Talk:Exodus of Israel
This article is a dual submission of original work. I am the same user as Temlakos on CreationWiki, and this article is based upon this version of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my own work.
Some issues with this part of the entry I'd like to raise:
"Egyptian history is of little to no help in substantiating the Exodus, much less dating it. The reason is that, to an Egyptian, history was not an objective inquiry into past events, but rather was a medium of propaganda. The willful destruction or defacement by succeeding Pharaohs of the monuments, stelae, and other records of his predecessors is a common theme in Egyptology"
Doesn't address lack of archaeological evidence, i.e. workers accommodation, tools, huge and sudden increase in population, economic restructuring etc. Also administrative papyri?
In 2003, amateur diver Peter Elmer discovered coral-encrusted chariot wheels and other chariot parts submerged in the Gulf of Aqaba, the eastern offshoot of the great body of water called the Red Sea today. This is not, however, conclusive.
Suggest rephrase. This suggests the evidence is solid but not conclusive. This find however is far from archaeologically sound and has not been published in any major archaeological journal, not has any evidence or further follow up work been presented. The SCA, meanwhile, has been not, as an institution, confirmed anything about this find.
The revised chronology of David Down and John Ashton strongly suggests that the beginning of the Intermediate Period is the best time for the Exodus.
WHICH intermediate period? This could really use expansion, discussing the research and reasoning behind the "new chronology"
We should remove any references to the "chariot wheels" being found, as they are fraudulent. The biblical scholar and archaeologist Douglas N. Petrovich says the following regarding whether or not these wheels are legitimate:
"The short answer: no, this claim is not reliable whatsoever. It makes for great TV, and it makes for provocative conversations, but the truth is that the entire concept is flawed beyond measure. Why? (1) We have no certainty about where the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds, let alone a strong idea. (2) We have no certainty about the extent to which the Sea of Reeds projected to the north in 1446 BC. If the Sea of Reeds had the same variance in its shoreline during various periods of antiquity that was true of the Persian Gulf, whose shoreline-positions we know at various periods, the point to which it extends now is radically different than it was in Moses's day. (3) These self-proclaimed archaeologists forget to tell you that sedimentation processes probably would have resulted in burying these chariot wheels in silt many centuries ago. (4) Even if we somehow were to stumble across the actual chariot wheels, there is no way to confirm that they belonged to the army of Amenhotep II in Year 9 of his reign, the time when the exodus occurred in Egypt's history."
I hope to quickly remove this, because informed readers of Conservapedia may come to believe that Conservapedia is unreliable if they see references to established forgeries/frauds in our articles.
We should also remove this:
"The revised chronology of David Down and John Ashton strongly suggests that the beginning of the Intermediate Period is the best time for the Exodus. By this scheme, the Hyksos overran Egypt when conditions could not have been more favorable to invaders: a country first devastated by multiple meteorological, agricultural, and epidemiological disasters is suddenly deprived of its leader and its entire army in a single battle."
This is ambiguous and therefore irrelevant in its virtual entirety. The "beginning of the Intermediate Period" -- which Intermediate Period? There were three of them in Egypt's history. It does not even specify that this is an intermediate of Egyptian history -- why not our readers consider this an intermediate period of the Hittite Kingdom?
- As to the chariot wheels, what about them is fraudulent, and what is the evidence that proves they are fraudulent? And if it is based on skepticism of photos and film, what exactly is shown on the film, and where was it taken? Karajou (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
Removal of irrelevant data
I think we should remove everything under the subheadings "background", "the mass peuricide", "the birth of moses", "moses in exile" and "moses finds a wife" -- whilst this information may or should be included in Conservapedia's pages on Moses or the Book of Exodus and Genesis, it is completely irrelevant to the exodus. This page should discuss the biblical text regarding the exodus in the Book of Exodus and later biblical books, not what happened before it or after it (that information requires their own Conservapedia pages).Korvex (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
I just made a considerable expansion to the part of the page Historicity of the Exodus. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to respond to me here or on my Talk Page.Korvex (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
NOTE: I'm going to delete the last phrase in the article that says the following:
More to the point, most of these projects have assumed that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was either Ramesses II or his son Merenptah. This supposition is based either on Late Date chronology or on Manetho's initial mistake in assuming that all Dynasties of Egypt ran consecutively.
This contains obvious errors. All the dynasties of Egypt DID obviously run consecutively, as all egyptologists know and understand. The idea of Ramses being the exodus-pharaoh is not based on the late date chronology, or anything to do with Manetho, it was based on Exodus 1:11 where the city of Ramses (constructed by Ramses II himself) is mentioned. That is why the 13th century exodus-date theory is made. I am in favor of a 15th century BC exodus, and thus have no bias in this statement. That sentence simply contains errors and so I will remove it.Korvex (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
- There is much evidence that the Egyptian dynasties overlapped with each other. Some good Egyptologists disagree with your statement. In fact, there is much evidence that our dating of Egyptian history is plain messed up. See these two articles:  (the second article shows that the city of Ramses may not have actually been built by Ramses the Great). Just to make myself clear, in case you or anyone else has anything against Answers in Genesis, they cite reliable sources, so either way these are reliable articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
- I have looked into it and come to found that some Egyptologists do believe that these chronologies overlapped. However, I would advise against bringing back the old edit -- because I think the supposed overlap of these chronologies is irrelevant. The old edit stated "most of these projects have assumed that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was either Ramesses II or his son Merenptah. This supposition is based either on Late Date chronology or on Manetho's initial mistake in assuming that all Dynasties of Egypt ran consecutively." -- but as I noted earlier, the reasons for the 13th century exodus date advocates is not based on Manetho's chronology or the supposed overlap of dynasties, but is rather based on Exodus 1:11. I made an edit to add this information in, revert it if you disagree.Korvex (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
1990's, I'm a bit concerned about your new addition. I do not see the point of bringing young earth creationism into this page regarding the date of the exodus. Secondly, I do not see how the information you added in has relevance to the date in which the exodus took place, the information you put in is relevant to Egyptian chronology, not the dating of the exodus. I think the information has more relevance on a different Conservapedia page, like Chronology or Young Earth Creationism than it has to do with the exodus. I wouldn't support these edits.Korvex (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
Korvex in a way is right: the subject of Creation is different from the subject of the Exodus; two different events that are completely unrelated to each other. As to the date the Exodus took place, I think this article should show A.) the correct date itself and the evidence which supports it; and B.) the other dates claimed by historians, their reasons and evidence to support their views, and any contradictions to such evidence and views. If possible, create separate articles, i.e. "Date of the Exodus: Late Date", and go into detail. Karajou (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
- That's fair, but the revised chronology and Centuries of Darkness also has as much to do with the Exodus as it does with creation. I made another fix, but we should keep the mention of Peter James and Centuries of Darkness, as they show the traditional view of Egyptian chronology (with Ramses being the pharaoh of the Exodus, and thus the late date being most likely) to be incorrect, or at least not the only realistic option. This info shows that the history recorded in the Bible really can be trusted. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
1990's, I think your new edit was good. Although I myself do not support of Rohl's chronology, I do not mind your inclusion of it.
- Thanks. I made some changes to the New Chronology article, but the "Date of the Exodus" article is locked, so neither of us can edit it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
I don't see the purpose of changing the current discussion on the date of the exodus on Exodus of Israel, it's already comprehensive enough and adding much more would be a waste of the readers time. The only relevant information on Date of the Exodus that isn't on Exodus of Israel is the Dream Stela.Korvex (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
- This article should be about the Exodus itself; any dates would be touched upon as necessary. The Date of the Exodus article is exclusive to the dating of the event alone, so you know what to do. :) Karajou (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
I would propose completely deleting all the information under 'Chronological Placement of the Exodus', and moving the information under 'Dating of the Exodus' to it. I don't see any helpful information under the discussion of Ussher and Thiele, and the information provided in this section is mostly arbitrary, vague and lacks description.
- If you think that is best, please do so. Just as long as you move the information to another article rather than deleting it. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
- What article do you think such information would be useful to exist on?Korvex (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
- I moved it to Date of the Exodus, but then reverted my edit. It looks as if I'm going to think about this one if I decide to actually pursue such an edit. Thanks for your help.Korvex (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
- I just made an edit, removing information I consider either unnecessary (that I originally put here myself), or was just plainly irrelevant to the discussion on the dating of the exodus in the first place. I think the page is more concise now. Any thoughts or disagreements?19:14, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
- Here are some pointers.
- 1. The text that I deleted misrepresents the view of the Late Date of the exodus
- 2. The text discusses crazy ideas like Moses being identified as Akhenaten, or the other adequate idea that Hatshepsut was somehow related to Moses -- however, both these things simply have nothing to do with the exodus -- the topic of this page
- 3. The text does not discuss the pharaoh of the exodus, it discusses the pharaoh of the oppression. So, the question should be this: Should we talk about the pharaoh of the oppression in this article? Korvex (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
- Regarding the oppression pharaoh, if we know who he was, then we can know who the Exodus pharaoh was. I don't think the info you removed made any implication that Hatshepsut was related to Moses. It just stated that they may have lived at a similar time (which I don't believe -- I am attracted to the New Chronology view that I think says she lived around the time of Solomon, but that's another topic). Also, regarding the Akhenaton part, I think it's making the case that the pharaoh was influenced by Moses (Egyptians adopting monotheism is quite unusual). However, none of this is sourced, so now that I think about it I am OK with your removal. However, the info regarding Akhenaton is still intriguing. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
- I am not an advocate of the New Chronology, and because of my own timeline of the exodus, I think it's entirely possible Hatshepsut was related to Moses (I only noted earlier that this fact is not exactly relevant to the page about the exodus, but perhaps it could go on Moses, which is locked right now). I also think Akhenaten was influenced by the Hebrews. Perhaps this part can be added into the historical evidence for the exodus. Anyways, if this discussion is to continue, we should create a new section on this talk page regarding what we may/should add.Korvex (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
- I think we can and should add the info regarding Akhenaten to the article, as long as it's reliably sourced. If you want to add the info about Hatshepsut to Moses's article, I think Andy or Karajou would be happy to unlock the article. Hatshepsut's article is unlocked, though. However, as far as I know, the view that she was alive at the same time as Moses appears to be a minority view among Christians, so I would prefer not giving it too much emphasis. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
I think we need to rename this article. 'Exodus of Israel' sounds kind of awkward. I checked it out on Wikipedia, and the title they use is much better and more simple, in my opinion. Whereas this page is titled Exodus of Israel, it's simply titled The Exodus (our page 'The Exodus' is only a redirect to Exodus of Israel) on Wikipedia. I'd recommend bringing this to an admin and changing the title of this article.Korvex (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2017 (EDT)