The Exodus - Did It Really Happen?

[bluebell]

Oh, I like that I can read about places in the Bible, and look at them today (pictures; never been to the Middle East). One of my favorites is Caesarea Phillipi. It gives a depth of meaning that otherwise isn't there. It is a very ancient site of worship, going back Ba'al, the "nemesis" of the Elohim culture in the Old Testament. It is near the "way of the sea", mentioned by Isaiah. Later, it was dedicated to the pagan god Pan. It is a site of ancient Greek battles, and Alexandrian conquest. During Jesus' lifetime a pagan temple stood, built on the rock formation of the area, in front of a grotto that according to Josephus had never had its depths measured (couldn't find the bottom). It was therefore considered to be a gate to Hades. So understanding the setting, its history, its usage through time, brings meaning to the words of Jesus when he told Peter he was the rock that his church would be built on, and the gates of hades would never prevail against it.

 

God is present in history and so we find history (including historical artifacts) and the places where God acts in human history, woven together, not separated by time. Evidence is there.

 

The Book of Mormon has no such places, anywhere on the planet. I don't know how anyone can look at that and not go, "wait a minute".

 

I have a degree in history, and i've worked on archaeological digs (nothing too exciting, just some stuff dealing with Clark along the Yellowstone River in MT of Louis and Clark fame).  I also love history and find it a very moving experience to stand in places and know who had stood there before.  

 

And I believe that God is present in History as well.  But, again, that doesn't mean that historical places can prove theological truth claims.  

 

I disagree that the BOM has no such places.  Just because we can't connect places to the BOM doesn't mean the connection doesn't exist.  Jericho was Jericho decades (or hundreds of years) before people figured out where they were standing.   And let's not forget that the BOM talks about places in the Middle East, which are identifiable. 

[bluebell]

Bluebell's "reasoning" is lacking in reason. (Sorry.)

 

The point of evidence is to support what is being presented as fact, not to determine who has the truest religion. Conspiracy theories waiting for evidence, doesn't support anything.

 

Exactly!  You have perfectly made my point.  If the existence of Jerusalem supports the 'fact' of Christianity, then the existence of the Parthenon, or Rome, or Troy, supports the 'fact' of Zeus.

 

You've just made some atheist's day.  

[bluebell]

They didn't need archeology to keep their faith in Christ alive but the city of Jerusalem did exist as did others which proved they weren't living in a fantasy world either.

 

So the existence of Rome means that the people who worshiped Zeus weren't living in a fantasy world?  I actually know a guy who still worships the gods of the vikings, and he uses arguments such as yours concerning Christianity to show just how valid his religious beliefs truly are.  

[mfbukowski]

Exactly!  You have perfectly made my point.  If the existence of Jerusalem supports the 'fact' of Christianity, then the existence of the Parthenon, or Rome, or Troy, supports the 'fact' of Zeus.

 

You've just made some atheist's day.  

OOOOHHHH  That's a GOOD one!

 

I definitely have to steal that one! 

[pogi]

An entire civilization and culture isn't a matter of faith. Only for Mormons and Scientology!

 

That's why we have the Book of Mormon.  That is pretty good evidence to me. 

 

There are many lost cities where location has been lost but knowledge of its existence has been retained in myths, legends, or historical records (like the Book of Mormon). 

 

Ever heard of Atlantis as described by Plato?  Mormons aren't the only crazy ones!

[JLHPROF]

That's why we have the Book of Mormon.  That is pretty good evidence to me. 

 

There are many lost cities where location has been lost but knowledge of its existence has been retained in myths, legends, or historical records (like the Book of Mormon). 

 

Ever heard of Atlantis as described by Plato?  Mormons aren't the only crazy ones!

 

It's funny - to say that we have no historical record of the Book of Mormon civilizations, but that's exactly what the Book of Mormon is.  A very detailed record of the Book of Mormon civilizations.  Just because the original plates aren't available for scientists to carbon date and historians to pour over doesn't make it any less a historical record.  Just means the proof isn't there again, but why on earth are we trying to "prove" religion?

[Helen47]

have you read some of the slaying stories in Samuel? Perhaps can be classed in the same category that B H Roberts classed some stories in the BOM

[Robert F. Smith]

So the existence of Rome means that the people who worshiped Zeus weren't living in a fantasy world?  I actually know a guy who still worships the gods of the vikings, and he uses arguments such as yours concerning Christianity to show just how valid his religious beliefs truly are.  

The Vikings were the last Europeans converted to Christianity.  I can still hear my late mother yelling at us kids in frustration:  "Ye gods!!"  A carryover from her recent Viking ancestors, though I doubt she was aware of it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just because you can see places today that existed a long time ago does not give any credence to stories that take place there...The Illiad and the Oddysey mention places that can still be seen and visited today... doesn't make those stories factual.

I can read about places in The Bourne Identity too, in fact the whole series of books mention places that really exist and can be visited, but that doesn't make them true...

Book of Mormon places may have already been found but not realized. Instead of Zarahemla, it may be known as Mexico City, or Chicago, or something else.

Nephites and Lamanites could be known as Olmec, or Aztec, or Mayan, or Navajo or Comanche, or Utes, or something else.

Yeh, and the "Maltese Falcon" story takes place in San Francisco, all the locations mentioned being well known to the residents of the city.  That doesn't make it a true story.

 

Biblical stories are indeed placed in a well-known locale.  Yet, that doesn't prove that any of the miracles described in the Bible actually took place.  That requires faith.

 

What makes the Book of Mormon particularly credible is that the account of its discovery and translation are so preposterous that they cannot be true!!  Yet, the internal and external evidence can be correlated with real events and history in both old and new worlds, so that what cannot be true is shown by the preponderance of evidence to be very likely and to be the only actual buttress to belief in the Bible which is not simply faith-based.  Another irony.

[Robert F. Smith]

Agreed.....there are just a lot of us who aren't holding our breath anymore. When you find something of significance, give us a call.

I wonder, though, just what sort of evidence would you find significant?  Based on what you have said about this matter here and on other threads, the range of evidence which you allow is particularly narrow and predetermined.  Like criminalistics, archeology is not constrained by such limited circumstances.  Most detectives and scholars prefer the full range of evidence to be evaluated.

[TrespassersW]

Yeh, and the "Maltese Falcon" story takes place in San Francisco, all the locations mentioned being well known to the residents of the city.  That doesn't make it a true story.

 

Biblical stories are indeed placed in a well-known locale.  Yet, that doesn't prove that any of the miracles described in the Bible actually took place.  That requires faith.

And this is, IMO, a fundamental difference between the Bible and Book of Mormon. The Bible can be considered historical fiction and that works just fine. Scholars are free to debate or ignore speculation about Biblical locations all they like. But if the Book of Mormon is historical in any way (apart from the reign of Zedekiah and the fall of Jerusalem), then that can only mean that Joseph Smith was a prophet. How else could he have known? For this reason, any scholarship surrounding the Book of Mormon will face the very large hurdle of convincing scholars not only that this or that site is a plausible location for Zarahemla, but also that we must plausibly accept that Joseph Smith obtained this knowledge by the power of God. 

 

No matter how strong a case is made, unless one is willing to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, one can never say "Sure, I'm willing to believe that this is where Zarahemla was." 

 

Take, for example, the site of Nehem for Nahom in the Book of Mormon. I think that's about as plausible a case as could possibly be made. And yet, not only will critics not accept its plausibility, they won't even accept that it constitutes evidence of any kind. When one cannot accept the possibility that Joseph was a prophet, one cannot give serious consideration to the idea that Zarahemla actually exists--much less that we might actually find it.

[ERayR]

I have been reading the Bible Unearthed and watched the long youtube video by authors Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. They write "According to the biblical narrative, the children of Israel campled at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clar from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34. It has been identified by archaeologists with the large and well watered oasis of Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai, on the borde between modern Israel and Egypt. The name Kadesh was probably perserved ober the centuries in the name of a nearby smaller spring called Ein Qadis. A small mound with the remains of a Late Iron Age fort stands at the center of this oasis. Yet repeated excavationis and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided evne the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees" PAGE 63 The Bible Unearthed.

 

They find no evidence for a number of other sites. Perhaps Robert Smith has the counter evidence?

 

It was not  small band.

[Robert F. Smith]

And this is, IMO, a fundamental difference between the Bible and Book of Mormon. The Bible can be considered historical fiction and that works just fine. Scholars are free to debate or ignore speculation about Biblical locations all they like. But if the Book of Mormon is historical in any way (apart from the reign of Zedekiah and the fall of Jerusalem), then that can only mean that Joseph Smith was a prophet. How else could he have known?

Precisely, and this then takes up an argument based on Bayesian probability.

 

For this reason, any scholarship surrounding the Book of Mormon will face the very large hurdle of convincing scholars not only that this or that site is a plausible location for Zarahemla, but also that we must plausibly accept that Joseph Smith obtained this knowledge by the power of God. 

 

No matter how strong a case is made, unless one is willing to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, one can never say "Sure, I'm willing to believe that this is where Zarahemla was." 

 

Take, for example, the site of Nehem for Nahom in the Book of Mormon. I think that's about as plausible a case as could possibly be made. And yet, not only will critics not accept its plausibility, they won't even accept that it constitutes evidence of any kind. When one cannot accept the possibility that Joseph was a prophet, one cannot give serious consideration to the idea that Zarahemla actually exists--much less that we might actually find it.

The remainder of your discussion here gets off track, not only because evidence of the Book of Mormon is not primarily based upon finding specific archeological sites for Zarahemla or the Waters of Mormon (although excellent sites have been correlated with those BofM toponyms), but rather with the full range of archeological, historical, chronological, linguistic, and philological evidence which can be derived from the text and from correlated regions and sites.  The correspondences are extraordinarily tight and convincing to those of us who have dealt with this sort of thing all our lives.

 

Non-Mormon scholars do not automatically reject any sort of correlation just because it deals with the BofM.  For example, after reading the Book of Mormon carefully, Dr. Margaret Barker stated publicly and in print (re I Nephi) that "This is the Heavenly Mother (represented by the Tree of Life), and then Mary and her son on the earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the exact ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE." -- http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html .  A number of major non-Mormon scholars have made positive statements of this kind in past decades.

[Palerider]

true but the Vietnam War doesn't prove Forrest Gump was real

 

Whoa, I think you just proved our point there. Better re-think that analogy.

[Helen47]

David's Mighty Men
2 Sam 23:8These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains, he was called Adino the Eznite, because of eight hundred slain by him at one time; 9and after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David when they defied the Philistines who were gathered there to battle and the men of Israel had withdrawn

 

Wow some fighter!!!

 

From Finkelstein's David and Solomon. Read your Bible guys such wonderful stories of great deeds, gaints.

[Robert F. Smith]

It was not  small band.

Most biblical scholars (including those who accept an actual Exodus) think that the numbers increased through the telling and retelling by a process of hyperbole (exaggeration for effect).  Using the actual biblical numbers (which vary according to versions) result in absurd problems of movement and supplies.

 

There is also the theory that the Exodus is based primarily on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, which was a very large event.  Whichever notion we adopt, there are going to be problems in accepting the figures and story at face value.

[Robert F. Smith]

true but the Vietnam War doesn't prove Forrest Gump was real

Whoa, I think you just proved our point there. Better re-think that analogy.

Well, then would it be better to see Gump as everyman and thus obtain verisimilitude in that fashion?

 

You never know what you might find in a box of chocolates . . .

Edited February 13, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Palerider]

And an itinerant preacher son of a carpenter was a human sacrifice to a jealous God for your personal sins 2000 years ago.  And this supposedly really happened.  And his death corrected what some guy did 6,000 years ago by eating an apple, thereby causing all humans to die, because before that no one did.

 

I see.

 

What was that about the Wizard of Oz?

 

What do the scholars say about your itinerant preacher?  Surely with all that evidence they are all believers, right?

 

No sir, no fantasy world here!  After all, Jerusalem was real!

 

Sorry Bukowski,

 

No one here is going to bite on your "straw man" bait.  Not hardly worth responding to.

[Robert F. Smith]

David's Mighty Men

2 Sam 23:8These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains, he was called Adino the Eznite, because of eight hundred slain by him at one time; 9and after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David when they defied the Philistines who were gathered there to battle and the men of Israel had withdrawn

 

Wow some fighter!!!

 

From Finkelstein's David and Solomon. Read your Bible guys such wonderful stories of great deeds, gaints.

How about David & Goliath or Elhanan & Lahmi [iI Sam 21:19, I Chron 20:5-8] as merely reenacting the much earlier one-to-one battle of the Egyptian Sinuhe and another powerful warrior?  (The hero lopping off the head of his opponent with his own battle-axe, as do Nephi, Beowulf & Sir Lancelot to Laban, Grendel & Sir Phelot, respectively).  What is going on here?  Why the same literary topos in each case?

Edited February 13, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Palerider]

But that is just the point, PaleGuy.  The Tel Dan Stele is given short-shrift by Finnkelstein and Silberman in the same way that Nahom is ignored by Book of Mormon minimalists.  The significance of these discoveries varies with the preconceptions of the interpreters.

 

In other words, serious evaluation of the Bible is on a completely different apriori footing than the Book of Mormon, regardless of the nature of the evidence adduced.

 

I'm not sure that even you understand that last comparison of yours.  I certainly don't.

At least we know that tornadoes are a common feature of life in Kansas.  Apart from that fact, are you saying that everything else is mere symbol, metaphor, and parable?  Careful analysis has actually detected plenty of true to life locations familiar to the the author, along with themes taken from specific literary sources, including the general need for self-esteem.  See in particular  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz .

 

Someone with good training in either archeology or crime scene investigation (or both) might be moved to examine the hard evidence in order to determine what actually occurred at the scene and whether anything specific may be said.  Seems to me that you jettison anything serious before the fact, believing that it would be a waste of your time.  You give credence to the Bible in the same breath that you reject the Book of Mormon, but without given a fair hearing to the latter.

 

You know Robertolini, this tap dance of yours gets a little weary after awhile.

 

If you have solid evidence that directly connects itself to (and is identifiable as such) the supposed Lamanite, Nephite, Jaredite, Mulekite or even Termite civilizations, please share it with us. 

 

In other words "Show me the money"...............

Edited February 13, 2014 by Palerider

[mfbukowski]

Sorry Bukowski,

 

No one here is going to bite on your "straw man" bait.  Not hardly worth responding to.

Especially when you don't have an answer.

[Palerider]

Especially when you don't have an answer.

 

That's just it Bukowski, we don't attempt to answer the irrational.

[canard78]

There was also no evidence in western civilization's history books and records of the American continent until Columbus landed there.

Imagine what we'll discover tomorrow.

But there was evidence of the American continent's history on the American continent. So looking for evidence of Egypts history in western civilisation's books isn't an ideal source. The evidence for Egypt's ancient origins is in... Egypt.

[Robert F. Smith]

You know Robertolini, this tap dance of yours gets a little weary after awhile.

 

If you have solid evidence that directly connects itself to (and is identifiable as such) the supposed Lamanite, Nephite, Jaredite, Mulekite or even Termite civilizations, please share it with us. 

 

In other words "Show me the money"...............

Well, it is late, and you no doubt figure that anything I might say is merely a pale imitation of reality.  Perforce.   Right?

 

PART I

To begin with, I highly recommend John Sorenson’s magnum opus:  Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Provo: Maxwell Institute/SLC: Deseret Book, 2013).  It is well written and is dedicated to very specific scholarship showing that the Book of Mormon fits tightly into the archeological, chronological, ethnograpic, and cultural sequence of certain Mesoamerican civilizations – the only place in the Americas in which such advanced civilizations existed (having writing, astronomy, major cities, and huge populations such as described in the Book of Mormon).  This is hard evidence, and the volume is summarized for your convenience at  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex .  A map overview is available at  http://johnlsorenson.com/media/mcodex_final-map-evaluation.pdf .

 

Sorenson does in this massive volume what anthropologists normally do:  Rather than focus on only one artefact or phenomenon, they utilize systems analysis – the use of simultaneous and multivariate systems or processes.

 

A good example of that (and not presented in the Sorenson book) is examining the very limited data on weights & measures in Alma 11 in comparison with the known system in use in Judah & Israel in the 7th & 8th centuries B.C.  Both use the same Egypto-Semitic base and multiples (with notation in hieratic Egyptian), along with a term for the total (mane) which is phonologically very close to the same term for the same Book of Mormon total, limnah.  The meanings of other terms fit as well, particularly shilum, shillum (Hebrew “recompense, payment”), which are only known from the manuscripts (the 1830 and subsequent editions mistakenly have shiblum).  See my “Tableau des valeurs relatives,” in J. Welch, “Poids et mesures dans l’univers du Livre de Mormon,” online at http://www.idumea.org/etudes/Ecritures/LM/Poids_mesures.htm .  The English version is poorly rendered.

 .

 

There are other etymologies of Book of Mormon words defined in the actual text (and not mentioned in Sorenson’s book):  Some examples are Rabbanah “Powerful, Great King” (Alma 18:13), and Rameumptom “Holy-Stand; a place of standing which was high above the head" (Alma 31:13, 21, 23, place of Zoramite “standing” and prayer), both easily translated into Classical Hebrew, even though such terms are not  known from  the biblical period.  Even more striking, the set prayer given by each Zoramite is very much like an early version of the most important of Jewish prayers, the ʽAmida.  

 

Mulek / Muloch – the late Professor Yohanan Aharoni believed that MalkiYahu was a name “borne by a contemporary son of King Zedekiah,“ based on the name’s appearance several times in Arad inscriptions as well as in Jeremiah 38:6.  In 1978, Professor Joseph Schultz said that it is “quite possible” that Mulek is a variant of the word melek “king.”  Thus, a short-form of the name in the Hebrew qutl-form is certainly possible, and in 1984 Professor David Noel Freedman said of the Book of Mormon naming the son of Zedekiah Mulek: “If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!”  Freedman then suggested that Mulek might be Phoenician in vocalization.  See my “New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, Feb 1984, reprinted in J. W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at  http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .

 

Many more names can be listed if so desired.  For a complete listing online, see  https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/onoma/index.php/Main_Page .

 

Epistolary form is another systematic example:  The six main Book of Mormon epistles never violate the ancient Hittite-Syrian, Neo-Assyrian, Tell El-Amarna, and Hebrew format in which the superior is virtually always listed first, which is not a feature of letter-writing either in the Hellenistic letters, nor in letters contemporary with Joseph Smith.  See my study, “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010), 125-135,  online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1467&index=5 .

 

The Covenant formulary: The ancient biblical and treaty covenant pattern is presented in full in II Nephi 5-10, and in King Benjamin’s address.  See John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret, 1992), 66-68; Stephen D. Ricks, “Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1-6,” in J. W. Welch and S. D. Ricks, eds., King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom” (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 233-275.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[saemo]

They never convicted OJ despite a whole bunch of evidence saying he did it-We can interpret evidence many different ways, as atheists are still around despite all these various places that Jesus was known to have visited, or believed to have anyways. The existence of a bit of wood with a nail driven through someone's ankle thing doesn't prove Jesus was crucified just that people were, or that person was crucified. I once heard that roughly 15% of known ancient sites in S. America were excavated-that tells me there is room for more and I am open to the possibility that someone who knows the Book of Mormon to know what they are looking for will find something. I don't think someone who doesn't know a thing about the BOM will find something in say Nicaragua and be like 'oh so that's what Moroni was talking about!"

Why doesn't a group of Mormons excavate the Hill Cumorah in NY?