Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

do you?let phrase it this way. suppose for a second we're reading a US history book, and it says "john hancock was a president of the contintental congress before the constitution was drafted and george washington was elected as president of the united states."what can we infer about the book, without any further information? knowing history, what can we infer? was the book written before or after 1789? that's ridiculous. jacob doesn't even die until several chapters later, so the phrase "sons/children of jacob" pops up quite often refering to his specific family. and "sons/children of israel" is even more common. i count about 350 instances, in just the torah, and i will NOT post all of them here. it's a common way to refer to israelites. you keep making these preposterous claims about "such and such a phrase doesn't appear in the torah after this point" when any idiot with a searchable concordance can verify that it does.and even so, wouldn't refering to a people as "a nation" give a timeframe for when the verse was written? actually, the verse says "before any king ruled over the children of israel" not "land of israel." please try to pay attention to the details, if you're going to make a point out of them. but it's somewhat irrelevent, as the first king they would be talking about was king of a land called "israel" as well. saul, david, and solomon were "kings of israel." david's line through rehoboam were "kings of judah" and david's line through jeroboam were "kings of israel."Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

quote:

---

let phrase it this way. suppose for a second we're reading a US history book, and it says "john hancock was a president of the contintental congress before the constitution was drafted and george washington was elected as president of the united states."

​

what can we infer about the book, without any further information? knowing history, what can we infer? was the book written before or after 1789?

---

The difference is, the genesis verse works as intended, thus not invalidated by a manipulated reading.

quote:

---

actually, the verse says "before any king ruled over the children of israel" not "land of israel."

---

No impact supporting the wrong reading of it. This only backs what I said - children of a Israel, refers to a nation. Thus it validates that no kings of this nation existed, unlike the other nations. Here, the issue of future kings become contrived manipulation, and contradicts every aspect of the text's narratives.

quote:

---

please try to pay attention to the details, if you're going to make a point out of them. but it's somewhat irrelevent, as the first king they would be talking about was king of a land called "israel" as well. saul, david, and solomon were "kings of israel." david's line through rehoboam were "kings of judah" and david's line through jeroboam were "kings of israel."

---

My attention span is not the problem here. Its about poor grammar - or worse. The operative, triumphant aspect of that verse is: there were no kings in the nation of Israel, even after it was called a nation, which was an anomoly for this timespace. Israel had high preists, preists, judges, prophets, tribe heads, captains of 10K, 1K and of a 100 (the law of delegation mandared in the OT) - but no kings. The verse is thus screaming for this pointer, and correctly included!

quote:

---

jacob doesn't even die until several chapters later, so the phrase "sons/children of jacob" pops up quite often refering to his specific family. and "sons/children of israel" is even more common.

---

Fair enough about the term being repeated, my error to make that addition. The new term was applicable here poignantly though, applying to that said verse, and being the official term in advance of freedom and acquiring a land. That Jacob was not born does not impact: the new name was given in Exodus, well after Jacob's death. King Saul also does not apply - the land was united as one country only under king david.

There’s no error mate, you just don’t have the balls to admit that this is an anachronism, and Moses could not have written this verse, or you are probably the only person on the planet that cannot understand what this passage is saying. This isn’t what it is saying at all. It is saying that Edom had, in this example, ”queens’ BEFORE Israel did. This is the whole point of putting the word ”before’ in there. If the passage meant what you would like it to it would say that ”Edom had Kings but Israel didn’t’.The text was written long after the start of the monarchy, this is the only way to make sense of the ”before’. Using ”before’ means that Israel will have kings as well, lol but Edom had them BEFORE Israel. There’s nothing ambiguous about the text at all. Afraid not mate, the word before proves that this passage is an anachronism, written by some unknown scribe or scribes, long after Moses was alleged to have lived. It would work just as well with chickens, or sheep, or schools, anything at all really would work. The Edomites had chickens, before there were any Israelite had a chicken, see it works as well. All it settles is the fact that you cannot read very well and your grammar is appalling. Oh I bet this is going to be packed full of facts. Well, by whoever wrote the text we have to be fair, this is the real situation. Yes, it shows that it is late addition to the Book of Exodus and it wasn’t written by Moses. You are still stuck in this fantasy that Moses wrote this down sometime during the second millennium BCE. Now the very fact that this verse mentions ”before’ means that it was written after the beginning of the Israelite monarchy, so you are giving too much credit to the author here. There’s no problem with a scribe sitting in the Land of Israel writing this text maybe 700 years after this was supposed to have happened and using ”Israel’ as a term for a land or a people, its not an issue. You need to read your Bible again. Jesus, you do have some real reading difficulties don’t you, or are you just parroting some garbage from fundy websites yet again?The Hebrews are referred to throughout the Book of Exodus, and even once in Deutronomy!Exodus 10:3 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me.You just talk garbage mate, you don’t even think about what you are writing, no critical research skills whatsoever. And how do you know this, just more nonsense. Again, you do not know this at all. The mention of Israel can quite easily be another anachronism. And you have no support for either of these assertions. LOL, all you are doing is proving my case, you are a silly laddie. I have never in my life said that the Merneptah stele contains the first unambiguous reference to Israel outside of the Bible, you must be confusing me with someone else. Once again your reading skills are amazing. The Stele DOES not mention King David, if it did then there wouldn’t be a huge debate going on in the academic world abut the tel Dan stele. I don’t mind being wrong, I am very open to learning new information. Unfortunately, you really don’t have a very good background knowledge of the Bible at all, your knowledge of ancient near eastern history is laughable, your critical thinking skills are non-existent, you have no idea what archaeology is and what it can and cannot do, you don’t know what history is, you invent all sorts of silly little gimmicks to try and make the bible into some perfect source of information, and you don’t have the balls to admit you have cocked up here.But hey, keep posting and denying that the passage under discussion is not an anachronism. I teach part time at a high school and I can play this game for as long as you want.Brian.

i just heard back from Dr. Cooney. The reply to wether Egyptians recorded defeats (on NG) is nothing new to you guys but i'm going to post it anyway:Hi Eduard,
I didn't mean that the Egyptians recorded any defeats with regards to the Exodus. In fact, there is no information about the Exodus from the Egyptian side, which I did say. I meant that they recorded defeats or 'issues' with other invasions, such as Ramses III with the Sea Peoples, or Merikare discussing civil war in the First Intermediate Period or priests discussing the break up of the country in the Third Intermediate Period. All I meant was that the Egyptians didn't always present the ideal story... You won't find any scripture for this... You will find these texts in Miriam Lichtheim's three volumes of _Ancient Egyptian Literature_ just now in its second edition.good luck!
kara

quote:

---

The Edomites had chickens, before there were any Israelite had a chicken, see it works as well.

---

You mean, now these are the chickens the edomites had - before israel had chickens?Maybe the edomites also had edomite children before Israel had any edomite children? Because the verse refers to that time ('now these are'), and works without resorting to the future - it is correct even if israel had no edOmite children or chickens, or in fact did have these in the future; the word 'before' thus refers only to that tie, akin to 'when', and signified by the 'present' tense used in 'there is'. The children of Israel had no kings in that time - slot it in! And this is the only path which agrees with the passage and every other narrative in the text. Grammar rules take the best coherent path, not one in absolute difference of what is in the narrative.The premise the OT was written later is a pseudo, based on another infamous agenda, and must be evidenced separately; it does not impact on this verse. King David's 3000 year 'contemporanious' psalms mention Moses numerously, and align with the entire narratives of the five books: did he too know the OT was written in his future, even while describing Absalom and all historical factors aligned and written in all other books? - perhaps this is why you also reject the Tel Dan discovery, as well as the Israeli stele? It is also why you condone someone/others recalling 3000 years of history and a million stats of that period's history: try and find an emulation of such a feat elsewhere! I don't blame you for misconstrueing basic comprehension and grammar - but it means you MUST reject every proof from the ground too!'TO COVER ONE LIE - A 1000 TRUTHS MUST BE COVERED'.

quote:

---

All I meant was that the Egyptians didn't always present the ideal story... You won't find any scripture for this... You will find these texts in Miriam Lichtheim's three volumes of _Ancient Egyptian Literature_ just now in its second edition.

---

I have already posted links affirming the Egyptians slanted their history, but it was rejected in this thread.Significantly, that the Israelites prevailed in Cannan, an ally of Egypt, speaks for itself why this too is not recorded in Egypt's writings. Certainly, one must conclude from Egypt's silence - that Canaan was not ruled by the Israelites for a 1000 years till the Babylonian invasion!

Just checking. Three basic questions apply:Q. Do anti-exodus adherents reject that canaan was ruled by Israelites for over a 1000 years till 70 CE (with a break of 70 years in Babylon)?Q. Was Jerusalem established by King David over 3000 years ago, and was there a temple in this city?Q. When was the OT written, where and by whom?

Yes. Well for that to be correct there would have to be some time AFTER the Edomites having children that Israel had children!And why is it impossible for someone writing say 700 years after the event to narrate it is present a folk tale in present tense? As soon as the author(s) mention the word ”before’ they are referring to something that happened AFTER the incident being discussed. It is really simple, the author knew that Edom had kings before Israel had kings, the author knew that both nations had kings and Edom had theirs first. Indeed, so the author is referring to that tie in retrospect. The author knew that Israel had kings that’s why he could say what he did. If Israel hadn’t have had any kings then the word ”before’ would not have been used. Yes I know, but they did have kings 400 years later, so the author knew that Edom had kings before Israel. I have no idea why you cannot see this, unless you are being deliberately obtuse. But it doesn’t, this is the whole point. To have kings before another nation has had kings, both nations would have needed to have had kings, it makes no sense any other way.Answer this: How did the author know that Edom had kings before Israel did? And the best coherent path makes this stick out as an anachronism, that’s why every scholar that has read it knows it had to be written after the beginning of the Israelite monarchy. Well the evidence is an insurmountable obstacle to Bible inerrantists, whom even the staunchest admits that there are glaring anachronisms in the Old testament, with the mention of Dan long before it was called Dan probably the most well known.But the Book of Exodus is rife with anachronisms, the cities of Pithom and Rameses is another famous one where either Rameses or both are anachronistic. If we follow Bible chronology and place the Exodus around 1446 BC then both cities are anachronistic, if we follow the revised chronology that places the Exodus in the mid 13th century BCE then the City of Rameses is okay, but Pithom is still anachronistic as the name Pithom was never used as a name for a city before the Saite period (7th c BCE). The name was used for temples and estates, but the name had never had any connection with a city (Lemche N P (1998) page 398, biblio details posted earlier)But these are just a few from the huge mountain of evidence that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that much of the early history of Israel was added much later. Put this against the evidence for it being contemporaneous, and the comparison is laughable. That the text has been added to and edited is not even under debate anymore. Common sense impacts this verse though. Again though, you do not have a single shred of evidence that David wrote anything, in fact, you have no evidence that there ever was a King David. But, hey, maybe I am doing you a disservice, maybe you do have evidence that he wrote the psalms, not all of them though, so let me see what you have, if you have any. I’ll await the usual circular reasoning. I didn’t reject it, I advised caution when coming to conclusions about the meaning of the phrase ”byt dwd’, as it is well known that the meaning had not been settled. I also criticised the professionalism of Biran because of the way he went about his business here. It is strange that it is only the good old bible archaeologists who conduct their work in this manner, no archaeologist from any other field would be so ignorant. It is no good having a million stats if 99% of them are inaccurate. I don’t know if a book as erroneous as the old testament exists anywhere. I haven’t misconstrued anything. A basic reading of the text tells us that Edom had kings before Israel, so Israel had kings after Edom, and the author knew this. If you did some textual criticism and opened your mind you could see an easy solution. No it doesn’t. It is the very evidence from the ground that has falsified most of the first 5 books, and most of the next 2 as well.I look forward to your next display of cognitive dissonance.Brian.

Well you have asked four questions. Yes they reject this idea as there is no reason at all to consider it. First question is easy. Jerusalem is much older than 3000 years, with the earliest houses being dated to the early bronze age, second (or third) question, there is no sign of the first temple so how can we know? No one knows for certain.The earliest extant texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, before this all we have are educated guesses. One thing though that is not disputed is that all the books are anonymous, we don't knw who wrote a single one of them.Another fact is the obvious signs of editing, with doublets and anachromisms the big clues.Brian.

quote:

---

Three basic questions apply:

​

Well you have asked four questions.

​

Q. Do anti-exodus adherents reject that canaan was ruled by Israelites for over a 1000 years till 70 CE (with a break of 70 years in Babylon)?

​

Yes they reject this idea as there is no reason at all to consider it.

​

Q. Was Jerusalem established by King David over 3000 years ago, and was there a temple in this city?

​

First question is easy. Jerusalem is much older than 3000 years, with the earliest houses being dated to the early bronze age, second (or third) question, there is no sign of the first temple so how can we know?

​

Q. When was the OT written, where and by whom?

​

No one knows for certain.

​

The earliest extant texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, before this all we have are educated guesses. One thing though that is not disputed is that all the books are anonymous, we don't knw who wrote a single one of them.

​

Another fact is the obvious signs of editing, with doublets and anachromisms the big clues.

​

Brian.

---

I thought the air needed cleaning. I suppose my next Q should be - was the OT written last friday?

Look mate, I am not here to give you a hard time, there's enough people piling on you already on other threads. All I am pointing out is that when it comes to archaeology, history, and the text of the Hebrew Bible, then things really are not as straightforward as you appear to believe.I can see where you are coming from, I approached many subjects in a similar way myself once upon a time, but it is only through studying that one realises exactly what archaeology can do, what history really is, and that the Hebrew Bible was not only written and rewritten over a long period of time it was also subject to the social and political influences of the communities that it was written in, as was every ancient text in existence.But when you look at the bigger picture, and ask questions that academics ask, you soon realise just how difficult it is to prove many of the events in the Hebrew Bible.Take the Merneptah Stele if you wish and look at the possible options. First off you need to look at the name itself, and it does look as if 'Israel' (our Bible Israel) is the most obvious translation, but we should'nt just leave it at that, we need to look for other options if you are going to have your interpretation accepted by your peers. Now 'Israel' is not the only translation that has been presented, for example Othniel Margalith claimed that the 'Israel' of the Merneptah Stele is unrelated to the people of the Bible. His conclusions were based on the suggestion that the Egyptian 's' could also be represented as a 'z and this suggested that the name 'Israel' could be translated as 'Izreel', which according to Margalith, an inexperienced scribe incorrectly inscribed 'Isreel' instead of 'Yezreal'(Jezreel) the valley in the north of the country (Margalith, quoted in Hasel, Michael G, Israel in the Merneptah Stele BASOR 296 p.46).Another translation comes from Alessandra Nibbi, although this hasn't gained much support, suggests that the 'Israel' of the Merneptah stele are actually a people known as 'the wearers of a sidelock and could be alluding to the Lybians (Nibbi quoted in Hasel page 45)These are two alternative translations, proving that not all scholars translate the 'Israel' of the stele as 'Israel'.Archaeologists and historians, especially in this postmodern world, really shouldn't state absolutes, and we should really say that the most likely translation is Israel, but we shouldnt say that it definitely is 'Israel' because we do not know what may be found in the future that may have clarify the Stele. Think of this, what if another inscription was found that infromed us that the Israel of the Stele was an Israel that came from Ebla (the name is found in two sources from there)then this would falsify any claim that the israel in the Stele is our Biblical Israel, and if this is the case then scholars could never have proven that Israel of the Stele is the Biblical Israel.Now I am not saying that the Israel of the Stele is not our Israel, it probably is, all I am advising is some caution when stating that this is a clear cut and unambiguous pice of evidence, and as far as archaeology goes I can assure you that very little is clear cut and unambiguous.But say that you go with the idea that this is our Israel, what does the mention actually prove? Well very little really, all it really suggests (not proves) is that Israel was an unsettled nation roaming (or semi-sedentary)a small part of Palestine at the end of the 13th century BCE.In an archaeological/historical context, THIS IS ALL that the Stele itself can tell us, everything else is in addition to the information in the stele. The Stele says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the religious practices of Israel, nothing about where this Israel came from, and nothing about later Israel. Archaeological artefacts are mute, they have no inherent meanings or contexts, their meanings and contexts are given to them by the archaeologist who is examining them, this is why we have so many archaeologists disagreeing about the meaning and context of the same artefact, it is simply a part of archaeology as a discipline.Here is the difficult part, regardless of what your interpretation of the evidence is, you have to provide justification for this interpretation, what Lewis Binford calls 'inference justification'. Now if we take the Israel of the Stele to be our Israel, then you have to provide justification from other evidence to support your interpretation.Now if someone wishes to place the Biblical Israel in Palestine at the end of the 13th century BCE then, for me, they need to provide some evidence of something uniquely Israelite in the archaeological record. Unfortunately, IMO, no one has provided any evidence of israelite material culture in Palestine during the 13th century BCE, so this weakens the argument.If we apply the claim that the Israel of the Stele is our Biblical Israel, then as far as the Biblical texts go, at face value, it causes huge problems with the accuracy of the claims made in the Bible.Some examples are, the Bible claims that the Exodus was in 1446 BCE, this is during Thutmosis III's reign where Palestine was a province of Egypt, it makes Pithom and Rameses anachronistic, and it falsifies the Biblical Conquest of Canaan which claims that forty years after the Exodus the Israelites began a military campaign that conquered the whole of Palestine in 5 years.There are other huge issues caused by the Stele, and by ALL of the other archaeological evidence. But the one constant factor is that the Biblical texts HAVE to be reinterpreted nowadays to fit the archaeological record, a literal acceptance of the Biblical text as histoically accurate was abandonned a very long time ago.So, I am not giving you a hard time, I am just advising a bit of caution when stating absolutes when referring to archaeologogy and/or history.Take care.Brian.

I asked those questions only to expose your not talking science or logic. I wasted time debating grammar with you - your grammar appears based on the answers you gave, thus has nothing to do with grammar!

I didnt mention any science in my post, although I did mention a great deal of arts, and the logic is sound.Tell you what, why don't you tell me exactly where my 'science' and logic are at fault?In my explanation of what archaeology can and cannot do, please tell me exactly what it is, in your opinion, that is incorrect about that information. I would really appreciate it. Well it wasn't a waste of time, you did learn that you have a particular problem with grammar. I don't think you can lecture me on grammar when you post something like "to expose your not talking..."Added to the FACT that you are the only person on planet Earth that cannot see the anachronism.Anyway, I would be eternally grateful if you can point to the errors in my explanation about archaeology and the Merneptah Stele.Brian.

There is no such thing as having science when your history is so slanted. I have no idea what to discuss with one who rejects everything in 4000 years of history. Jerusalem is a hebrew name, made of two hebrew words, appearing for the first time in the OT. There was a sovereign nation here till 70 CE. There was a war with babylon in 586 BCE. There are no second thoughts about the discoveries of steles and 1000s of other relics unearthed in the M/E and palestine. First sort your views here, then your science will be more credible.