Ancient texts in discussions of science?

Which pyramids would you be referring to?Brian.

All of them at Giza, or just the Great Pyramid?Brian.

It is a common misconception that slaves were used to build the pyramids, probably stemming from the classic Cecil B DeMille movies.But, although there may well have been a few slaves employed, the pyramids were built by Egyptian labourers, employed after harvesting was completed.From here One of the biggest falsehoods about the Great Pyramid of Khufu is that it was built by slaves. The discovery of the tombs of the Pyramid builders on the Giza Plateau has finally and conclusively put this theory to rest. We now know with certainty that the Pyramids were built by Egyptian men and women -- not slaves! And, of course, there was never any Israelites employed in building any pyramid.Brian.

You should try teaching some of my classes I would say that there's a better general education nowadays, and we do have equipment to assist our learning that the ancients didn't have, but many of them were pretty damn clever. Even in history writing, the important leap taken by Hecateaus, Polydius and Thucydides cannot be underestimated. It would have been good to see an example or two to support this and how one arrives at the conclusion that some are accurate and some are not. Antiquity is not a valid reason in itself, rather the plausibility of the information in the text is a valid reason.The problem with any text, ancient or not, is the intent of its author(s), they only inform you of what they want you to know, and in many cases we have no way of telling if it is accurate or not. They are useful, but the problem is the approach taken by the people involved in the discussion. Adherents will not critically analyse their sacred texts whilst any historian worth their salt HAS to critically analyse every source. The big problem with introducing a sacred text into an historical or scientific discussion is that it invariably leads to a discussion of the validity of the text rather than the topic under discussion.Adherents wish that non adherents would give their sacred texts the same authority that they do, but this is never going to happen.Brian.

I was thinking of two other reasons. Firstly, the Egyptians stopped building pyramids a few hundred years before the Bible claims that the Israelites were in Egypt, and secondly, the Bible never claims they helped to build them.As far as living in Goshen is concerned, there isn't a single shred of archaeological evidence ot support that claim.Brian.

Closer to a thousand isn't it? And lived to the ripe old age of 950!There's too many problems fitting in genealogical information for this hypothesis.Perhaps if we said the authors of Genesis lived in the Red Sea basin after Moses crossed it could be possible. But, we would still have to accept a lot of mythology as being accurate.Brian.

*goes back to sleep*

It isn't scant, it is zero. Simple, it is what is known as the "Cinderella Theme". The underdog overcomes overwhelming odds to finally triump, it is a very comon theme in the Bible. Take the Joseph myth, he is sold by his brothers, ends up in prison in Egypt, yet was able to rise to second in command of the entire Egyptian Empire! Simple again, and there are many reasons, for example our God is more powerful that your god. Throughout the 3rd and 2nd millenium BCE, civilisations thought that if bad things were happening to them then they had upset their god(s), they thenhad to appease thei god(s) in order to regain favour and thus better times again. When things went welll, say in a battle, then it was god(s) who got the credit, and Israel is a great example of this. God frequently deserts Israel when they are not entriely loyal to Yahweh, so if they lose a battle then there must be a reaosn for it, they simply must have uspet Yahweh. Look at the story of Ai, when the Israelites failed to take Ai then they had to find a reason why God had allowed them to be defeated, they found the reason in Achan, and proceeded to slaughter him and his family, they attack Ai again and are victorious. These myths are examples to the Israelites that if they are loyal to God then they will have good times, if they stray then there are bad times. What better example of this is there than Yahweh defeating all the Egytpian gods and the most powerful man in their world at the time?The myth of Achan is exactly the same, if one Israelite is unfaithful to God then He will desert Israel. Israel was not the only nation to think this way, if you have time look at the Moabite Stone, in it the Moabites praise Chemosh for kicking Yahweh;s butt, because they believed the same as the Israelites that all victories come from God. I don't see what is embarrassing about it, many nations were enslaved, it was run of the mill stuff back then. Heck the Israelites themselves had slaves! And they do have grand stories of heroism, what about Joshua, or David? Ah, but when was the Bible first penned? The earliest we have are the DSS, which are dated to about 1200 years after the Bible claims there was an Exodus.But, it shouldnt be surprising to find some details about Egypt in the Bible since for many centuries Palestine was essentially a province of Egypt. The latest research leans heavily towards Israel emerging from within Canaan and not entering it from outside. So, if the Israelites arose from within Palestinian society then some tales of Egypt would be expected.Also, if Israel was in Egypt why are so many important details missing form the biblical account? Why on earth don't they mention the name of the pharaoh? Why do they have anachronisms in the account? Someone with first hand knowledge would have prepared a far more accurate account. However, many parts are no incomplete and the Hebrews are missing from those parts. Many of the tales have been shown to be inaccurate based on archaeological evidence. For example, there is simply not the room for 2-3 million Hebrews to have lived in Egypt, there was no Philistines in the Near East either when the Bible claims there were, there was no pharaoh called Rameses whenthe Bible claims Israel helped to build one of his cities, in fact, there was no such title as Pharaoh when Joseph was said to have helped one!There are a great many other examples that have falsified the Exodus, such as the lack of a settlement at Kadesh-Barnea, but we have covered all this before here. But you must have evidence of these to know this? Well, so it is claimed, although it is only fundy Christian 'archaeologists' that claim this. Got an example? Indeed, and much of that massive civilisation has been preserved, and a great deal of that evidence has falsified almost all of Genesis and Exodus.Brian.

Yes, there are two different Exodus accounts edited together in the Book of exodus as we have it. As well as these two different accounts, there is information from at least two other authors/schools blended together, well when I say blended there are some jagged edges.Brian.

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.