Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

quote:

---

It is telling the reader that the Edomite Kings ruled BEFORE there was Israelite ”queens, if there had been no Israelite ”queens’ then the verse is pointless, because the reader would say ”what’s the point of mentioning that it was before an Israelite queen when there has never been an Israelite queen! (of course there has been lots of Israelite queens)

---

Do you see your error now? They would not call it pointless at all, nor would they respond as you did - which is retrospectively from your POV, that 'YOU' now know there were future kings. That verse can only conclude that edom had queens but israel did not - regardless of what happens in the future. This puts paid to your imposed significance there were kings 400 years later - because the verse works with queens just as well, without the clause being superfluous, as inferred. For me - that settles the grammatical aspect - as nothing else will. Now I will give you the real stuff.You will note the name Israel is used here, by Moses: do you understand the significance of it? This does not refer to a land, but a nation - indeed the land was not yet acquired in Moses' time, so there could not be any reference to future kings. Now we can use a check on this point, by refering to the first mention of the name Israel as a nation (aside from Jacob's name change in Genesis), which occurs in Exodus, right after the cencus. From this point on, the hebrews are no more called 'children of Jacob', or the hebrews, but 'Nation of Israel' ('Aam Yisrael'/Heb) for the rest of the five books. This is perhaps the first recording how a tribal community becomes a nation. Here, Israel refers to a nation before any land was acquired. So when Moses speaks of Israel, it is not a reference to land. Infact, the name Israel never applied to the land till much later after it was acquired, making the allocation of kings of Israel incoherent.

quote:

---

Personally, I would say that the first unambiguous reference from archaeological sources for Israel would be the mention of King Omri in the Moabite Stone.

​

Brian

---

That's a new one again. You also said the same about the Egyptian stele which mentions israel, and the Tel Dan find that mentions david. It appears not just fundy but very talibanic: science is not a religion - you can admit being wrong!

quote:

---

Just like you claim that one cannot reasonably not accept the scriptures - as a disputation or not - one cannot accept it blindly as a truth and claim that truth as God’s. It’s not because artefacts match biblical elements that it makes all the rest in the bible true. That doesn’t work in science my friend. Those artefacts do not imply empirical evidence.

---

Accepting anything blindly has no merit. The OT is not based on belief or obedience, but on strivings for truthfulness - the reason the stiffnecks were chosen. Artifacts are not about proof of Gd but evidence of a text's veracity only - and even this is rejected with a disdain of anything called 'religion'. The term 'Religion' has given the OT a poor disposition from 2000 years of unilateral misrepresentation, overturning 'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH (COMMITS A CRIME) IT SHALL PAY' to 'NO SLAVATION BUT THROUGH ME', paving the way for my falsehood is better than your falsehood. It is a corruption which the world is rejecting, and has cast all thimgs with a religious odour as a generic falsehood. None can blame humanity for it.

double postEdited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

doule postEdited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

double postEdited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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.

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?

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?

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!

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.

quote:

---

Of course Jerusalem is a Hebrew name since it appears in the Hebrew Bible, but Jerusalem is not the original name of the city. What do you think the Urusalim of Abdi-Heba is in the Amarna Letters?

---

This is denial. The point of another name being applicable before David is irrelevent. All places have previous names, but this does not negate the established history of Jerusalem by that name. Your negation and deflection from the issue is unwarranted.

quote:

---

There was a sovereign nation here till 70 CE.

​

a soveriegn nation in Jerusalem? Not much of a nation.

---

Jerusalem was the capital of a sovereign nation called Judea. Yours is a denial of history.

quote:

---

There are no second thoughts about the discoveries of steles

​

This is just ridiculous. Do you think there is no debate about these things between scholars literally as we speak?

​

I posted references, probably from scholars you havent even heard of, and you still keep denying the facts.

---

There is dispute about the moon manned landing and 9/11 too!

quote:

---

The Stele says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the religious practices of Israel, nothing about where this Israel came from, and nothing about later Israel.

---

Why should it - they were at war, not in appraising of each other's history. Nor did egypt give decriptions of religions of others.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is a other evidence. The stele is only important because it connects with a written document, which is in turn backed by a thread of continueing writings and discoveries. It does not get any better than this even for much more recent periods - unless you found an equivalence of this elsewhere? In any case, if more evidence is found, which will no doubt happen, you will demand more and find other reasons to reject it. We don't even know the dates surrounding the factors in the NT or the Quran - which is 2000 years later!

quote:

---

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.

---

Such discrepencies are common in such ancient periods, and are outside the main trust of the evidence. The correct datings of the stele or some other factor may be imperfect - it is not a kill factor, and that is why these finds are accepted by the majority of archeologists. The OT is the most scrutinised document, and also the target by most rejectors of religions, and compounded by other competing religions with a contradictory doctrine. But it remains one of the very few ancient writings with widespread evidence. Because the writings are so volumous, covering many periods and lands, subject to wars, invasions and lootings - there are more potential issues here - but its main trust is vindicated.

quote:

---

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.

---

It does not. There is more historical perectption by this generation about canaan, than by egypt at this time. Think why.

quote:

---

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.

---

The names pithom and rameses is first recorded in the OT, as our some 25 ancient egyptian names. The dates are not in dispute, but its exactness variable and still deliberated - this is an evidence of authenticity in itself, because of a host of impacting factors also in dispute, but relating to the same vicinity of history. Here is an example of the intense deliberations about the pharoah when the hebrews were exiled there, no where more argued than in Israel:Tel Dor
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/index6.htm