The Exodus would occur as the 1st jubilee of the covenant in 1386 BCE, which is a date directly supported by radiocarbon 14 dating.
Of note, David Rohl's theories potentially work except for RC14. He has to dismiss all RC14 dating to so drastically redate the Egyptian timeline. Using 1947 to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE is supported by lots RC14 from Jericho and Rehov and samples taken from various dynasties based on stored grain samples collected from various museums.
The 1386 BCE date only works with Christ's baptism in 29 CE.
But different people use different timelines they prefer. Jehovah's Witnesses date the Exodus even earlier than 1450 BCE; they date the Exodus as early as 1513 BCE. This means they must ignore all archaeological, astronomical and RC14 evidence now in place. It is impossible to harmonize the baptism of Christ in 29 CE with an Exodus as early as 1513 BCE.
Thanks for your reference. I like David Rohl otherwise.
@LiberalGooner RC14 limits options for dating theories. You have flexibility interpreting ancient records and even the Bible, which is all "relative" history. Astronomy provides absolute dating but is often nonspecific so you can have more than one match to select from. Stratigraphy also is controversial with sometimes wide ranges. But RC14 dating is unforgiving. It does not have much flexibility and is strategically consistent so far. Some 14 bushels of stored grain was found at the MBA destruction level at Jericho, dating that event c. 1550 BCE, the time of Ahmose and the Hyksos expulsion. Based on that, the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites is dated between 1350-1325 BCE supported and harmonized by LBA pottery finds. Thus the Exodus in either 1513 BCE or 1450 BCE must throw out the archaeology and RC14. In the meantime, 1386 BCE based on 1947 and 29 CE completely agrees with both archaeology and RC14 from both MBA Jericho and Rehov, which dates year 39 of Solomon specifically to 871 BCE.
Your choice.
@LiberalGooner Oh yes, absolutely. Akhenaten became a monotheist after the Exodus. Once you date the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten, everything gets confirmed and falls in place.
ua-cam.com/video/lpkK6XoqRQo/v-deo.html
@LiberalGooner Hi Jay the comedian!
Matthew 24:30 speaks of the "sign of the son of man" appearing in the sky to the anointed, and when they see it, they beat themselves in lamentation. That's because the image they see is of a dead black messiah's face. (Acts 8:27-39)
Page 159 of the "Revelation" book shows this dead black child's face in the hand of Jesus, thus clearly connecting the two. So that sign of the last days was actually fulfilled, beginning in 1950 when the new "pre-messiah" was born. Here's that image. No one can say the sign never appeared to anointed ones.
images.app.goo.gl/rs5zvLB4nCxX9NCRA
I as a christian enjoyed this video very much. Im glad to say that i came to a similar conclussion and have not been telling people we have proof, but as you do point out there is evidence and it may not outweigh the burden of proof yet but i do still have faith that we will find more evidence along this vain (the 1450 bc date) but we may very well not. Either way i like your fair presentation of the complexity of this topic and your reasonable aproach to some of the more fanatic christians.
They cannot assert a later date as exodus 1:11 mentions Pithom,and Ramses "supply centers for the king". Ramses was built in the 13th century BCE not the 15th. Pithom was used as a supply city much much later. This is one of the very few verses that could possibly yield a date, the founding of a city. It is 13th century or bust and bust it is for reasons explained elsewhere.
There’s also archeological evidence that indicates that Hebrew culture emerged from Canaanite culture. Material culture archeology shows that Hebrews were culturally Canaanite. They never arrived in the levant. They were just canaanites who lived in remote goat herding villages who eventually developed a unique cultural identity separate from other canaanites.
Issue rarely discussed: Moses or any other occupants of Egypt would have learned Egyptian writing, if any. Hebrew writing did not exist. So if a witness wrote about Exodus, it would have been in Egyptian. There are a smattering of Egyptian loan words in Hebrew. If Exodus were accurate, Hebrew would be full of Egyptian loan words.
Just read "BIBLE STORIES MOTHER NEVER TOLD ME" by CL Putnam. It'll blow your mind and make you LYAO!!
Nice debate. Who was the opponent? Kiddin'. It's a nice documentary though isn't it? Gotta admit it's pretty compelling. I get that you can't easily accept it all as one coherent thing, but the individual evidences do lend themselves to biblical characters and details quite nicely.
Unbiased opinions! What are you talking about o' faithless one.
The Exodus, out of Egypt (winter) always begins on December 25. This happens every year.
Given what we know of Egypt in the mid-15th century BCE, I find the hypothesis of the 1450 BCE date highly unlikely to be anything but an ass pull on the part of "bible historians" Egypt in the 1450s was in a period of aggressive expansion and martial glory. From its tremendous victory against the Canaanite alliance at Meggido in 1457 BCE, Thutmose III in the following years went so far as crossing the Euphrates to strike at the heartland of the Mitanni in what is now Southeastern Turkey. This almost unrivaled projection of strength did not indicate an Egypt wracked by famine, plague, and various catastrophes of supernatural origin.
While a part of me chuckles at the mental image of Moses sitting in the desert eating goat shit with his followers while his brother was off adventuring from Turkey to the Sudan, the most likely explanation is that the story is just another bible myth with no basis in reality. Israelites didn't even appear in any Egyptian record until the Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1208-1203 BCE, and I am sick and tired of bible apologists trying to twist and distort everyone else's history in a pathetic attempt to retroactively colonize the world in Allah-Yahweh's image.
Edit: Just read that Patterns of Evidence is based on the work of David Rohl and his "revised chronology." Rohl apparently made a documentary of his own where he moved around Egyptian dynasties in order to fit biblical timescales. Well, well, well . . .
Having read Finkelstein (I can see it from here but its not close enough to confirm the spelling of his name) the evidence for the exodus is extremely thin at whatever time you date it.
However, the physical evidence since about 1400 BCE, for a small hill dwelling group of Canaanites slowly separating themselves from the groups of Canaanites that lived on the plains and coast of ancient Palestine, by developing different practices like eschewing pork and designing their villages to a different plan, is extremely compelling.
The exodus is an extraordinary claim, a bunch of middle easterners becoming xenophobic over time(imo) isn't. The extraordinary claim has way less evidence than the everyday claim.
The Canaanites by 800-600 BCE who were now calling themselves Israelites and Judeans, looked around and wondered why they were so different to the other cultures around them and needed a myth to explain it.
Dead Kennedy Or not so slowly. Some Canaanite cities show signs of rebellion about the time many kingdoms were failing, apparently from famine and other calamities, such as volcanoes.
Jaroslav, yes you are right. Except in the Sinai, where there IS firm evidence for the Exodus. Maybe the atheist will revert to a religious belief, when he reads my book 'Where Moses Stood'. 1250 BCE is about right and there are numerous trajectories that all point to this period. 1450 BCE just does not work. The book identifies the exact mountain where the Ten Comms Commandments were received.
I like that you addressed the age of people in Genesis as preposterous. Also, why would God strike down a man for "pulling out" when with a woman. If you follow the story, he was not a good man. So God was essentially upset that a "bad man" didn't fertilize a young woman. So god struck him dead. Crazy story
I don't know what Finkelstein said in this film, but if he still holds to the "different kind" of Exodus he did at the time of publishing The Bible Unearthed, then that is all but saying the Exodus never happened as it is so far removed from the Biblical account as to be unrecognisable
Well we do have archeological evidence in regards to Solomons son Rehoboam. The bible says the Pharaoh Shishak, attack Jerusalem. We do have on the Bubastite Portal showing the Pharaoh Shoeshenq attack several towns in Judah right around the time the bible says Shishak attacked. And thats around 924B.C.
So Solomon's reign happening during the early to mid 10th century B.C. seems reasonable. Considering their is archeological evidence to support events that happened during his son's reign.
It wasn't just shepherds in Goshen, they had Hebrew names and left behind Proto-Sinaitic Hebrew tablets mentioning Moses and other biblical characters by name.
I saw a thing on super old people in the old testament. Said their ages work if you count by a lunar cycle instead of a solar one.
700 years (lunar cycle) divided by 12.5 to get solar years 56 yo
900\12.5=72 yo
So years were months, how much was a month?
As for the one guy's "why record negative history?" I would disagree with him on principle. After reading Exodus I didn't see much "negative history," what I read was an "underdog story." It states how bad it was, how hard things were and how "impossible" escaping the bondage would have been without their "all powerful gawd." And a few of the "negative events" caused by the Israelites are told as object lessons about doing wrong in Gawd's eyes and how it brought punishment.
Did the movie bring up other alleged "proofs" for the Exodus, like suspected locations of Mount Sinai or split rocks thought to have been broken by Moses? Or did they just focus on trying to determine the rough date?
According to the Exodus story, moses was serving Pharoah in Egypt for 40 years. But where is the documentation from Egypt on that? 40 years is a looong time to go without documenting.
The most sound conclusion is that The Exodus account certainly happened for there was/is a Jewish people, Jewish Book (Torah or Bible), Jewish religious culture, history, traditions, historical Jewish land (Israel) and empire, and in their traditions they indict (in one manner or another) numerous other peoples and empires throughout periods in history who offer no conflicting account, if only to defend these indictments.
There is not a shred of history contributing to any alternative account which ought to be expected, if even from a break-away from among the same people, neighboring peoples,. warring peoples, or just some historical context for some supposed alternative origin.
Who are they really (before they "supposedly became Jews")?
Where did they come from?
How did their intricate life encompassing practices develop?
Where did their text come from?
Why does no one expose this purported alternative account through-out history, especially all those empires (greeks, romans, persians) who sought to eradicate them and/or their culture and practices?
Etc etc etc etc etc
Bear in-mind they were located at the crossroads of other civilizations about which we know much, and who have recorded much about those surrounding them etc...
It is more preposterous to hypothesize a conspiracy among all people's to hide their supposed "true origin", than that nature has the capacity to perform (miraculously) different than we observe it mundanely perform today, given the right circumstances...
Either way, the critic surely has a lot of fiction writing to do to create even a simple structure of an alternative account for a most basic explanation that can even begin to answer the above questions, and yet leave the most challenging of them unanswered, least of all how no nation makes no mention of this alternative account EVER, ANYWHERE, let alone as a challenge to the given account (which very likely indicts them).
So again, the most sound conclusion is, that it happened.
This would certainly explain everything about the Jewish people.
To hypothesize anything else is to disregard historical testimony of an entire people's existence and concoct a fiction. Only a madman would favor this over the original, especially considering the implications about nature and it's hidden potential.
To the skeptical, baselessly nature-limiting naysayers...
You've gone mad!
Get well soon, quacks.
Ori Matisyohu
*There is not a shred of history contributing to any alternative account which ought to be expected, if even from a break-away from among the same people, neighboring peoples,. warring peoples, or just some historical context for some supposed alternative origin*
Why? It's not like anyone really gave a shit about the Jews.
*Who are they really (before they "supposedly became Jews")?**Where did they come from?*
*How did their intricate life encompassing practices develop?*
*Where did their text come from?*
Their text is a recompilation of older Sumerian myths. The jews appear to be merely a fragmented sect of earlier peoples. Again, no one really gave a shit about the jews until much, much later.
*Bear in-mind they were located at the crossroads of other civilizations about which we know much, and who have recorded much about those surrounding them etc*
Not even remotely true. The Romans recorded a bunch, but there are plenty of other barbarian tribes of which we know little about.
*It is more preposterous to hypothesize a conspiracy among all people's to hide their supposed "true origin", than that nature has the capacity to perform (miraculously) different than we observe it mundanely perform today, given the right circumstances*
Might want to see a doctor.
Not just our God is good but our God is superior is the underlying foundation of the story. The importance is not the provable History, rather the sometimes moral of the story.
There’s still a wall standing of Solomon’s temple, so what are you talking about at 13:08? The beams found underneath the dome of the rock when it was renovated after an earthquake in 1927 were dated to as far back as the 9th century BCE.
Another thing that points to the Exodus narrative as not historical is the writers use of the image of Hammurabi receiving his Law Code from his God Shamash/Marduk from on top of the mountains.
There's no way this is historical.
I think the first point of evidence that's very important to acknowledge is the fact that the bible clearly dates the Exodus before the Dynasty of Ramses. So right there we know that there would be no evidence in that time period.
According to Wikipedia Solomon reigned 970-931 BCE. Just saying.
People of this era don't understand the purpose of scriptures.
An idea is converted into an action in seven stages. In scriptures, each stage is associated with an element of nature.
The seven stages, and the element of nature associated with them, are,
1. Day dreaming - Sky
2. Illusion of satisfaction and courage - Air (symbolized by enslavement of Jews by Pharaoh)
3. Creativity - Fire (Moses finds god in bush fire)
4. Stability / flexibility of life - Water (Red sea. Also, Moses first appears on water).
5. Determination / discipline - Land (Promised land - Israel).
6. Status alteration - Sun
7. Compulsion - Sun
Thus, the history of Moses is allegorically about conversion of illusory satisfaction and courage into real and permanent achievement.
Why are scriptures written allegorically? What are the seven levels mentioned above, actually?
The 320 pairs of muscles in our body can isometrically synchronize to functionally become one single unified muscle.
The contraction of the unified muscle to seven levels viz. feet, knees, hip, abdomen, chest, neck and head, that converts an idea into action in seven stages.
Unfortunately, no one can unify the 320 pairs of muscles and make it contract towards the seven levels. Scriptures enables this indirectly.
Thus, reading the religious history of Moses one move the unified muscle that has contracted permanently towards the knees to contract to the level of chest. This would enable one to discard illusory achievements and have real achievement.
Jesus mechanism, which is an extension of Moses mechanism, enables day dreams to be converted into the stage of status alteration.
The next prophet mechanism, obviously would convert ideas into the stage of compulsion.
Thus, history of Moses would make the mechanism rigid. One can reduce Moses mechanism into an isometric exercise. However, it would result in never ending changes in life.
It should be mentioned here that to make Moses eternal, his history should be precisely 50% reliable.
I’m wondering who the sources are that the movie uses. If they not secular archaeologists then there’s reason to doubt. All the secular sources I’ve seen like Finkelstein and Stavrakopoulou say that there’s not a shred of evidence for the enslavement, wandering, the Exodus or Moses himself. And the dates attributed to the actual writing of the OT coincide with about the 9th to 7th century BCE and later, not the 12 or 14th century as biblically oriented scholars
I think you are misunderstanding the logical basis for the New Chronology. The New Chronology was developed as an explanation for Egyptian archaeology, not Israelite archaeology. The Egyptian shift came first and then the Israelite history was shifted.
So all you have to do is change established historical facts and everything works. Incredible!
There's an old saying: Why ruin a good* story with the truth?...
I think what may be happening here is people are losing their religion in record numbers each year. It's losing its grip on our collective consciousnesses, esp. in light recent terror events (which is also actually a direct reaction to this process - so it's circular, but there's clear a trajectory to the good, so it's really a spiral or looping pattern).
Anyway, also due to this process, films like "Heaven is for Real" and "God's Not Dead" are starting to crop up (along with the big Hollywood blockbusters - recognizing our recent heightened interest), along with "docs" such as this one.
Docs like this are likely only meant to attempt (however honestly) to justify the filmmakers' own (perhaps waning) beliefs and to bring a doubting audience back into the fold. But I'd argue that they're actually doing themselves, and the church, a disservice by 1., looking for "facts" or "evidence" to support the claim, which, to Matt's point, can only make the story more secular (see above adage); and 2., as Matt describes here, showing just how unscientific this process actually is, or can ever hope to be.
Hmmm. There is enough evidence for me. Before I watched the film I was happy with books like "the Bible as history" revealing where archaeologists said, Abraham couldn't have existed at all becuase there was no such place as "Ur of the chaldeas". Then eventually they discovered Ur!!
God isn't into playing, "peek a boo. Here I am" . As time passes evidence of biblical events have and are being revealed.
The film and even this clip make clear timing is a mish mash of conflicting evidence and so be it, but he didn't refer to Joseph's tomb and other very compelling evidence of the reality of events at some point in time. Why wouldn't we give some credence to an account in a book written shortly after these events by Moses himself and after that, Joseph as well as contemporary writers??
Moses is a copy of the Greek Ganymede and others. Baby Abraham was nursed by a goat goddess, the same one that nursed baby Zeus. .........and there is Dinah/Danae the daughter of Jacob and Leah (winter) who was impregnated by Zeus in a shower of gold. This resulted in the birth of Perseus whom we can still see in the night skies with his flaming sword that guards the eastern gate to the Garden of Eden (spring - summer).
Of course the issue is more complex than the move attempts to make known. It is already WAY over most peoples heads, it is a documentary with a wider sweeping target audience, not a piece of comprehensive scholarship for intensive attacks by the cynical.
My father is a Bible teacher and we were "discussing" the improbable ages of these characters, he pointed out to me that all these characters were pre-flood as if that were supposed to mean something...But, what I really want to know is what were these pre-flood peoples teeth made of? I mean I'm 40 and if not for modern dentistry I'd already be dead from infection from a broken tooth, so either these folks were living hundreds of years with no teeth or else they had some fucking resilient chompers.
Great video!