Ancient texts in discussions of science?

quote:

---

what purpose would it serve a nation to claim ignoble origins if they were going to lie?

---

This is conjecture, as you are thinking of satisfying reasons to call the Joseph story "a myth." In true hermeneutical fashion, we are going to tackle this issue head-on. Pharaoh referred to Joseph as "Zaphnath-Paaneah" or "Tzafnat-Pa'neach" in a more literal Hebrew translation according to Genesis 41:45. The postulate that Joseph and famous Egyptian, Imhotep, are possibly the same person. When we juxtapose their personal attributes, their reputed value, and historical significance, the plausibility is very attractive. Case in point:Joseph and Imhotep1. Both second in command of Egypt behind Pharaoh.
2. Both lived to be 110 years old.
3. Both were considered having prophetic ability.
4. Both married into the priesthood of On
5. Both has twelve brothers.There are several other consistencies between the two, but the most important is that they are contemporaneous which makes it all the more reasonable to at least consider the possibilty. As well, the account of the seven year famine spoken of in Genesis is said to be inscribed within a rockface near Aswan, Egypt. The inscription records the famine as an historical fact. This lacks any depth as you no doubt have tried to reason what the Israelites were thinking and that it must not have been legitimate. If you read the Bible and compare to any other ancient document, it becomes quite clear that the Bible is consecrated from any other in its textual foundation. There is a fairly famous acronym given to seminary students to help them extract as much meaning from any given text to help answer questions that it may present. The acronym is, L.I.G.H.T.S.(L)- Literal Interpretation,(I)- Intent of the Author(G)= Grammatical Principle(H)= Historical Context(T)= Theophanic Experience(S)= Scriptural HarmonyThe idea is to ask yourself this question each time you are uncertain on how to interpret a passage. It is a useful tool. My reason for mentioning it is you can't simply try to discredit the Exodus account simply because there is no direct external evidence that has survived decay. To say that you question the account is no problem. I'm not asking you to take it all for face value, but take time to notice that the Bible is separate from any other document from antiquity. If many nations were enslaved back then, then what is difficult about accepting the Hebrews finding themselves in a similar disposition? As for the stories of heroism and of backsliding, is it impossible to consider that they are rooted in historical fact? There is no question as to whether or not David was an actual figure in human history, so why challenge his account simply because you find the premise of the Bible objectionable for personal reasons-- reasons of, perhaps, issues of accountability??

quote:

---

At some point the Egyptians and Hebrews had to have crossed paths, otherwise, how would anyone have knowlege of certain details
about Egypt at the time the Bible was first penned?

---

True. But the finding of the Bible unambiguously supports that the Bible was written deeper in the past than 1200 BCE, right? It would have to for the simple fact that it has knowledge of events that you allege could not have been known by the Israelites under the premise that Egyptians weren't actually slaves. But like I said, how is that the Israelites had first hand knowledge about the Egyptian dynasty if they never met? Then they did cross paths during the time when these accounts took place either way, which just strengthens the stories historicity. Again, why pretend that your ancestors were slaves when they really weren't? They don't have anachronisms or even hints of such. As for why Moses never mentioned the specific names of the Pharoahs, (plural), I don't know. But we know that the chronology fits. For instance, Ex 1:8 says that "a new King rose in Egypt, whom Joseph did not know." That means that there was a changing of the gaurd, if you will, indicating that another Pharoah came to power. We know that Pharoahs Amenhotep IV, Merneptah, and Ramses the I and II were contemporaneous from Abraham to Moses. As well, there are two ajoining cities mentioned by name in the Bible as "Pithom and Raamses." The city Raamses reputed to be named after Ramses the I. If we were to suppose that there were indeed 2-3 million Jews living in Egypt, why does that present a problem when the most current census says that over 77 million people live there now? First of all, what do you mean by the Near East? Secondly, why do you think that the Philistines weren't around when the Bible claims? The Philistines were known as "People of the Sea," and Ramses III is nicknamed, "Adversary of the Sea People." All placed around central and key themes in the Bible. There were nearly 20 Pharoahs named 'Ramses,' beginning at about 1300 BC. The reign of Pharaohs began for Egyptian dynasty at about 3000 BCE, so that isn't true at all. I'm not familiar with the argument. Can you go into detail, if its not OT?

quote:

---

There are many relics and artifacts reputed to be missing or destroyed because long periods of elapsed time.

---

Exactly my point. You mentioned that there are accounts of things, in the Bible and from extra-biblical sources, that are no longer in existence. But this scrutiny only seems to be applied when the Bible is involved. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

NJ:
Do you have a source for any of this? I consider myself something of a student of Egyptian history and know a bit about Imhotep, but nowhere have I ever seen this level of detail about his life. Unless there have been some very big discoveries recently concerning Imhotep I think I have to call BS.We know a lot about Imhotep, we know he probably served under 4 kings, lived to great age (although no actual age of death has been attributed that I know of), supervised construction of the first pyramid and is probably the world's first renaissance man. He's given credit as an architect, doctor and priest as well as being vizier of Egypt. Imhotep was later elevated to the status of God and even had an association with early Christians.The identification of Imhotep with Joseph is quite interesting but I'd never heard it before. This would place the Exodus sometime during the Third Dynasty some 4,500 years ago. Source please.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

Welcome to the world of historical research. You should be aware that ALL historical research is conjecture, so I really do not understand your point. Not at all. Truth is, I have researched the historical origins of ancient Israel for quite a few years and I have many reasons for calling it a myth. I would be quite happy to discuss these reasons, which include the appearance of common motifs, the interaction of God, and borrowing from other texts, if you are interested. So, when are you going to proceed in a hermeneutical fashion? Unless your particular hermeneutical approach is to accept everything in the Bible as true. You haven't criticised any of your premises at all, you have just presented them as a given? Where is the critical analysis that is demanded all branches of hermeneutics?For example, you claim that Joseph and Imhotep are possibly the same person yet you seem unaware of the difficulties in placing the name "Zaphnath-Paaneah" before the 12th century BCE. There is no exact parallel of this name in ANY ancient Egyptian sources, although similar name do start to appear in the 11th century BCE.The rest of the so-called 'hermeneutics' is nothing more than unsupported gibberish, so I'll skip over that at the moment and critique your reply to Wepwawet who has voiced similar concerns to my own. Well, actually the lack of direct external evidence does discredit the account! Think about it, would the account have more credibility if some direct external evidence did exist?But, it isn't just the complete absence of direct evidence that is the problem for the biblical Exodus, which doesn't in itself disprove the account but only lessens the likelihood. There are other more serious problems to deal with such as the continual interaction with the physical world of a being that cannot be shown to exist, the frequent contradictions, physical impossibilities, and historical inaccuracies, all weaken the case for taking the early books of the Bible seriously. You seem to be unaware that I have a deep respect for the Hebrew Bible as a collection of ancient literature and have frequently stated that it is the literalist Christians that are missing out on so much of what makes the Hebrew Bible unique. But this does not mean that it should be treated any differently from any other ancient text, and if any other ancient text had as poor a track record as the Bible in regard to evidence it would be consigned to the fiction shelf very quickly. Who has said that the Hebrews weren't slaves?The argument is that there is no direct evidence of Hebrews in Egypt this is a fact. If the Hebrews were slaves then there is no contemporary evidence to support this, this does not mean that they were not slaves during some stage in their past, but we have no external proof and this means that the biblical account is unsupported.I have no problems accepting that at some stage in the past it is completely possible that the Hebrews could have been slaves, that is, of course, if they actually existed in the first place. I am open to any evidence that places Hebrews in Egypt when the Bible claims they were, but as of yet, and after about 150 years of archaeological excavations in the Near East, they remain invisible. No it isn't impossible, but it is extremely difficult to support given the huge amount of negative evidence that has been found to negate many of the stories. Also, there are many mythical elements in the David tales, which suggests that David may be more of a legend than a real historical figure.Is it possible that the tales of Joshua can be completely fictional? You are simply showing your ignorance (and I use the word ignorance in the context of lack of knowledge and not as an insult) of the subject by making this statement. There is indeed a great many scholars who doubt that David was an actual figure in human history, have you heard of Philip Davies (1994 "`House of David' built on Sand," Biblical Archaeology Review July/August, 54-55), or Thomas Thompson, or maybe even Keith Whitelam?Again, there is no direct evidence of there ever being a King David, and there is certainly a host of evidence against the possibility of the existence of an Israelite united monarchy as described in the Bible. For example, there is a complete lack of a central polity throughout Palestine when the united monarchy was supposed to be in full bloom.So, it is a dreadful mistake to claim that no one doubts that there was an historical David, and you should be aware that even of the ones that do believe he existed the majority don't accept that his empire resembled the one described in the Bible.If you do some research into the Tell Dan Stele you will find a lot of information about the scholars who think that there was no King David. Is this why I am rejecting it, or could it be that I have researched the topic from the available archaeological, anthropological and textual information?What do you mean by “issues of accountability”? Finding the Bible? We didn't find the Bible at all, what is it you mean here? Wrong!Finding a source that is over one thousand year younger than the events it is said to portray doesn't mean it was written deeper in the past at all. You have to rely on textual and source criticism to try and help date the stories to see if they have ancient fragments within them. Take your wee Joseph tale again, by biblical chronology Joseph was in Egypt during the 19th century BCE, but if we look at the names of certain characters we can see that the authors have written a story and just tried to project it back in time. The name Asenath (Gen. 41:45) belongs to the 20th dynasty and later (c. 1184-1070), the earliest mention of a Potiphera is on a 21st century stele (1070-945) or maybe even later, and as we saw Joseph's Egyptian name belongs later than 11th century BCE. So, it is obvious that the Joseph tale was constructed at some stage AFTER the 10th century BCE, which doesn't mean that this was when it was written down. The long period between when the story was invented and written down also allows for the possibility of editing and updating.Why have you selected the date 1200 BCE? Knowledge of which events? The whole problem is that the Bible appears to present a past that is incompatible with what is known about the second millennium BCE. Again, you do seem to be quite unaware of the issues involved in this area of research. Have you just quickly scanned a web page or two before posting this? But the thing is, they don't have any knowledge about the Egyptian dynasties, that's one reason why there are doubts over the integrity of the account. As I said, the pharaohs are not named, which is an atrocious oversight in an alleged historical record.I think it is quite obvious why there are no pharaoh’s mentioned by name in the Pentateuch, the authors of the Pentateuch didn’t know enough about Egypt’s past to name them, and they could keep the ”integrity’ of the accounts by just tagging them with the title ”pharaoh’. But, they displayed their ignorance in the early accounts by calling the kings of Egypt pharaohs about 500 years before the title was ever used! Their stories that were set, by Bible chronology, before the reign of Thutmosis III, are incorrect when they use the title of ”pharaoh’ as Thutmosis III was the first ruler to be given this title, the Bible strikes out yet again. What are you on about? How does it mean their paths crossed when these accounts took place?The entire debate is centered on the likelihood that these events did not take place at all; it is precisely Israel's ignorance of the past that has thrown up so much doubt over these tales.Tell me, which events are you thinking about when you say the two nations paths crossed? I already told you. The Cinderella Theme is a good bet. So is the idea that Israel's God is so powerful that He conquered the most powerful nation in the world and set His people free from bondage, it absolutely reeks of being a foundation myth. Not trying to be funny, but you really haven’t research this subject at all have you?The first five books of the Hebrew Bible are rife with anachronisms, some are so well known I find it difficult to believe that there is anyone who hasn't heard of them.Probably the best know anachronism is the mention of Dan hundreds of years before the Israelites named it.Look at Genesis 14:14: When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.However, Dan wasn't named Dan in Abraham's time, it was named Laish, and in Judges 18:27-29 we are told how Dan got its name. Then they took what Micah had made, and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob.

​

The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel-though the city used to be called Laish. There the Danites set up for themselves the idols, and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses, and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the time of the captivity of the land. So, Genesis 14 calls the city of Laish 'Dan', hundreds, or perhaps as much as a thousand, years before it was named Dan. This is an extremely famous anachronism, basic Sunday school information.If you are not satisfied with this explicit anachronism let me know and I’ll provide you with a few more. Well Moses didn’t mention anyone because Moses didn’t exist. No ”we’ don’t!This is another huge area of the debate that you seem to be unfamiliar with. I have personally studied over a dozen different chronologies that have been proposed in the last 130 years or so, and the one that looks most plausible is completely at odds with the chronology given by the Bible.So, whose chronology are you so certain about? No shit Sherlock!!So, let me get this right, because Exodus mentions that there was a new pharaoh that means Joseph was a real person, Egypt never ever changed a pharaoh at any other time except when Joseph was supposed to have lived? Sorry mate but this post just gets worse as it goes on, you have missed out five pharaohs and omitted a change in dynasty.Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) 1350 - 1334
Smenkhkare 1336-1334
Tutankhamun 1334 - 1325
Ay 1325 - 1321
Horemheb 1323 - 1295Ramesses I 1295 - 1294
Seti I 1294 - 1279
Ramesses II 1279 - 1213
Merenptah 1213 - 1203The names of the pharaohs you gave only covers a period of about 150 years, yet the Bible tells us that the Israelites were in Egypt for exactly 430 years.Exodus 12:40 Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD's divisions left Egypt.So, even going by your chronology you have a missing 280 years to account for!Of course you may wish to go with a different version of the Bible that gives a different chronology. Let me recommend the Samaritan Pentateuch, it claims that the Hebrews were only in Egypt for 215 years. Looks like there are conflicting accounts after all.You really do need to brush up quite substantially on your knowledge of ancient history and the Old Testament because you are making a great many very basic errors, are you new to this area of research or is it just a hobby?Also, what does Abraham have to do with the Exodus group, he only enjoyed, and profited from pimping out his wife a fairly brief visit to Egypt. Abraham died long before Joseph even went near Egypt.Way back in Genesis 25:7-9 Altogether, Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, Isaac was Jacob’s father, and Jacob was the father of Joseph. Joseph was the first Israelite to settle in Egypt, and then his family followed. So, Abraham was long dead and buried before Jacob’s clan entered Egypt during a particular severe famine. It really is a very bad error to mention Abraham as contemporary with Akhenaten. What makes you think that they were adjoining cities? No it wasn't. This is yet another basic mistake. The city of Rameses (Pi-Ramese of Exod. 1-11) was begun by Seti I and completed by Rameses II .Where did you get the info that it was Rameses I? Let's be honest here, the Hebrews are invisible in history. Because the current census is hugely different from the stats of 3500 years ago!Do you really think that Egypt had 77 million people living in it 3500 years ago? Here The Bible mentions the Philistines long before Rameses III lived. In fact, the Bible mentions Philistines 700 years before they moved into the area. The Philistines are mentioned in Genesis, a book that relates events before the Exodus. Now, by Bible chronology the Exodus was 1446 BCE, but the earliest mention of the Philistines is in the 12th century BCE (Bright . . . .) so it is impossible for God to lead them not through the way of the land of the Philistines. But, this is a fairly harmless anachronism; it only causes problems to people who have difficulty with accepting that the Bible is just literature. I disagree with your number of Pharaohs. I believe that there were only 11 pharaohs named Rameses. Anyway the number doesn’t really matter, what matters is there was NO pharoah called Rameses until over 140 years AFTER the Bible claims the Exodus was, so how could the Israelites have built a city for Rameses before 1446 if the pharaohs named Rameses only began around 1300? You have misread what I posted. I said there was no such title as pharaoh when Joseph was supposed to have helped one out. Thutmosis III was the first Egyptian king to be referred to as a pharaoh. So you have simply misread my statement. The Bible claims that 2-3 million Israelites lived here for 38 of the 40 years of the desert wanderings after the Exodus. But, despite being excavated to virgin soil by Cohen the site has no occupation level before 10th century BCE. Well, if I said this then I must have worded my reply incorrectly because I don’t agree with it. Things that are mentioned in ancient texts do not automatically exist. Until the item itself is discovered it is not taken as being real. Even allusions to an item in an external text does not verify its existence, it may only suggest that the author has heard about a particular item from another source. The information that you have posted in your reply to me makes it explicitly clear that you are not qualified to make this statement.Brian.

Did NJ reply to my request for sources? If so I've got a seriously disturbed computer.As for my concerns, they weren't voiced nearly as eloquently as yours. There are traps for anyone who takes ancient texts as literal truth...relying on third-hand translations, hear-say lessons by "Bible Scholars" and Cecil B. DeMille movies is hardly a substitute for looking at other contemporary sources.This problem is compounded in the culture of modern Bible Students who study the bible exclusively just to reinforce their faith. These scholars make historical pronouncements that are easily as ludicrous as any psuedo-scientific drivel coming out of AiG or DI.It's strange that we've never found any Egyptian references to a rain of fire or a plague that took every first born male or three days of darkness. You'd think a scribe or two might have noted that in passing while explaining to his master why all the cattle are dead.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research