Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[gnostic]

I am not arguing against what you said. I just said that I follow many Biblical statements and get to 1400 BC. I follow one, the Ramesses about the city built or rebuilt statement to get to the 1290s. Therefore, I looked to see if there could be a reason that the Biblical statement might be a mistranslation. To show the Ramesses statement right, I would have to show many Biblical statements wrong, and I can't.

First of, it is Ramesses II (reign 1279–1213 BC) who built the 2 cities in question, not Ramesses I (reign 1292-1290, who is founder of the 19th dynasty).

It could be the bible were written incorrectly, or that translators had mistranslated the Hebrew texts.

However, it (the Exodus) is stated that both cities in the Exodus were built, at the same time: Pithom and Raamses. Two cities in the Lower Egypt (northern kingdoms) hence around the eastern Delta Nile.

11 So they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor; and they built garrison cities for Pharaoh: Pithom and Raamses.

Archaeologically and geographically these two cities are found in the eastern Delta Nile, together as neighboring cities, around the same time as Ramesses II, the greatest pharaoh of the 19th dynasty, during the 13th century.

The cities were built by Ramesses II. One city Pi-Ramesses was named after him, which mean the House of Ramesses.

The second city (Pithom) was named after the creator sun god - Atum, is actually spelt Per-Atum or Pi-Atum, which mean the "House of Atum". The Greeks called this city Heroöpolis or Ἡρώων πόλις in the Septuagint.

Archaeologically, there were no way that Pithom and Ramesses were built in the 18th dynasty, or from the 16th or 15th century BCE, which is your suggested time of the Moses' birth:

Moses was born about 1488.

1488 BCE would put Moses' birth in the reign of Thutmose II (1493–1479 BCE), who was a strong ruler (husband (and half-brother) of Hatshepsut and father of Thutmose III), but he certainly didn't build Per-Atum (Pithom) or Pi-Ramesses (Rameses).

The date 1408 BCE would have put the Exodus in the reign of Amenhotep II (1424–1398 BCE), and there were no mass-liberation of slaves in Egypt in Amenhotep's reign.

Furthermore, your Moses' birth would mean place his death on 1368 BCE, and the Book of Joshua's initial invasion of Canaan afterward. The date would put the invasion during the reign of Amenhotep III (1388–1350 BCE), who was father of Akhenaten (reign 1351–1334 BC). While Akhenaten - the monotheist king - may have been a weak king, his father was definitely not weak. Canaan at that time was part of the Egyptian empire during the time of Amenhotep III.

BTW:

Yep, Joseph's 3rd year of famine was 1624, after the Santorini eruption. He died about 1580. The Hyksos were kicked out by Ahmose ~1550-1530. Moses was born about 1488.

...are you linking the Hyksos being kicked out of Egypt to the Israelite Exodus?

If Moses was born 1488 as you say, then the Exodus would have occurred 1408 BCE. But if Ahmose I (founder of 18th dynasty, reign ) kicked out the Hyksos during his reign (c.1539 - 1514 BCE), then is no way that the Hyksos being Israelites?

And beside the Hyksos were rulers (or Lower Egypt), not slaves like the Israelites as portrayed in the Exodus 1.

If your date to Moses' birth is correct, then the Hyksos and Israelites can't be linked, since there is over 100 years difference between these 2 groups of Semites.

Your dating or arithmetic are off, not just with Moses' birth, when the cities were built, and when the Exodus occurred.

All this mean is that the exodus of the Israelites didn't occur.

 

[greentwiga]

First of, it is Ramesses II (reign 1279–1213 BC) who built the 2 cities in question, not Ramesses I (reign 1292-1290, who is founder of the 19th dynasty).

It could be the bible were written incorrectly, or that translators had mistranslated the Hebrew texts.

However, it (the Exodus) is stated that both cities in the Exodus were built, at the same time: Pithom and Raamses. Two cities in the Lower Egypt (northern kingdoms) hence around the eastern Delta Nile.



Archaeologically and geographically these two cities are found in the eastern Delta Nile, together as neighboring cities, around the same time as Ramesses II, the greatest pharaoh of the 19th dynasty, during the 13th century.

The cities were built by Ramesses II. One city Pi-Ramesses was named after him, which mean the House of Ramesses.

The second city (Pithom) was named after the creator sun god - Atum, is actually spelt Per-Atum or Pi-Atum, which mean the "House of Atum". The Greeks called this city Heroöpolis or Ἡρώων πόλις in the Septuagint.

Archaeologically, there were no way that Pithom and Ramesses were built in the 18th dynasty, or from the 16th or 15th century BCE, which is your suggested time of the Moses' birth:


1488 BCE would put Moses' birth in the reign of Thutmose II (1493–1479 BCE), who was a strong ruler (husband (and half-brother) of Hatshepsut and father of Thutmose III), but he certainly didn't build Per-Atum (Pithom) or Pi-Ramesses (Rameses).

The date 1408 BCE would have put the Exodus in the reign of Amenhotep II (1424–1398 BCE), and there were no mass-liberation of slaves in Egypt in Amenhotep's reign.

Furthermore, your Moses' birth would mean place his death on 1368 BCE, and the Book of Joshua's initial invasion of Canaan afterward. The date would put the invasion during the reign of Amenhotep III (1388–1350 BCE), who was father of Akhenaten (reign 1351–1334 BC). While Akhenaten - the monotheist king - may have been a weak king, his father was definitely not weak. Canaan at that time was part of the Egyptian empire during the time of Amenhotep III.

BTW:


...are you linking the Hyksos being kicked out of Egypt to the Israelite Exodus?

If Moses was born 1488 as you say, then the Exodus would have occurred 1408 BCE. But if Ahmose I (founder of 18th dynasty, reign ) kicked out the Hyksos during his reign (c.1539 - 1514 BCE), then is no way that the Hyksos being Israelites?

And beside the Hyksos were rulers (or Lower Egypt), not slaves like the Israelites as portrayed in the Exodus 1.

If your date to Moses' birth is correct, then the Hyksos and Israelites can't be linked, since there is over 100 years difference between these 2 groups of Semites.

Your dating or arithmetic are off, not just with Moses' birth, when the cities were built, and when the Exodus occurred.

All this mean is that the exodus of the Israelites didn't occur.

I don't get what you were saying about the Hyksos and the Exodus. I put the Hyksos being kicked out to about 1550-1530, before Moses was born. How could you possibly think that I was claiming that it had anything to do with the Exodus of 1408. I claimed that Ahmose would be the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.

Amenhotep III was a strong ruler ... for the first half of his reign. The Amarna tablets cover the latter part of his reign and all of Akhenaten's. The letters from Jerusalem, most scholars attribute to the reign of Amenhotep III, showing that he didn't care about Canaan's politics, as long as he got the tribute.

Because the Egyptian term for the Israelites and for the invading force was 'Apiru/Hebrew, they were the same. They had noting to do with Hyksos. It is curious that Amenhotep stops invading neighbor's lands right about the time I stated the exodus happened. After that, he seemed to concentrate on religious matters, including worship of the Aten.

About the store cities, most people forget that when Moses brought his family in to Egypt, he settled them in the land of Rameses. Does that mean that Joseph lived during the reign of Rameses I? If so, that plays hob with Moses living during the reign of Rameses II. This is evidence that it was an ancient translation error, or a deliberate use of a later name so the readers would know what was being said.

Also, the cities were built before Rameses, under a different name. He rebuilt them with those names. Mud brick cities had to be frequently rebuilt.

This date also fits with the dream Stele being about his older brother dying in the tenth plague, but attributing it to another cause. I am not sure if it was necessary that the reigning Pharaoh not be the eldest son, but this was the only father son combo that we know of that both lost their older brothers.

 

[outhouse]

Because the Egyptian term for the Israelites and for the invading force was 'Apiru/Hebrew, they were the same.

.

False


There is no connection what so ever.

Habiru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anson Rainey has argued that that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking."[9] The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary states that Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure."[10]



Your better off with Shasu, but even then there is no connection.

 

[gnostic]

I don't get what you were saying about the Hyksos and the Exodus. I put the Hyksos being kicked out to about 1550-1530, before Moses was born. How could you possibly think that I was claiming that it had anything to do with the Exodus of 1408. I claimed that Ahmose would be the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.

My apologies, greentwiga.

It's a misunderstanding.

I didn't understand why you bother to mention at all. And there are some here who believe Flavius Josephus, that the Hyksos and Israelites were one and the same, because Josephus believed that Hyksos mean "Shepherd Kings". Some Christians believe in such connection were true.

Apparently, you don't believe this connection as others do. So I'm sorry.

 

[greentwiga]

False


There is no connection what so ever.

Habiru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anson Rainey has argued that that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking."[9] The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary states that Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure."[10]



Your better off with Shasu, but even then there is no connection.

The problem is that people think that Hebrew was a name for the Israelites. In the New Testament times, it had become a name for them. In the time of Moses, it was not an ethnc identification, but a term used by the Egyptians to describe a group including the Israelites. Study the passages in Exodus, and you will see that it is used when talking to Pharaoh and other non-Israelites. This usage is identical tby the Israeliteso the usage in the Amarne tablets. The passage you quoted made the mistake of thinking it was being used as an ethnic self-identification by the Israelites
in the book of Exodus. Think of it as more of a derogatory word, such as has been used to describe Blacks.

 

[gnostic]

Although, I am interested in history, I am far more interested in texts relating to stories or myths in Egypt, Canaan or Mesopotamia, so I wouldn't know the contents of these diplomatic letters to Amarna.

So I can't say one thing or another about Habiru or Apiru, unless someone here provide English translation to Amarna tablet(s?).

So what can I determine from outhouse's link, Habiru or Apiru can mean any nomadic or semi-nomadic invaders, so not necessarily Israelites.

Among the invaders in the 2nd millnnium BCE were the Hyksos. In Mesopotamia (in the same millennium BCE), there were the Amorites and the Kassites.

But given that in Genesis and Exodus, the Israelites arrived in Egypt, nomadic shepherds, not nomadic invaders, I don't see how habiru or apiru can apply to them.

And beside that, outside of the bible, there are no evidences to support the Israelites invaded Canaan. All evidences support that the Israelites themselves were one of the Canaanite tribes that only became distinct from the other Canaanites by the late 13th century.

 

[outhouse]

The problem is that people think that Hebrew was a name for the Israelites..

Wrong.

It is a language that was later used to describe the majority of people using it.

In the New Testament times, it had become a name for them

Who cares. It has nothing to do with what you falsely posit.

In the time of Moses

Utter nonsense.

To date, Moses is a biblical character who has no historicity at all as ever existing.

There is no "real" timne of Moses. Most scholars think he is a literary creation that has the possibility of a historical core, but said core has nothing at all to do with the biblical figure.

it was not an ethnc identification, but a term used by the Egyptians to describe a group including the Israelites.

Egyptians used a form of Israel I.si.ri.ar to descibe Israelites and that is around 1209 BC in which Israelites were only proto Israelites. They were more like Canaaites at that time.

Just so you know the best historians claim it is factual that Isarelites evolved from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC. There is no debate that is credible.

The houses and pottery from 1200 BC to 1000BC factually were the same as Cananites. Even their religion was the similar.

., Study the passages in Exodus, and you will see that it is used when talking to Pharaoh and other non-Israelites

Exodus was written over hundreds of years and was a compilation of text, that was edited/redacted for hundreds of years and reflects the 6th century much more then 600 years of their previous history.

. The passage you quoted made the mistake of thinking it was being used as an ethnic self-identification by the Israelites

Nonsense.

in the book of Exodus. Think of it as more of a derogatory word, such as has been used to describe Blacks

Which would have nothing to do with the ethnogenesis of israelites.



Please, learn your real history

 

[greentwiga]

Oh, I have studied real history carefully. I just don't throw out all evidence that disagrees with what I want to believe. I am quite aware of those arguments about the later compilation of of scripture. Today, I was reading on the archaeological and C14 dating of Sodom, Jericho and Ai, and examining the problems that arise comparing the results with scripture. I did not throw out the results because it disagreed with my ideas, but accepted them and am researching the issues. As I study history carefully, Joseph, Moses, and the invasion under Joshua fit history, especially the invasion described in the Amarna tablets.

 

[greentwiga]

Although, I am interested in history, I am far more interested in texts relating to stories or myths in Egypt, Canaan or Mesopotamia, so I wouldn't know the contents of these diplomatic letters to Amarna.

So I can't say one thing or another about Habiru or Apiru, unless someone here provide English translation to Amarna tablet(s?).

So what can I determine from outhouse's link, Habiru or Apiru can mean any nomadic or semi-nomadic invaders, so not necessarily Israelites.

Among the invaders in the 2nd millnnium BCE were the Hyksos. In Mesopotamia (in the same millennium BCE), there were the Amorites and the Kassites.

But given that in Genesis and Exodus, the Israelites arrived in Egypt, nomadic shepherds, not nomadic invaders, I don't see how habiru or apiru can apply to them.

And beside that, outside of the bible, there are no evidences to support the Israelites invaded Canaan. All evidences support that the Israelites themselves were one of the Canaanite tribes that only became distinct from the other Canaanites by the late 13th century.

Yes, the term 'Apiru does mean bandits, and was applied to many peoples. That is why I studied the Bible and saw that the Pharaoh was using it in just that manner and applying it to the Israelites. The reason people reject this is that they assume the Israelites were using it as an Ethnic identification for themselves. The usage in the Bible clearly shows it to be a term used by foreigners (and rather derogatorily) and the other use is when talking about slaves. Therefore, there is no reason to say the Amarna tablets don't apply to the Israelites. Amarna is a city where the tablets were found. I can understand your interest in myths, but be careful of jumping to the conclusion that the Bible is myths.

 

[Benoni]

The Bible is a book written by men and is not a myth, it is a hidden spiritual mystery book written in the hearts/spirits of God's out-called or Church.

The Bible is always controlled by the hand of God over ALL ages.

Because it is written by man it has errors, that to was a part of God's plan to hide His deep truths.

Genesis is the foundation for all of these deep truths

 

[Thief]

If you take the bible literally, You're gonna have a bad time.

I take it literally...I just read it differently.
Good times!!!!!

 

[Benoni]

I take it literally...I just read it differently.
Good times!!!!!

Genesis is far too deep and amazing to take literally; it would be like spending my whole spiritual life in kindergarten instead of working for my Master’s degree

 

[Thief]

Genesis is far too deep and amazing to take literally; it would be like spending my whole spiritual life in kindergarten instead of working for my Master’s degree

True enough that some of the details are out of sequence.
At least they appear to be.

But as the story goes, I have no trouble with it.
Day Six as evolution and the form....
Chapter Two as the needful 'tweak' of God's Hand.

Two separate events.

 

[Benoni]

True enough that some of the details are out of sequence.
At least they appear to be.

But as the story goes, I have no trouble with it.
Day Six as evolution and the form....
Chapter Two as the needful 'tweak' of God's Hand.

Two separate events.

No not at all; the context is what makes it so amazing
The first six days are God's creation in how it should be, the seventh day is when God made Adam and Eve physical so they would fall

You see Man and Women were created in God's image and likeness on the sixth day showing us we are made from God

On the seventh day God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and made him a living soul

 

[Benoni]

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[metis]

No not at all; the context is what makes it so amazing
The first six days are God's creation in how it should be, the seventh day is when God made Adam and Eve physical so they would fall

The 7th day is when God rested.

 

[Benoni]

The 7th day is when God rested.

So does God sleep when God rest?

 

[Ouroboros]

So does God sleep when God rest?

And omni-snores.

 

[Benoni]

And omni-snores.

Cute,

 

[gnostic]

Yes, the term 'Apiru does mean bandits, and was applied to many peoples. That is why I studied the Bible and saw that the Pharaoh was using it in just that manner and applying it to the Israelites.

There are too many different definitions to 'Apiru that it can really be apply any group of people.

I don't think you really should get hung up on the pharaoh had applied the term to the Israelites.