Ancient Israel what really happened?

I looked up his books on Amazon and out of curiosity downloaded the free chapters offered. I won't be buying them, but I am curious. The reviews were interesting, especially the part about how the Red Sea was parted. The wind was strong enough to blow the ocean itself apart, making a path for the Israelites to casually stroll across?

Those must have been some very strong people, to be able to walk normally in winds that would blow everything else away.

I found a copy in my local library browsing the shelf for interesting titles.

The wind necessary would be about 129 kph. It was not a leisurely stroll. They were carrying supplies for a 4 day trip, and they were trying to escape the Egyptians. The wind would have been blowing cross ways from their direction of travel. It would not have been fun, but it was doable. It was also possible that their position was also at the tail end of the wind when it would be dying down. We don't know if they actually saw the water as walls. It was early in the morning when the light was just breaking. They could have seen the wall of water returning upon the Egyptians and assumed that there were walls of water on both sides. The wind came in at dusk and blew at least 6 hours. The Egyptians were sleeping with the Hebrews stuck between them and a 1.6 km body of water. The Hebrews started crossing during the last 3 hours of darkness. By the time the Egyptians awoke, they had to break camp and head for the camp they had plans to capture. Only to find the last of them walking across the empty expanse. By the time they could catch up, the wall of water was already on it's way back.

timtofly said:

That is one way to look at it, but then again, why would you deny the naturalistic ability of God? It would seem to me that God has power over the every day mundane things, not just the revolutionary ideas that happen every thousand years.

Click to expand...

The argument is incoherent. If the events of the Exodus, or indeed anything else, can be explained naturalistically - i.e. through the operation of the normal laws of nature - then they have nothing to do with God, do they? If the Red Sea parted because a very strong wing blew on it, or if there was a plague of frogs (not that that would be much of a plague, since frogs are useful creatures) merely because there was an abundance of insect life at the time, then these events were not caused by God. They had natural causes.

And that's directly contrary to what the Bible says, since it attributes these things and many others to the direct action of God. So my point is: why would someone think that the book of Exodus is correct in saying that all these things happened, while rejecting what the book of Exodus says about the involvement of God? If you reject supernatural agency in these events, why believe them at all?

This is why I say that the attitude in these kinds of apologetics belongs in the eighteenth century, since that was a time when many intellectuals had abandoned belief in an interventionist God but still clung to the notion that the Bible was "special" and described events that actually occurred. They had not yet progressed to the realisation that if you don't believe in an interventionist God there's no reason to think that there's anything special about the Bible or to suppose that the events it described actually happened. That realisation would only really come with David Strauss' Life of Jesus in 1835, which made all that previous stuff obsolete. Humphreys' work is equally obsolete. If you don't believe that God caused these events, then stop shilly-shallying about and come out as an atheist or an agnostic and give up this pointless attempt to defend a history that can't possibly be true. If you do believe that it's true and that God caused it, then stop trying to minimise God by making out that he didn't actually do any of it.

timtofly said:

Would you question Humphries ability as a scientist, or just critical of his detective skills in the field?

Click to expand...

I don't question his ability as a nanomaterials scientist, which is very great. But that doesn't give him the slightest expertise in this field, in which he's an amateur. If I wanted to know about the properties of fullerenes I wouldn't ask an Old Testament scholar, and if I wanted to know about the book of Exodus I wouldn't ask a physicist.

timtofly said:

The wind necessary would be about 129 kph. It was not a leisurely stroll.

Click to expand...

That's a 12 on the Beaufort scale which on land has the following effect: Severe widespread damage to vegetation and structures. Debris and unsecured objects are hurled about. A grown man would have trouble walking nevermind anyone else. So basically, I have to agree with Plot. If you want to believe that Exodus is a faithful account of actual events, it makes a hell of a lot more intellectual sense to say "God did it" because trying to make it work without literal hand of God intervention just looks stupid.

And that's directly contrary to what the Bible says, since it attributes these things and many others to the direct action of God. So my point is: why would someone think that the book of Exodus is correct in saying that all these things happened, while rejecting what the book of Exodus says about the involvement of God? If you reject supernatural agency in these events, why believe them at all?

Click to expand...

If you reject supernatural agency in lightning storms, why believe that lightning storms happen at all?

Israelites believed that they escaped from Egypt thanks to God's help. Surely migrations can't happen without the direct action of God?

Domen said:

If you reject supernatural agency in lightning storms, why believe that lightning storms happen at all?

Click to expand...

Because we know that lightning storms do happen, no matter how we explain them. We are not dependent upon a single ancient source for the claim that lightning storms happen.

Whereas we don't know that the Exodus happened. The only reason we have to think that it did happen is that the book of Exodus, a legendary and supernaturalist text, says it does. If we reject the supernatural as an explanation - as Colin Humphreys does - then we've pretty much undermined the book of Exodus and it's hard to see why we should believe that it describes events that actually happened. Remember that there are no other sources at all to support the story. If, conversely, we take the book of Exodus seriously as a true account of what actually happened, why reject its supernaturalism?

Domen said:

Israelites believed that they escaped from Egypt thanks to God's help. Surely migrations can't happen without the direct action of God?

Click to expand...

I think you must be intending to say something here other than what you seem to be saying, but I don't know what it is.

The only reason we have to think that it did happen is that the book of Exodus, a legendary text

Click to expand...

Nope, there are also some other, Non-Biblical sources which mention the presence of Hebrews in Egypt.

By the way - the Viking discovery of America (Vinland) is also known only from legendary texts (Sagas), yet it's widely accepted.

Remember that there are no other sources at all to support the story.

Click to expand...

We have a few other sources which mention Hebrews (Hebiri) in Egypt, and then suddenly stop mentioning them.

These sources only don't explain why did Hebrews disappear from Egypt. But Exodus provides an explanation.

If, conversely, we take the book of Exodus seriously as a true account of what actually happened, why reject its supernaturalism?

Click to expand...

Leave supernaturalism to religion, historian must be able to separate dry facts from coloration added by those who wrote it down on paper.

Crossing the "Red Sea" is the result of a wrong translation, by the way. It was more likely the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph

Masada said:

That's a 12 on the Beaufort scale which on land has the following effect: Severe widespread damage to vegetation and structures. Debris and unsecured objects are hurled about. A grown man would have trouble walking nevermind anyone else. So basically, I have to agree with Plot. If you want to believe that Exodus is a faithful account of actual events, it makes a hell of a lot more intellectual sense to say "God did it" because trying to make it work without literal hand of God intervention just looks stupid.

Click to expand...

People survive windstorms and sandstorms in the dessert as normal every day occurrences even though they do not happen every single day of the year. These people were not out of their element. If you want to say that God used a sea breeze and miraculously held the water back for 4 hours. Or God used a gale force wind and the Hebrews did not even feel it, or some combination in between, it would not change the fact that it happened or not or that God was involved or not. It may help some people to understand it a little better to view it from their perspective. It is not that big stretch of imagination to say that God did it from natural causes any more than he did it supernaturally. Neither do I think that it does any disservice to God to say that it was a mere natural event. That is the point that most modern humans think that God only works in mysterious ways. God is the same today and today he works the same way in the natural and mystical. What does God a disservice is to say he does not work at all, or limit God to only one perspective.

Plotinus said:

The argument is incoherent. If the events of the Exodus, or indeed anything else, can be explained naturalistically - i.e. through the operation of the normal laws of nature - then they have nothing to do with God, do they? If the Red Sea parted because a very strong wing blew on it, or if there was a plague of frogs (not that that would be much of a plague, since frogs are useful creatures) merely because there was an abundance of insect life at the time, then these events were not caused by God. They had natural causes.

Click to expand...

Yes, God absolutely works through the normal laws of nature. He can do it on a grand scale, or he can do it behind the scenes in every day life. I am not sure why you think it is wrong to even humanize God. God appeared to Abraham in a human body. Yet all your objection is that it never happened. Then you turn around and say that God cannot do things outside of the artificial view of God that God has to be only supernatural. If a human has a thought process that works better in a scientific objective way, and God only reveals himself in some unattainable supernatural way, would that not be a little unreasonable on God's part? If a human's thought process was only on the spiritual and the mystical aspects of life and God only communicated in some objective manner to that person, that would be unfair as well. Are you going to tell me that a scientist viewing something as natural while at the same time a mystic would see the same event as miraculous and they both are wrong? What ever happened to the reasoning that both are right and the skeptic is right as well in their skepticism?

Plotinus said:

And that's directly contrary to what the Bible says, since it attributes these things and many others to the direct action of God. So my point is: why would someone think that the book of Exodus is correct in saying that all these things happened, while rejecting what the book of Exodus says about the involvement of God? If you reject supernatural agency in these events, why believe them at all?

Click to expand...

The Bible was written by Jews who may only see things from a mystical and supernatural viewpoint. For someone who thinks taking the Bible literally as a mistake, how would one know that it is contradictory without taking it literally and not budging on the fact that God can be all things to all people.

Plotinus said:

This is why I say that the attitude in these kinds of apologetics belongs in the eighteenth century, since that was a time when many intellectuals had abandoned belief in an interventionist God but still clung to the notion that the Bible was "special" and described events that actually occurred. They had not yet progressed to the realisation that if you don't believe in an interventionist God there's no reason to think that there's anything special about the Bible or to suppose that the events it described actually happened. That realisation would only really come with David Strauss' Life of Jesus in 1835, which made all that previous stuff obsolete. Humphreys' work is equally obsolete. If you don't believe that God caused these events, then stop shilly-shallying about and come out as an atheist or an agnostic and give up this pointless attempt to defend a history that can't possibly be true. If you do believe that it's true and that God caused it, then stop trying to minimise God by making out that he didn't actually do any of it.

Click to expand...

That is the mistake of viewing God and the Bible from human perspectives, instead of just seeing God as God in God's entirety.

Plotinus said:

I don't question his ability as a nanomaterials scientist, which is very great. But that doesn't give him the slightest expertise in this field, in which he's an amateur. If I wanted to know about the properties of fullerenes I wouldn't ask an Old Testament scholar, and if I wanted to know about the book of Exodus I wouldn't ask a physicist.

Click to expand...

I would not ask any one either on things outside their field, but it seems that even atheist can add their thoughts to the mix and even new insight that others have missed, because even though they reject the notion of God, their life experiences can still reflect God's work.

Domen said:

We have a few other sources which mention Hebrews (Hebiri) in Egypt, and then suddenly stop mentioning them.

These sources only don't explain why did Hebrews disappear from Egypt. But Exodus provides an explanation.

Click to expand...

I assume by Hebiri you are talking about the Habiru. There are a lot of problems with identifying the Habiru as Hebrew. For one, Habiru was used to describe anyone that may have been a threat to Egyptian presence in the Levant region. This is why many of the letters mentioning traitors or deserters describe them as having become Habiru. The Habiru are also never mentioned as living in Egypt. Habiru was used by Canaanite rulers in their letters to the Pharaoh, most of the time saying something like "there is a band of Habiru outside the city" or "so-and-so has become Habiru he is threat, send help right away". Why the Habiru suddenly disappeared is probably because we only know them in Egypt from letters by Canaanite rulers, and the only source we have of those is the Amarna letters. So the word likely fell out of use over time but we don't have the letters to see the actual decline.

Domen said:

By the way - the Viking discovery of America (Vinland) is also known only from legendary texts (Sagas), yet it's widely accepted.

Click to expand...

There's an archaeological site at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland, Canada that proves they were here.

timtofly said:

People survive windstorms and sandstorms in the dessert as normal every day occurrences even though they do not happen every single day of the year. These people were not out of their element. If you want to say that God used a sea breeze and miraculously held the water back for 4 hours. Or God used a gale force wind and the Hebrews did not even feel it, or some combination in between, it would not change the fact that it happened or not or that God was involved or not. It may help some people to understand it a little better to view it from their perspective. It is not that big stretch of imagination to say that God did it from natural causes any more than he did it supernaturally. Neither do I think that it does any disservice to God to say that it was a mere natural event. That is the point that most modern humans think that God only works in mysterious ways. God is the same today and today he works the same way in the natural and mystical. What does God a disservice is to say he does not work at all, or limit God to only one perspective.

Click to expand...

The problem is, if you say that an event had 100% natural causes, then it becomes meaningless to say that it's an act of God at all. Let's say that there really was a wind that blew over the Red Sea and pushed the water back, and that this wind be explained naturalistically (some freak air current over the Levant or something). What does it mean to say that that was an act of God? After all, there are gazillions of events happening at any given time that can be explained naturalistically. There are, right now, billions of air molecules moving over the Red Sea in ways that don't result in the water being pushed to one side. Those movements can also be explained naturalistically. Are they also acts of God? If not, then you need an explanation that shows why one event is an act of God and another isn't, even though both events can be explained equally naturalistically. And if you think that they are all acts of God, then "acts of God" just becomes meaningless. Everything that happens is an act of God, and that's no different from saying that nothing is an act of God. What is the difference between saying "God used a gale to push back the water" and "a gale pushed back the water"? Where's God in it at all? Why not say equally well that "the devil used a gale to push back the water" or "Glycon used a gale to push back the water" or indeed "I used a gale to push back the water"? Aren't they all equally true?

Here's another way of putting it: if these events are explicable in terms of natural causes, then there's no room left for God. If natural events cause them and God causes them then you have overdetermination, which is incoherent.

timtofly said:

Yes, God absolutely works through the normal laws of nature. He can do it on a grand scale, or he can do it behind the scenes in every day life.

Click to expand...

Again, it's just not coherent to say that. Either an event is explicable in terms of the operation of laws of nature or it is not. If it is, then God has no explanatory power: the event was caused by the operation of laws of nature, and God adds nothing. If it isn't caused by the operation of laws of nature, then it's a good old-fashioned miracle and there's no need to try to explain it naturalistically.

There are alternative views to this. For example, you might be an occasionalist and believe that God directly causes all events, whether miraculous or not. Then the laws of nature actually describe how God behaves, and events that conform to those laws are acts of God just as much as acts that don't conform to them. However, if you take this view then everything is an act of God, and there's nothing special about any event, at least not in that regard.

There is something unique in the experience because such an experience happens for a purpose. God has a presence in every aspect of the universe. It is the human perspective that adds meaning or takes it away. Not every experience is life changing, but every aspect of the universe only exist through God.

Valka D'Ur said:

There's an archaeological site at L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland, Canada that proves they were here.

Click to expand...

Dig more and you will find also traces of Hebrews in Egypt (if they actually left any). Some people simply don't leave many archaeological traces. For example Britons in post-Roman Britain (google: "Invisible Britons"). If you don't produce many things made of materials which don't decay, then it is hard for archaeologists to identify your presence. After the Romans left, there was a huge decline of economic activity, especially in non-agricultural jobs. There are Welsh texts which confirm that Britons were using rusty old post-Roman helmets even a few centuries after Roman departure. Not that Anglo-Saxons were much better at producing helmets. Fom the Dark Age period, there are no helmets found in Wales, and only 4 helmets in England - including one made of cow horn.

Plotinus said:

Because we know that lightning storms do happen, no matter how we explain them. We are not dependent upon a single ancient source for the claim that lightning storms happen.

Whereas we don't know that the Exodus happened. The only reason we have to think that it did happen is that the book of Exodus, a legendary and supernaturalist text, says it does. If we reject the supernatural as an explanation - as Colin Humphreys does - then we've pretty much undermined the book of Exodus and it's hard to see why we should believe that it describes events that actually happened. Remember that there are no other sources at all to support the story. If, conversely, we take the book of Exodus seriously as a true account of what actually happened, why reject its supernaturalism?

Click to expand...

I'll point out that plenty of sources will attribute something to a god or gods as a way to show divine favor. The Assyrians were known to do this. The Illiad is another example (also of debated authenticity, though). The point is, there are plenty of mundane every day events that did happen but, when written about, are attributed to the favor of God. I think one has to be careful not to reject something just because there's some supernatural component. Rather, the emphasis should be on lack of corroboration. For example, stories about the Kingdom of Israel getting conquered because of an unwillingness to follow the commands of Yahweh are still useful for the former without having to incorporate the latter.

Domen said:

Dig more and you will find also traces of Hebrews in Egypt (if they actually left any).

Click to expand...

The confidence in the post is absurd - particularly since Egypt is one of the most heavily excavated countries in history. The fact that Jewish settlements have been identifiable in Palestine should tell you that they did in fact leave archaeological evidence. But, even if we agree that there will never be any evidence found because they didn't leave any traces of settlement, where does that leave us? Why should one take that as proof they were there?

Plotinus said:

What does it mean to say that that was an act of God? ... Those movements can also be explained naturalistically. Are they also acts of God? ... Everything that happens is an act of God, and that's no different from saying that nothing is an act of God. What is the difference between saying "God used a gale to push back the water" and "a gale pushed back the water"? Where's God in it at all? Why not say equally well that "the devil used a gale to push back the water" or "Glycon used a gale to push back the water" or indeed "I used a gale to push back the water"? Aren't they all equally true?

Here's another way of putting it: if these events are explicable in terms of natural causes, then there's no room left for God. If natural events cause them and God causes them then you have overdetermination, which is incoherent.



Again, it's just not coherent to say that. Either an event is explicable in terms of the operation of laws of nature or it is not. If it is, then God has no explanatory power: the event was caused by the operation of laws of nature, and God adds nothing. If it isn't caused by the operation of laws of nature, then it's a good old-fashioned miracle and there's no need to try to explain it naturalistically.

There are alternative views to this. For example, you might be an occasionalist and believe that God directly causes all events, whether miraculous or not. Then the laws of nature actually describe how God behaves, and events that conform to those laws are acts of God just as much as acts that don't conform to them. However, if you take this view then everything is an act of God, and there's nothing special about any event, at least not in that regard.

Click to expand...

Plotinus, thank you so much for pointing out the unfruitfulness of the Rationalist line that timtofly was expounding. However, I'm really surprised by that last sentence - maybe there's an assumption I've missed somewhere. Within the Jewish/Christian framework of the Exodus and its interpretation, isn't revelation also very important? The migration of a large number of people does not break any laws of nature that I can see. It's significance derives entirely from its interpretation as a saving act of YHWH, an interpretation that claims its authority on revelation from him. So, at the extreme, there is a possible world where the laws of nature are never broken but certain events are acts of God (given significance through revelation) and such a world would be entirely consistent with Christian (and Jewish) theology.

Louis XXIV said:

IThe fact that Jewish settlements have been identifiable in Palestine should tell you that they did in fact leave archaeological evidence.

Click to expand...

Pre-Exodus time temporary settlements, or post-Exodus time fixed settlements?

Material culture of nomadic Hebrews was different than that of later sedentary Jews:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/33_nomadic.html

Possessions

The nomad lived a very simple life and because of their constant travels they could not carry a great amount of supplies and equipment. His major possession is the tent made of goat hair, the poles, stakes and ropes for supporting the tent, a curtain to divide the tent into two parts (male and female sides) and a carpet for the floor. The nomads wealth was measured by the size of his flocks and herds which supplied him with most of his needs including milk, meat, skin, hair for tents, horns for trumpets and liquid containers and many other odds and ends.

His cooking supplies and equipment consisted of bags made of skins for carrying food reserves such as grains and dried fruits, a few utensils such as spoons, knives and bowls and a grinding mill for making flour out of grains. He also carried some harvesting supplies such as sickles and mattocks to gather crops when available. For defense he also carried weapons such as the bow and arrow, spears and knives. Many of his weapons were used for other purposes such as butchering knives, mattocks and the tent poles which were sharp at one end for spears.

Click to expand...

Nomads - especially enslaved nomads - are inevitably going to leave less traces than sedentary peoples.

Egypt is one of the most heavily excavated countries in history

Click to expand...

It is also one of the most densely populated countries with one of the longest histories of human presence.

And it is usually much harder to find a needle in a heystack than to find it in an empty room of same size.

Hebrew presence in Egypt lasted for something between 100 years up to maybe 200 years at the most.

That was a short time, and they were few in numbers, compared to the total population of Egypt.

IIRC, the biggest thing is absence of pig bones in settlements.

Egyptian slavery is a lot different from how we normally think of slavery. With the exception of household servants (who could never amass in the way described in Exodus and, at a minimum, wouldn't really have a separate house to place lamb's blood over the door), they would appear to be closer to tenant farmers or serfs. Meaning they had established land. On this established land, they would certainly leave archaeological traces. There's no such thing as nomad slaves. That would be inconvenient to the owners.

SeekTruthFromFacts said:

Plotinus, thank you so much for pointing out the unfruitfulness of the Rationalist line that timtofly was expounding. However, I'm really surprised by that last sentence - maybe there's an assumption I've missed somewhere. Within the Jewish/Christian framework of the Exodus and its interpretation, isn't revelation also very important? The migration of a large number of people does not break any laws of nature that I can see. It's significance derives entirely from its interpretation as a saving act of YHWH, an interpretation that claims its authority on revelation from him. So, at the extreme, there is a possible world where the laws of nature are never broken but certain events are acts of God (given significance through revelation) and such a world would be entirely consistent with Christian (and Jewish) theology.

Click to expand...

You do realize that Plotinus and I are arguing from the opposite of each others belief system? I hope the unfruitfulness was from the point and not the ability to convince any one.

The only point I was trying to make incoherently was that God does not have to act in a supernatural way to prove to humans that God acted.

Domen said:

Nope, there are also some other, Non-Biblical sources which mention the presence of Hebrews in Egypt.
...
We have a few other sources which mention Hebrews (Hebiri) in Egypt, and then suddenly stop mentioning them. These sources only don't explain why did Hebrews disappear from Egypt. But Exodus provides an explanation.

Click to expand...

I'm hardly aware of the facts in this case beyond what people have said in the thread, but going from "people talked about people that might be Hebrews, then they stopped" to "Exodus is correct" is one hell of a leap.

Maybe those Hebiri weren't Hebrews at all. Maybe there actually weren't very many, and they just traveled home normally. Maybe they integrated into the local population. Maybe they were slaughtered by some local ruler, but the record of this is lost. I don't know why you'd assume that Exodus is true because it provides a possible reason why Hebrews stop appearing in Egypt, when tons of other stuff in Exodus clearly didn't happen (Hebrews building pyramids, plagues of frogs, etc.).