Reply #99: Thanks for the links. There's good information there.

[stopbush]

You do realize that the two sites are in conflict as to the possibilities they advance, don't you?

For instance, your first link avers:
"Professor Hans Goedicke believes that the Biblical city of Ra'amezez is incorrectly equated with Pi-Ramesses. Hershel Shanks writing about Goedicke's view states, "But the fact is that the store city of Ra'amezez cannot be identified with Pi-Ramesses, the Residence of the Ramessides. This identification is impossible phonetically, as has been demonstrated conclusively more than 15 years ago (D.B.Redford, "Exodus I, II", Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 13, pp. 408-413, 19"

while your second link avers:

"Rameses (Ex 12:37; Nm 33:3) was the starting point of the Exodus. There is no reason to doubt that Biblical Rameses is the same as Pi-Rameses in Egyptian texts. The city, whose full hieroglyphic name was “House of Ramesses, Beloved of Amun, Great of Victories,” was originally built on the eastern bank of the Pelusiac, the easternmost of the Nile’s five ancient branches. (Kitchen 2003: 255; Wood 2004; Hoffmeier 2005: 53, 55"

But thanks for the objectivity.

Those links were fun to read. But I must say that it's strange that the articles are titled "Biblical Archaeology: Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt" and "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing" when the articles themselves don't support the ideas of their headlines. For instance, your first link avers that there was only one mass migration out of Egypt, and that was the expulsion of the Hyksos. The Hyksos were a ruling dynasty of Egypt, specifically, the 15th Dynasty. The article states, "This exit from Egypt by the Hyksos probably included the Israelites as well. The story of the Exodus is most likely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, for there is no other record of any mass exit from Egypt (Robertson 1990, 36; Halpern 1994, 89-96; Redford 1897, 150). Here we see the Biblical apologist in action: there's only one mass exit from Egypt on record, ergo, there were probably Jews among the Hyksos, and the Biblical story of Exodus - which has no mention at all of the Hyksos - is most likely based on this event. Both sites take the leap of faith that non-Biblical histories "might, could, probably, seem to, suggest" align with the Biblical account, even though the details they provide push the non-Biblical accounts further and further away from the Bible (though I do appreciate the fact that neither site claims that the evidence they advance make a conclusive case for the Exodus).

And - importantly - neither link you provided addresses the issues that any archaeologist would raise - the lack of garbage, the fact that Jews didn't live in large numbers in Egypt, the fact that there's no evidence that the Jews were slaves. Instead, they try to make a case based on non-Biblical histories possibly aligned with the Bible. This even extends to the geographical "evidence" for the Bible story, which is inconclusive and speculative at best (at least your second link has the honesty to say, "admittedly, our present archaeological, geological and textual knowledge is not sufficient to understand each name or pinpoint its location precisely on the ground.")

It's another case of Biblical apologists asserting how the Bible could be true, not whether the Bible is true. They start with the given that the Bible is accurate, then interpret the non-Biblical evidence to align with the Bible. Fun times! Still, I would encourage others on this board to read the content at the links you provided.

As to your continued and distasteful assault on Dr Hawass - your summary dismissal of Dr Hawass as a racist and worse is beyond the pale. Your assertion that he is my "great expert" is also an interesting framing on your part, for I put his name out there simply as AN expert, and a very well-known expert at that (someone I'm surprised you didn't know - he's on the TV all the time). There are other experts who agree with Dr Hawass whole-heartedly. In fact, the field of archaeology is literally littered with experts who concur with Hawass' views that there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus story. I could give you a few more names to explore, but why should I bother when I know that it would only set you off on another round of character assassination, assassination that - in your mind - allows you to discount their expertise in archeology?

Let me throw a thought out to you: Dr Hawass could be every evil thing you imagine he is, and he could still be right on the conclusions he draws from the evidence. Hitler was possibly the most-evil man who ever lived, but I'd see no reason to doubt the fact that the sun rises in the east if I read a quote from Hitler that stated the sun rises in the east, just because Hitler was an evil man. You believe that your ad hominen smearing of Dr Hawass invalidates the conclusions he draws from the archaeology. It doesn't. It simply shows one and all what disgusting lengths you'll go to convince yourself that you've won an argument. Nobody's fooled, my friend.

In closing, let me point this out about the group that runs the site associated with your second link. They call themselves The Associates for Biblical Research, and they state quite openly that they are "a non-profit ministry committed to demonstrating the historical reliability of Scripture through excavation and research in Biblical archaeology." That doesn't sound like science to me. That sounds like a group that has a pre-determined conclusion and is looking to cook evidence to fit their pre-determined conclusions. In fact, that sounds like a group that REJECTS the scientific method as the basis of their research. Note to Goesto11: take their pronouncements with a huge grain of salt.

The other site - which is run by Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies - is also an admittedly religious site that believes the Bible, but they are far more objective, knocking down such idiocies as the Young Earth Theory. They also provide links to contrary voices like Michael Shermer on the skeptic side and Ken Ham on the loony creationist side. I'd probably explore their site further before I'd bother with the ABR.

Good chatting.