ATTN: John L. (no air content people, sorry!)

>Still, 1447 is still Amenhotep II. I
>accidentally got it right! (still within the
>same reign) Thanks for pointing out, though.

Wait... NO!
Sorry, but I think I have it figured out now.

done 960(BC)
+7 in building
start 967
+480 since Egypt
1447, during time of Thutmose III (1425-1479)

OK. There! Got it now. Don't know how I got those first answers...

[stephen]

Carbon dating only off by one hundred years on a 5,000 year old approximation? You're being very, very generous, Air Gecko.

And pardon me for reversing the question, but how can the Bible NOT be used as a primary source? We accept Roman historians who wrote a thousand years later but discount the claims of people who were there? You may not accept its theological claims, but to pass up a golden source of written information - and one of the oldest contemporary accounts in many cases - is unthinkable from a historical standpoint.

>And pardon me for reversing the question, but
>how can the Bible NOT be used as a primary
>source? We accept Roman historians who wrote a
>thousand years later but discount the claims of
>people who were there? You may not accept its
>theological claims, but to pass up a golden
>source of written information - and one of the
>oldest contemporary accounts in many cases - is
>unthinkable from a historical standpoint.

I agree, and I believe most historians/archaeologists do as well. As far as I've seen, it is considered a quite useful "primary source". However, as with all primary (or secondary, or any other) sources, it likely contains a error or misrepresentation or two . Most document sources do, though, including newspapers, journals, and census records. All of them have some flaw in their data, and cannot always be taken at face value. Nor can physical data, and the representations thereof. Only together do they provide a fairly clear picture, which is why I'd like to get a better look at the physical evidence surrounding this issue. Wouldn't be the first time archaeological deductions have been false...

Are you suggesting that Genesis should be used as a primary source for historians? The Bible is a series of folk tales; nothing more, and nothing less.

>Are you suggesting that Genesis should be used
>as a primary source for historians? The Bible is
>a series of folk tales; nothing more, and
>nothing less.

Yes and no. It cannot, as I've said, be taken at face value. That doesn't mean that all the information within is false, and useless. It provides some ground on which to compare archaeological evidence. For example, the city of Troy would likely not have been found when it was if not for the information contained within the Illiad, another mythology. All myths have some basis in reality, otherwise people would pay them no creedence. And, also, it is one of few written accounts from people who actually lived at that time. They surely didn't have a firm grasp on many pieces of knowledge that are common today, like the mechanics of rainfall, but they could, more likely than not, count, and identify what a "year" was. That's not saying the dates in there are accurate, but some of them are. Not all the dates we assume to be true from archaeological sources are accurate, so, when there's a difference, we have to look a little harder to see which one is wrong, if not both.

Interesting subject...

The Bible certainly contains information of use to scholars. That information is probably more of use concerning the periods in which the books were written than it is of the periods being written about. The Exodus is certainly a good example of this: the story seems to have been written down well after the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, perhaps to serve as an origin myth.

There seems to be no archaeological evidence to support the story. Nor is there any primary source evidence, in the sense of documents written by either of the parties supposedly involved. Egypt has pretty extensive documentation about the major events of the reigns of the period in question, and there is not a mention in any of it about Hebrews, a slave revolt, a series of plagues, or the death of a king in the pursuit of escaping slaves. This lack of reference in Egyptian texts has long been recognized as a problem. But current archaeological study in Israel is casting other doubts on the story as well. There is no archaeological evidence yet found that supports the story of the passage of the Israelites/Hebrews through the Sinai at the time in question. And I read the other day that the story of the conquest of Jericho couldn't have happened because, according to at least one group of Israeli archaeologists, Jericho the city didn't even exist at the time.

It's all very interesting, indeed.

[mike_baram]

Exodus never happened? *&%$#!!!!!!!!!
4,000 years of Post Traumatic Slavery Syndrome and I don't even get reparations?
Where's my @#!%&# lawyer?????????

Mike:

Yours was a humorous take on what many rabbii's view as a serious issue. Think about it, if there was no Exodus then there was no Moses. W/o Moses the basis for Judiaism is severly undermined. Oh - oh.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[stephen]

>Are you suggesting that Genesis should be used
>as a primary source for historians? The Bible is
>a series of folk tales; nothing more, and
>nothing less.

Most of the Biblical "problems" pointed out in previous threads have been based on a lack of evidence, not the presence of contrary evidence... somewhat akin to me saying that Socrates never lived because I dug up my backyard and didn't find any bones. Obviously, the issue goes much deeper than that but you will find qualified historians and archeologists on both sides of the fence, and the jury is most certainly still out and will be for a long, long time to come.

BTW, speaking of Genesis... the theory of creation is no more utterly absurd than the theory of evolution. Both are based on a fervent religious faith and both defy every law of nature. Let's not let our religous viewpoints completely overwhelm our ability to think.

[Chris_Tydlacka]

>Are you suggesting that Genesis should be used
>as a primary source for historians? The Bible is
>a series of folk tales; nothing more, and
>nothing less.

You believe the bible is false and is nothing but fairy tales. Do you are saying that the reason our wonderful US of A began was based on a bunch of hooey? You are trying to tell us that 2000-years of people’s faith in God is baseless! Please tell me where the Israelites really were during their "captivity" in Egypt and who scorched the top of Agar, which is Mount Sinai in Arabia. Shall I continue with other more scientific "folk tales" such as the big bang?





An interesting article is available at this sight.
http://www.exchangedlife.com/wyatt/sinai.html