Buz's source claims that some of the Stele text is "identical" to parts of the Bible. It isn't true
i'm not following the great debate, but i'm reasonably familiar with jacobovici's claim (same person? or just similar idea?) that the tempest stele reports the exodus from the egyptian perspective. clearly, it does not, and reading the translation of the stele demonstrates this quite clearly.
was it you who provided the link to
higgaion? christopher heard neatly dissects this point over there.
but Buz can't admit that his source is saying something that isn't true. So even though the guy is trying to claim that the Stele contains parts of the Exodus story, Buz goes looking elsewhere and picks on the Flood myth because it looks more like the storm than the supposedly "identical" Exodus.
yes, it's kind of silly when you can arbtirarily shift things around at will like that, with no regard to dates or even content (of
either source).
What makes it even funnier is that Buz is trying to defend a source that argues that Exodus is a distorted version of the real events.
ironically, exodus may actually be a distorted cultural memory of the hyksos expulsion. since the hyksos were indeed semitic, and were chased back to a stronghold in canaan -- and the hebrews took much of their cultural traditions and stories from their neighbors and highly modified them -- there is indeed a chance that there was a real event behind the exodus.
this is not to say that the text is accurate, but it's a foot in the door that people like bux look for. plausible, distorted history -> history -> accurate. when really the first one in no way leads to last.
™ Version 4.2
