Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

quote:

---

your beloved old testament says that abraham came from ur. ur is in iraq.

---

How else would you know where Abraham came from - it is the first recording of the city of Ur. What you disregard is, Judaism and Israel did not come from Ur, but was established in Canaan, by Israelite canaanites, two generations later, via Jacob: none of these peoples ever went to Ur or any other country. By this time, the Israelites were canaanites for 300 years, their beliefs and tribal community established in this the only land they knew. How long do neanderthals need for a green card?

quote:

---

the old testament says that when the jews left, they took treasure from the egyptians. there's no evidence in egypt that they utilized slave labor. the buildings in egypt in particular from that time period are clearly built by skilled labor, not unskilled slaves.

---

The egyptian's main claim to fame was their slave asset; this is not in dispute. The Israelites built two cities there: you are quoting the texts selectively, choosing what suits. It is ubsurdity to claim the israelites just walked out with a superpower's treasures - equally so that you negate 210 years of slavery without wages. Can I assume that if your assessment of no slavery is incorrect, the israelites rightly begat compensation?

quote:

---

and just because the egyptians killed israelite babies

---

I like the use of 'just' when describing the first recording of genocide.

quote:

---

doesn't excuse the israelites from their genocides against the hittites, the amorites, the cannanites, the perizzites, the hivites, the jebusites and then their own tribe of benjamin before turning on the northern kingdom.

---

True, the hitites were not killed because of Egypt killing babies. This occured when the canaanites barred entry to Israel, and proclaimed genocide too: this is missing from your accusation. You cannot chose what you like from a text!

quote:

---

what are these wrongs of cannan? the bible doesn't even mention any other than being in the way or "pagans".

---

Congratulations - the first correct question! The text, which you avoid numerously, says, 'ALL THAT WAS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LRD DID THEY (THE CANAANITES) DO'; and 'ALL THAT THEY DID TO THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS YOU SHALL DO UNTO THEM'. What did you think this was referring to - why not read again? Why did two of the eight canaanite kingdoms side with the Joshua and battle the other six? The OT is an exacting, intergrated document - and requires correct comprehension.

quote:

---

have you read the bible? hell, it's not even that many books of it. just exodus and joshua would do.

---

Its the world's most honest document, and not a candy-coated one, listing all the good and bad occurences in that time without pulling any punches. That is why it remains the most believed scripture in existence. You again fail to include that Joshua made a peace offer to the six canaanites, which was responded to with unconditional death to Israel, and what would result had the canaanites succeeded in their declared goal: why is that? Further, in that time, wars for land dominance were always faught with the anihilation of the other side, because of a superstition premise; this was normal fare, and not to be confused with conquering another nation for slaves.

quote:

---

what does tasmania have to do with anything? there were jews in tasmania? all i know about tasmania is that the native population was completely annihilated by the brits (or post-brits). i think pakistan is an equally unfounded point in this discussion. and poland. well, in 1335 king kazimierz wielki opened poland to the jews which were being expelled from the rest of europe and guaranteed their freedoms. shortly into the 1400s, the austrians were responsible for pograms against the jews and there were some issues post-wwi, but they were limited in scope. the real oppression of jews came with the german invasion in 1939.

---

Yes, jews were in all these places, but did not steal anyone's lands: that's the point.

quote:

---

btw, the ghettos were built by the jews by choice because they wanted to live in separate religious communities. the germans forced more people into the ghettos and made them the center of great oppression, but did not build them or initiate jewish indwelling.

---

Not true. This refuge was saught when medevial christianity enforced conversions, barred jews from returning to their land, and instigated inhuman decrees with death penalties, such as not being allowed any work or vocation, owning properties, entering schools, having shops, farms or food business, or any professional vocations. Such signs were posted in all Europen townsquares. The only item which was not included was 'money lending' - and traveller's cheques and modern banking resulted.

quote:

---

they have as much of a right to exist and pursue their own goals as anyone else as long as their pleasure does not infringe on others. but to deny that they are just as flawed as the rest of humanity is beyond foolish, into the territory of dangerous. because to deny that they have the same penchant for nationalism and racism as the rest of us is to further endanger a huge population of second-class citizens which is frankly past the edge of suffering very serious human rights violations and is in danger of much worse if nothing is done.

---

???

quote:

---

Eh?

​

So, in your earlier post you claim that the Old Testament 'records their (Kyksos) history' and when asked where this information is you say your claim doesn't have to be backed! Bit of a joke mate.

---

No contradiction here, the hiksos need not be decussed when the issue was Israel's interaction with Egypt.

quote:

---

It does not just say a new king arose - it qualifies it with 'who knew not Joseph or the Hebrews'.

​

Apart from circular reasoning, there's quite a few other problems here but I am not going to highlight them because I can see that discussion with you is pointless and my time id too valuable right now.

---

Suit yourself, but there is no circular reasoning in completing a sentence which says the reverse what you inferred. The only reason A NEW KING AROSE is stated, is because this king said something about the hebrews, which you left out - else we would not have to make a U-turn to correct you.

quote:

---

The book of exodus is an intergrated part of the OT,

​

Of course it is, but only after many reworkings but different schools and/0r individuals over a few centuries.

---

Your now making yourself uncorrectable by asserting this deflection - with no evidence again. Which is the world's least distorted document - by period of time, and follow-up evidence of its writings? Take your time!

quote:

---

Well to be diarised (IMO) would mean that eyewitness wrote it down at the time of the event, it would be a primary source. For the enslavement and exodus we do not have a single primary source, so it is not diarised.

---

Its diarised by one person, with the nomination of 3 million witnesses, and a host of nations and places noted also - with contemporary descriptions. That is why there could only be one author and one writing date.

quote:

---

its date, including the day/month/year is calculatable (given), and observed annually as the passover.

​

Well this is what I am asking you, in which year did the Exodus happen, I'll even allow you to use books outside the Book of Exodus if you like, even though your earlier claim says that the date can be worked out from the Book of Exodus.

​

There is more credence here, for example, than the dates of christmas or the date greece battled persia:

​

This remains to be seen, all I have from you so far is just your unsupported (and rather ignorant) opinion.

​

it is followed by other dates upto the end of the OT writings, then by follow-up books which also contain dates.

​

Meaningless.

​

Its as good as it gets.

​

This is sone fantasy world you are living in.

​

You really should try backing uo things you claim, it would gain you more respect from people.

​

Brian

---

The dates are already worked out, and available in the hebrew calendar, which observes these festivals. There is some variances suggested by some scholars about the exodus year, due to some other events being allocated a different date by them - so it depends who's datings you prefer.

quote:

---

The Tel dan Stele was inscribed long after the biblical date for David, and it doesnt even mention King David. The reference in the Stele to Byt Dwd is disputed by many scholars, such as Davies and Thompson.

---

Both david and solomon are now regarded as real historical figures by the widest of concensus. The stele mentions the davidic dynasty, siting events also described in other writings (Kings), and even describes the vista david would have had when writing certain psalms. Some in the M/E even deny the Jerusalem temple and say Jews are europeans and not Jews: so what!

quote:

---

there are numerous such examples.

​

No there isn't.

​

The gregorian calendar is a contrived continuation of it.

​

No it isn't. The Gregorian calendar is a continuation of the Julian Calendar, do you ever actually research anything for yourself or do you uncritically swallow everything that is contained on fundy websites?

​

Brian.

---

That was the Pope's error - the Julian (solar only) is wrong - the OT (solar-lunar) was what was right. The quotes are not from a fundy websites.The relevent issue is what impacts if the exodus did occur, and that slavery was rampant in Egypt - its overturning and the establishment of inalienable human rights so clearly reflected in the OT laws. I have no idea why it is rejected as myth so boldly, when all subsequent powers emulated Egypt upto the Roman empire. With the later power 2000 years ago, freedom of belief became Rome's greatest war - with a cost of over 1.1 million lives being lost. It changed the world - but not much mentioned these days.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You seem to have overlooked your original claim, the claim to which
I am enquiring, here it is again.

​

In post number 5 you claimed: ” The Hyksos left no writings, and Israel does back-up their history with authentic, contemporanous accounts,

​

Then I asked where I could find where Israel backs up Hyksos history, then you answer by saying in post 34 Hyksos don't have to be backed here. . What kind of discussion is this?

​

Look, either you do not have evidence of Israel ”backing up’ Hyksos history or you don’t. If you do have evidence, could I please have that evidence as I am very interested in this area? If you don’t have any evidence then that is fine, just let me know so I can stop expecting to see it. Thanks.

---

This is just semantics and I'm certain a bore to anyone reading it. Basic comprehension says, I meant Israel has backup of its history with egypt, and the hiksos does not relate to this back-up. Still an issue for you?

quote:

---

How do we know that the new king who arose said something about the Hebrews?

---

Its in the text - the same sentence you quoted. A new king arose, because the preists did not like the position given Joseph. This was a coup to restore the preist status, and this leads to the genocide of Israelite children.

quote:

---

This is just silly. The earliest extant texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, written more than one thousand years after the alleged event, so how do you know it is least distorted? Do you really think that the DSS texts are identical to earlier texts and if so why?
BTW, pick almost any ancient near eastern texts and they have not been altered at all. The Amarna Letters, Nuzi Texts, Mari Texts and so on, and you have original ancient texts, what do we have for the Bible? Not a single original text, and the earliest extant is over 1500 years after some events described init, that is pretty underwhelming.

---

No, its not silly at all, and your remarks are not intelligent concerning ancient history and evidences. Firstly, the exact dates of this event are in dispute, which is not surprising or a negation of the event. The amarna and other finds are granite relics, discovered recently, and are not capable of changes while buried in the earth - these are now housed in museums. With the scrolls, that date is not when it was written: the scrolls represent a parcel of every book of the OT (except the book of esther), written 100 years apart the previous 1000 years, stretching from the Mosaic to psalms and prophetic scrolls, each identifying dates, names and places. There is nothing like this anywhere else, and it is not silly: it signifies multiple, ongoing historical credibility. The scrolls are also the same with today's OT, and the Septuagint of 300 BCE. In any case the scrolls, unchanged for 2300 years, represents the world's most undistorted document - excepting only stone etchings and relics which have been in the earth. IOW, there is no scripture or book which is unchanged for 2300 years. There is the book of the dead, but this is a prayer/epitaph, as opposed an historical document, and there is Hamurabi, which date is in much dispute: but that's about it. What's silly about it - the scrolls is also the first/oldest alphabetical books, and among 2 or 3 equivalent confirmations of ancient M/E history. The eight ruling chieftons of canaan, the moabites, the medianites and the philistines are foremost recordings of the OT.

quote:

---

Its diarised by one person,

​

The Bible itself doesn’t even claim this, this is just another fundy ”urban myth’.

---

It does. The last para is an epitaph by Joshua affirming Moses' death.

quote:

---

with the nomination of 3 million witnesses,

​

Well we know this number is inaccurate, there simply wasn’t enough room for this amount of people and the growth rate is impossible for the time and place. The most amazing thing is that 3 million people are archaeologically invisible.

---

The 3M figure is derived from an approximation of the count of soldiers, covering sub-totals of the 13 tribes, names, gender and age breakdowns, and may also includes what are listed as 'a multitude of the nations'. IOW, it is listed in the mode of a bona fide scientific cencus. But 250 years later, we have another cencus, which is 6 M. I find no motive for fake figures here - it is not a blatant exaggeration as inferred, and listed with much specific details:

quote:

---

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1024.htm
2 Samuel 24:
3. (5-9) The census is taken.

​

And they crossed over the Jordan and camped in Aroer, on the right side of the town which is in the midst of the ravine of Gad, and toward Jazer. Then they came to Gilead and to the land of Tahtim Hodshi; they came to Dan Jaan and around to Sidon; and they came to the stronghold of Tyre and to all the cities of the Hivites and the Canaanites. Then they went out to South Judah as far as Beersheba. So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king. And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

​

a. When they had gone through all the land: It took almost 10 months to complete the census. David should have called off this foolish census during the ten months, but he didn't.

​

b. Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king: he results showed that there were 1,300,000 fighting men among the twelve tribes, reflecting an estimated total population of about 6 million in Israel.

---

quote:

---

Most of the places on the Exodus route have not been found! Over forty places mentioned and about 3 that’s been identified, that’s mighty impressive Jo.

---

It is highly impressive - considering the time period and how many nations and wars traversed Egypt. Even one is sufficient. The oldest relic in India for example, is 2800 years old, so over 3000 years is among a small handful of history evidencing items.

quote:

---

How could this author record his own death?

​

How could Moses, who died 40 years after leaving Egypt, write that:

​

Genesis 36:31

​

And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

​

Now there was no King of Israel until Saul, nearly 400 years after Moses died!

​

I am afraid that the Pentateuch is rife with anachronisms, and depending on which date you tell me that you wish to place the Exodus in (remember you have failed to provide this date so far), there could be a lot more.

---

The reference to Edom is not of Israel's kings. Re exodus dates, this is at variance with scholras today, with the OT datings.
But that egypt was in battle with Israel over 3000 years ago is not in dispute (the Israel stele). Here's some date assessments for you:

quote:

---

MERNEPTA
MERNEPTA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

​

By G. Hirsch W. Max Muller

​

Egyptian king, the fourth of the 19th dynasty; a prominent figure in the discussions concerning the historicalness and chronology of Israel's exodus from Egypt. He was the son and successor of the famous Rameses II. (Sesostris), who is known to have built the cities enumerated in Ex. i. 11. Consequently, no conclusion seemed more certain than this: Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the oppression; Mernepta, that of the Exodus, which thus would date from the middle or end of the thirteenth century B.C. The discovery of the famous Israel inscription by Petrie ("Six Temples," plates 13-14) has now made this conclusion very doubtful. Line 27 in this inscription, a song of triumph over all foreign enemies of Egypt (Libyans, Hittites, Canaan, Ashkelon, Gezer, Yenu'ama), closes with the words: "Israel ["Y-s-ir(a)-'a-ra"] is annihilated (pulled out, without any [further] growth; Palestine has become like a widow [i.e., helpless] for Egypt." These words, dating from the fifth year of Mernepta, seem to point most naturally to Israel as settled in Palestine; though they have been construed as an allusion to the twelve tribes still wandering in the desert or still being held under bondage in Goshen.

​

Mernepta reigned for at least twenty-five years, the first five of which were filled with desperate attacks on Egypt by Libyan tribes and by pirates from Europe and Asia Minor. Palestine and central Syria remained tributary, however. The buildings of the king (at Karnak, etc.) are not considerable. His mummy has recently been found at Thebes, and is now in the Museum at Cairo.E. G. H. W. M. M.

---

quote:

---

Whose datings do you prefer, and if the Bible was this wondrous reliable texts that scholars use to date near eastern events how can there be any disagreement about the dates? That’s another strange one.

---

I prefer to wait for some more conclusion from the ground for such an ancient period: we have not a single book here from elsewhere. It is not unusual that there are discrepensies here - one has to set this against unconfirmable datings even 2000 years later, like the NT. The situation is also frustrated by Israel being in dispersals and wars with its surrounds, virtually without pause. Most of Egypt's archives have been destroyed or plundered by Europe, and modern egypt destroyed at least one major Hebrew library.

quote:

---

Well Biran states that it reads ”unequivocally’ as:

​

[Jero]ram Bar [Ahab] and [Ahaz]iah Bar [Jeroham].

​

How on earth can this be unequivocal? This is yet another example of the lengths that people will go to to try and prove the Bible accurate.

​

Noll comments that ”ram Bar’ broken text could just as easily read ’[Hi]ram Bar [X, King of Tyre]. The ”iah Bar does not have to read Ahaziah bar Ahab. (Noll, K (1998), The God who is Among the Danites, JSOT 80 3-23, page 8.

---

He's wrong. The ID is not determined solely by those factors.

quote:

---

It is simply because there is not a single shred of evidence to support it

---

That would render the Israelites as the greatest masters of fictional literature - you are too generous in bestowing such merit. No one can do so and none have.

quote:

---

As I said, circular reasoning.

​

Your argument of the authenticity of this bible claim is that it is in the Bible. You are essentially saying that the pharaoh did say this and it make the Bible awesome and the evidence you have that the pharaoh said this is from the Bible! This is utterly circular.

---

Again, I said nothing like how you put it. The sentence was to correct you over another point, not as proof of history, but that the sentence was about Pharoah and the hebrews, not the Hiksos. Proof cannot come only from texts.

quote:

---

How can the Bible be as supremely accurate as you say if so much is in dispute? However, the evidence available does negate the Book of Exodus if we take the Bible at face value, and there is not a single archaeologist who takes the Bible at face value today.

---

There is not a single archeologist who gives more credence to any other scripture - even those 2500 years more recent. The fact is, there is no peoples today who can identify their history with a 3000 year reference proven by archeologists. The rejection of the Israel stele from Egypt only displays your own personal bias: the reference to Israel has no other options considering the descriptions. This stele is written in another language, which was not alphabetical, and accepted by scholars. If your disputing the Hebrews were in Egypt, then say so - what else can one gather from your posts? You are even disputing the Tel Dal and Solomon history, inferring that some 3000 years of history was faked in numerous books, centuries apart, and which form a thread of continuiy. I've never seen such an occurence elsewhere: try to fake your ancestry for ten generations and see what it involves - you won't even get names and places right, even in this PC age. Archeologists use 'NAMES' as the foremost means of ancient historical verifications - because these are true to its spacetime. If I posted 50 scholars accepting the Tel Dal find, you won't be impressed - so I wont.

quote:

---

Indeed, and the Amarna Letter are one of many sources that negate the Exodus.

---

Exactly the reverse is the case. These predate Israel, and thus it makes the absence here more credible, while giving more credence to the egyptian stele which DOES mention Israel.

quote:

---

I am struggling to understand what this paragraph says, can you rephrase it please?

---

I mean, if the scrolls are dated upto 250 BCE, it evidences a much earlier history in its recounting: this falls into the 2nd temple period, and after the war with the greeks (Hanuka) and the Septuagint date of 300 BCE. Logic says, if the Septuagint date predates the scrolls, everything in this parcel was known previously. There are coins and relics found from the 1st temple period, which predates the Septuagint and the babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. The scrolls evidence a predating history.

quote:

---

I’m sorry, but your view of the early books of the OT being historically sound is completely ignorant. NOTHING at all from the Book of Genesis through to the end of the Book of Judges has been verified by external evidence, this is a cold, hard fact.

---

Both the interaction with ancient Egypt, and the Israelite rule in Canaan - the entire vocation of the OT - are not in dispute. Some 20 ancient nations, and many routes and mapings have been verified. Today's Jordan was ancient Moab, and Ruth was a Moabitis who converted to become an Israelite - while this is not hard proof, it is an evidence of a verifiable history. Mount Nebo, in today's Jordan, is a popular tourist attraction for its grand views across canaan - first described in Dueteronomy as Moses' last stand: co-incidence or a re-write? While Moses is not a proven historical figure as yet - there is volumous evidence of the OT narratives. I'm not sure to what extent your rejection goes - nor how you see the Israelites securing the land of Canaan, a principle ally of Egypt. The latter becomes more focused when you reject even the small cencus figures - it means an even smaller group prevailed!

quote:

---

There are different versions of Isaiah for a start at Qumran, and the Septuagint was ditched by Jews because it was such a bad translation.

---

Its not regarded a bad translation: Josephus sites this and many scholars do so too - but this does not negate the translation even by your rejectionist premise. It means the Greeks, a superpower at the time, translated it, and this told of an ancient history well before 300 bce. The greeks went to great lenghts to ensure a good translation, applied intelligent verse and chapter indexes, and begat their ahpha-beta alphabetics from the Hebrew alef-bet (Josephus docs) - evidencing the ancient status of the OT; we also have burial sites in Iraq (Babylon) of sages recorded in the OT. The Septuagint translation was requested by Alexander upon his visit of the Jerusalem temple:[Alexander in the Jerusalem Temple][The great conqueror esteemed the Jews and their history, allowing them to remain autonomous. In his celebrated arrival to the Temple in Jerusalem, he is received with great honor by a hailing congregation parade, and the Priests proclaim their first born sons will be named Alexander, to be forever honored as a Jewish name. Alexander’s request - subsequent to an oracle - was that the five books of Moses (”Torah’/Heb) be translated into the Greek language, marking the first translation of the Hebrew bible]7/142. THE SEPTUAGINT BIBLE.[The First translation of the Hebrew Bible]The Greeks initiated the Torah (later referred to as The Old Testimony) as a worldly manifesto, harkening to its laws of Democracy (”Let the Majority Decide’) and Equal Justice for all. The Greeks also begat their Alpha-Betical writings from the Hebrew Aleph-Bet, adding intelligent numberings to the Hebrew Bible’s verses and paragraphs, and separating the vowels and numerals from the world’s first alphabetical books. The Greeks also renamed the Torah as The Septuagint (Five Books/Ger.). Here, osmosis of two great mindsets and beliefs occurred, resulting in an Olympian battle of traditions, religions and minds - each vying for the torch which would illuminate humanity. Here, Paganism clashed with Monotheism, Zeus confronted Yahweh, and a miniscule Middle-Eastern Tribal Nation begat Centre stage beside the world’s most Olympian Super Power.

quote:

---

How many texts do you wish me to name that have been unchanged for over 3 thousand years?

---

Just ONE book, with identifiable historical stats will do. A book is a continueing narrative with multiple pages. This excludes tomb stones, commercial reciepts and stone etchings (amarna tablets). I would like to see something resembling say a 25% of the Mosaic, and this need not be alphabetical or in great prose - just historical, with dates or periods. Thus I say, there is no equivalence of the OT anyplace, and for sure without follow-up ancient writings which form a thread of continuity. Don't bother to look is my advice.

quote:

---

You really do need to get up to speed on the available ancient texts mate. Here are a few you might wish to look up.
Over 350 Amarna Letters (you forgot them), The Al Alakh Tablets, The Mari Texts, The Nuzi Texts, Mesopotamian Laws of Ur-Nammu, The Edict of Ammisaduqa, Akkadian Texts from Syria and Assyria including The Treaty between Niqmepa of Alalakh and Ir-im of Tunip, Treaty between Idrimi and Pilliya, Treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal of Tyre, Babylonian and Assyrian historical texts including The Mother of Nabonidus, The dedication of the Shamash Temple by YAhdun-lim, The banquest of Ashurnasirpal II, Sumerian Hymns including, Hymn to Ninurta as God of Vegetation, Hymn to Ninurta as God of Wrath, Hymnal prayer of Enheduanna, I could go on and on. In the grand scheme of things the Hebrew Bible is quite young.

---

I know most of these, and they predate Israel. These are not books either. The OT is the first alphabetical and historical books - itself an important factor.

quote:

---

Where are you getting this garbage from?

---

There are some 20 nations recorded in the OT - that's where from. The Moabites and philistines are foremost recorded here.

quote:

---

Where does the Bible state that Moses wrote the Book of Exodus, and where does it state that Joshua wrote anything?

---

That Moses is the author is in the texts; that Joshua wrote the final sentences is from ancient sages' commentary.

quote:

---

How did Moses know that 400 years after his death there would be an Israelite monarchy?

---

You have this confused. Moses only wrote the five books; the rest is post-Torah (Pentatuch) writings. The book of Kings was writen much later, after the Judges period.

quote:

---

I know how it is arrived at, but no one today takes these figures literally, it is impossible for 70 people to turn into 3 million in 430 years. Plus the archaeological evidence does not support a group of this size in Egypt during the second millennium BCE.

---

It need not be taken literally; it is an improvised approximation only. The 3M figure is not stated in the texts.

quote:

---

LOL, Jesus mate where on earth were these 6 million hiding.

---

This is some 300 years after the exodus period. Aside from the texts, I have no other proof of it, nor do i see any reason to find a deliberate faking here: it serves no motive, and generally the OT does not shy away of negatives.

quote:

---

The thing is bud, the word for ”thousand’ doesn’t necessarily have to read ”thousand’, the word eleph can mean clan or tent, makes much more sense.

---

No, alef by itself does not mean a 1000, nor can you impress that the texts were not understandable for 1000s of years: there is the Hebrew calendar which had to be calculated for numerous festivals every year. These guys knew how to read and write better than anyone!

quote:

---

How on Earth do you come up these things! What about relics from Harappa, or Mohenjo-daro?

---

Exactly, this is one of the oldest finds, which makes the OT among a small handful of items of ancient historical items, is my point.

quote:

---

The reference to Edom is not of Israel's kings.

​

Yes it is.

---

Edom does not represent Israel; it is regarded the ancestry of some european nations.

quote:

---

Re exodus dates, this is at variance with scholras today, with the OT datings.

​

So the awesome book is not clear on the date?

---

Its not clear comprehensively, and not from the current knowledge of discoveries.

quote:

---

What do you mean ”more conclusion from the ground’, how much more do you need before you fall into line with the facts?

---

I don't wait for proof of David to Rome, but I would like to see more evidences which further prove those items which affirm what has been disputed by some, as continuity, and judging by the consistant discoveries emerging, I think much will be verified in the near future. I am satisfied that the Israelites were in Egypt (Exodus gives the first contemporary diet of ancient egypt, and that the nile never runs dry), and that they ruled canaan for a 1000 years till 586BCE, and continued again after a 70 year break till the Roman invasion. i would like to see something from the Judges period, specially the battle faught by deborah.

quote:

---

we have not a single book here from elsewhere.

​

Yes we do, you even mention the Amarna Letters yourself. Not to mention the wealth of Egytian texts.

---

There are 1000s of such bits, but no historical books: the OT marks a variant in kind than degree here.

quote:

---

Well not really, because when you place the Bible into Near eastern historical context, the Bible is a real mess. The Book of Exodus isn’t that impressive, it’s got some nice tales in it, but they are camp fire tales, myths and legends with no real history there.

---

Then you must show me some other mythical books with the same stats. The book of exodus is pervasive of dates, numbers, nations, wars, and names - even containing aerial map depictions of the terrain, and distances between towns and routes. The Egyptian to canaan coastal highway (The Kings Road) is first mentioned here. The first recording of the ancient egyptian language, transliterated into Hebrew, is the first two opening words of the Ten Commandments, namely 'Anno Chi' ('I am'); these are the only two words not in hebrew, and appears directed at the pharoah, who spoke no hebrew, yet proclaimed himself divine. he must have been greatly chagrined by the Hebrews!

quote:

---

Ever wonder why the Israelites never recorded this defeat by Merneptah?

​

Ever wonder why no Egyptians are mentioned when Joshua claims to have conquered all of Palestine?

​

These are fables.

---

I don't think so. The failures of the israelites with other nations is amply recorded, signifying a credibility here. That Joshua was unable to defeat other nations in Canaan, is well recorded, especially concerning the philistines who remained undefeated till David.On the other hand, if the israelites prevailed in leaving Egypt, it puts PAID why this superpower could not save the canaanites - and the Israelites did enter canaan and rule it, even establishing Jerusalem on a hilltop as the capital, and finally prevailing over the philistines as well - despite Egypt?

quote:

---

it was made from a photo taken with the huge aerial camera that jesus gave them. you can see it on the windows 95 cds.

---

Aerial mapping descriptions: this refers to the nations and routes around Egypt to canaan, specially in Numbers, where the Israelites had to take the route around Moab (Jordan) and enter Canaan via another route - when thoroughfare was denied them. The NT does not contain such aerial descriptions. You'd need a compass and much more to travel from Egypt to Canaan today - via a path other than the coastal one.

quote:

---

i'm sure there's a highway with signs and no need for a compass.

---

Sure. The bus leaves Goshen every hour for Canaan, which is a 40 year journey, or one can board the express train via Mount Sinai for a 100 extra shekels - just follow the signs. Carry bottled water - in case the wells are dry.

quote:

---

um. he was referring to genesis 36:31 which is in the torah and is allegedly written by moses.

​

Gen 36:31 And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

​

explain how moses knew that 400 years later there would be kings in israel. i don't recall there being discussion in genesis or exodus about god revealing the future to moses past his time in the desert.

---

Moses is here referring to Israel having no kings - when all other nations did. I've no idea why anyone needs to be responded to when they have a comprhension problem with the simplest example of a texts. Nor that anyone should pose such questions, while appearing so arrogant of debating in a science thread: can one speak science when their comprehension is nil? I held back to see if *ANYONE ELSE HERE* (Hello?!) would correct them - but no such luck. These are an exacting, intergrated, mathematical texts of an ancient period - and should be examined respectfully, as one would a hedy, physics equation.Esau was not 400 years after Moses, but 400 years before. Esau was the grandson of Abraham, and son of Isaac. The quoted verse is presented with 'THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU' - a preamble to guide the reader in its context, with further indications in 43 verses of names which are not mistakable what generation is being discussed - with names of Ishmael, Abraham's son ('Basemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebaioth'); the passage includes almost a 100 ancient names, true to its spacetime, detailing a thread which can be tracked to many nations (Esau = Edom) and lands. Here are selected verses which shows your error of textual comprehension:

quote:

---

1 Now these are the generations of Esau--the same is Edom.

​

2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,

​

3 and Basemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebaioth.

​

40 And these are the names of the chiefs that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names: the chief of Timna, the chief of Alvah, the chief of Jetheth;

​

43 the chief of Magdiel, the chief of Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession. This is Esau the father of the Edomites.

---

Whew! Mercy! Its become so that its not science anymore but a neo radicalised dogmatic 'religious science'. Its exactly like a different religious group hell bent of their beliefs. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

to which failures and how many of all the events are you referring to? I would need to study more but i'm sure others are asking the same, would be curious to know your references, although i'm aware of the biblical stories...

---

210 years enslaved in Egypt; 150 years of losses before gaining control of Canaan; destruction by Babylon; Destruction by Rome; Destruction in Europe. How's that for starters - these are all documented in the OT - along with a host of other failings. I'd like to see its equivalence in anyone's else's scriptures!

quote:

---

why would the israelites fight a superpower to leave to practically another part of Egypt under the umbrella of freedom? A "nation" that dumb shouldn't be a match for a superpower!

---

They wished to return to thier own land - and escape Egyptian bondage.

quote:

---

Besides that how would you know the israelites "entered" canaan as opposed to being nomads who grew within and already excisted in Canaan?

---

Because Israel was a sovereign nation for a 1000 years till Babylon invaded, and there's a documented record of it. There's also a document which says how they got to Canaan.The questions appear very mythical based.

quote:

---

I sent a message to Kara Cooney to share with me the specifics of the Egyptian records of failures. will post the answer here as soon as i get it....

---

It won't dent anything. The Israel stele is proof of a falsehood, and the Egyptians have no record remaining which admits the Israelites were there or how and why they left: but Israel does have such records, and better believed by concencus.

quote:

---

if this is what it meant, it would say "unlike other nations, there was no king in israel." but it doesn't. it says "before there were kings in israel," which suggests the foreknowledge that some day there would be kings in israel.

---

No, it does not say that!Gen 36:31 And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.It is precisely qualified by the opening clause in the verse, 'And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom', posited in the contemporanous tense of 'these are' (at the time); there is no indication here of a future. And there is no other reading than the verse is speaking of the kings in Edom, and at that time there were no kings in Israel. Grammar was introduced in the OT - one is dumb dead without proper textual comprehention - in any field.Also, the entire passage follows the above context. Moses predates the land acquiring, and said nothing anyplace of the future.

quote:

---

it seems like you have the comprehension problem. do you think moses just threw around 'before's?

---

The grammar sucks around here. The 'before' refers to the time factor, namely 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel'. Like so: 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel...there were [these are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom'. The OT says it better than I - obviously.

quote:

---

do you do standup? really. mathematical texts?

---

Sure. The hebrew alphabets are also numerals - change a single one and you derive a different sum quotient of a verse, chapter or the entire books. There is also a mandated law in the OT which says, YOU SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK': the numerals are thus accounted here, and a scribe's work can be easily checked for errors. Numerology comes from here too.

quote:

---

That's exactly the problem! where else would you find something similar, even it if was a witnes' point of view?

---

Then you cannot reasonably not accept a document, as a disputation. The egyptians made very little historical writings - those letters are very basic stuff. What has baffled everyone, with no explanation, is that the OT is the first alphabetical books in this timespace, upto the next almost a 1000 years, while Israel emerged late in the scene and was a miniscule nation.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They wished to return to thier own land - and escape Egyptian bondage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

to me that's not good enough... because there should be records of those years long struggle outside of the bible, during hte period as described in the bible, they dont' necessarely have to be egyptian....but mentioning at least egypt as they were the power to beat! Any other book recommendation?

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Israel was a sovereign nation for a 1000 years till Babylon invaded, and there's a documented record of it. There's also a document which says how they got to Canaan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

care to share those extra-biblical documents?

---

One does not need extra biblical texts where there is no disputation. However, Babylon's invasion is well known, with burial places in Babylon (Iraq) of the key figures described in the texts (Eg. Ezekiel). I see your response, 'that is not good enough' without any credibility.

quote:

---

Every theory is per definition worth studying...

---

Always remember, Evolution is a theory - and an unproven one.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Think about your claim that this was written by Moses, if it was then when he says before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. then Moses must have known that there was going to be a time when the Israelites were going to be ruled over by a King. The passage only makes sense if there has been a King of Israel.

---

The verse has no connectivity with future kings or any futurerism: it is set in the contemporanous tense only. The 'before' relates to the 'these are'! It means only what it says: the nations had kings; but Israel did not; period. There is no reference to any kings of Israel - your reading is adding what is not there, and not required to be legible. These are desperate, contrived straws, and also poor grammar.

quote:

---

The passage was written sometime after the first king Saul had ruled

---

That is the agenda and reason for the contrived reading of it - nothing else. Nor do you have any proof the OT was written after Saul: do try to recall a 1000 names, dobs and dods - 2500 years in the past - and get them to be syncronised with a 1000 other dates in the OT calendar! You are selecting what you loke, if it can be contrived to suit you. It still failed.

quote:

---

i beg your pardon, yes it does say BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL. before is an indication of time.

---

And the time is qualified with 'these are' - applicable to when there were kings in Edom.

quote:

---

precisely. at that time there were no kings in israel suggests that there is another time in which there ARE kings in israel. if such a time is to follow, how did moses know?

---

It suggests that Edom had kings but Israel did not; that Israel was a land not ruled by kings, as was Edom.

quote:

---

otherwise he wouldn't have said BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL and instead would have said THERE WERE NO KINGS IN ISRAEL.

---

Not with the inclusion of 'these are':31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before: 'WHEN NO KINGS RULED OVER Israel. Because Israel stood out, being the only nation which had no kings - unlike Edom and the other nations.Is Seir set in the future too, the immediately preceding verse - or is it contemporanous with that time only?29 These are the chiefs that came of the Horites: the chief of Lotan, the chief of Shobal, the chief of Zibeon, the chief of Anah, 30 the chief of Dishon, the chief of Ezer, the chief of Dishan. These are the chiefs that came of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir. {P} 30 the chief of Dishon, the chief of Ezer, the chief of Dishan. These are the chiefs that came of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir. {P}

quote:

---

clearly, not only can you not read, but you don't know anything about math. what the fuck do you propose is a "sum quotient"?

---

That's where numerology (Gamatria/Heb), and bible codes come from. Consider the word BAD, which equals 7, if the english alphabets are also numerals (2+1+4). Consider what results if you change any alphabet or remove it? Thus the five books have a total value, as does each verse and para, derived by adding the numbers of the alphabets. When a scribe finishes a copy - it is checked for errors by its numeral sum. The cencus in the desert was done with hebrew alphabets used as numbers.

quote:

---

i may be mistaken, but isn't numerology sorcery? also, the bible codes are BULLSHIT. see ages of discussion on this board.

---

No, numerology is a bone fide instrument in the Hebrew. I doubt it works elsewhere, thus the bible codes of the latin/english bibles being a hoax, contrived to fit an end-point preference. The language has to be interchangeable in alphabets and numerlas, and be originally constructed to cater to numerology. Numerology is not about predicting the future but determining correct interpretation, and comes with strict and definitive rules: if there are more than one interpretation of a word in one verse, it can be verified via another word in another verse with the same context. A deeper numerology is when two unrelated verses have the same numeral total - it can act as an extension or enhancement to its meaning.There is a significance why the OT begins with the 2nd alphabet, B, and that this alphabet is designed like a square with only one side open - the GO FORWARD direction only; it aligns with why we do not know what is precedent of the universe/creation. This too is a form of numerology readings, because it is reflected in other verses, such as GO FORTH AND HAVE DOMINION OF THE UNIVERSE (but not of anything that precedes); and the response given to Moses when he posed a pre-universe question: that only one side of creation is given to man to reign, but none WILL SEE ME (KNOW ME) AND LIVE - meaning there is nothing deficient in our minds, but that this data is barred with a treshold which cannot be broken by man unilaterally; 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' (opening first verse); etc. So the very first alphabet can be expounded with volumous books.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Analyse this!Gen 36:31 And these [are] the 'Queens' that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any 'Queen' over the children of Israel.That Israel later had or never had queens does not render that verse any different. It just means there were queens in Edom but, pointedly different, none in Israel. Period. It does NOT say 'before the period of kings in Israel'; the before connects only with the period signified by the sole qualifying clause in the verse; it acts as 'when' edom did have kings.Its less safe to use a christian view of the OT, as per your link. The retreat to Moses knowing of future kings is not relevent here - it is out of context and in contradiction of the entire passage which is about the generations of Edom - not Israel.

quote:

---

You are joking aren't you! LOL

​

No reference to any Kings of Israel when it says before there was kings ruling over Israel? What is wrong with you?

---

There is no reference to future kings; the 'before' relates to Edom, not the future of Israel.

quote:

---

Well, let's see how wonderfully accurate and amazing the Bible is when it comes to names.

​

Answer this, what was the name of the pharaoh at the time of the Exodus. Any historical text worth its salt surely shoould mention the name of one of the central characters of the event.

​

Then there's Moses. What was Moses' full name? 'Moses' is only part of a name and has to be preceded with the name of a god for it to be complete. So, was Moses' real name ramoses, Ahmoses, or Thutmoses, or something else?

---

The names I mentioned relates to 1000s of names given, which are authentic to their period, but which you run away from with another deflection: you are thus looking for what you can misconscrue while avoiding all else. Moses' lineage is given, including the names of both parents and the tribe they come from.

quote:

---

These amazing 'synchronised dates' will be the ones that you keep failing to provide, and are the dates that you tell us are disputed.

---

Dates are pervasive in the OT verses and paragraphs, and they are entirely synced (intergrated). That is why these names and dates, spaning 3000 years, could not be recalled later. Try it! The Tel Dal find also vindicates the date of David's reign, in the OT, and the follow-up kings: another co-incidence?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.