Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[outhouse]

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".


Jacob is not a historical figure, he has ZERO historicity as written.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern scholars therefore see Israel arising peacefully and internally from existing people in the highlands of Canaan


Instead modern studies have revealed that the Israelites emerged from a dramatic social transformation of Canaanite nomads of the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE, with no signs of violent invasion or even of peaceful infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group from elsewhere.[7]



Your not posting anything that refutes the above, you are providing perfect examples of apologetic contortionism, twisting evidence out of context and quote mining though.

 

[outhouse]

Flat-earth position.... again.

Non sequitur. Many would claim this is not honest.

When making dubious and desperate claims such as this, you need to provide examples. Not biased opinion against all of academia.

Tel Hazor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In 2012, a team led Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman discovered a scorched palace from the 13th century BCE in whose storerooms they found 3,400 year old ewers holding burned crops; however, Sharon Zuckerman did not agree with Ben-Tor's theory, and claimed that the burning was the result of the city's numerous factions opposing each other with excessive force



You need to quit quote mining with no historical education, to debate this you really need to know what your talking about.

 

[outhouse]

So you have no credible evidence for moses ??? or the Exodus?? outside apologetic sources provided by known dishonest people?

 

[outhouse]

Flat-earth position.... again.

Do you believe moses parted the red sea as written?

And you have not showed how I am talking any kind of a mythical flat earth position, when I am the only one providing credible honest sources.

 

[Kenny]

Non sequitur. Many would claim this is not honest.

When making dubious and desperate claims such as this, you need to provide examples. Not biased opinion against all of academia.

Tel Hazor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In 2012, a team led Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman discovered a scorched palace from the 13th century BCE in whose storerooms they found 3,400 year old ewers holding burned crops; however, Sharon Zuckerman did not agree with Ben-Tor's theory, and claimed that the burning was the result of the city's numerous factions opposing each other with excessive force



You need to quit quote mining with no historical education, to debate this you really need to know what your talking about.

So we have two people who view the same material that have come to a different conclusion. You suggest I should through out Ben-Tor's theory just because of your flat-earth position. Not because she has proven him wrong but simply because she didn't agree.

If that is Academia, I would call it macadamia.

 

[Kenny]

So... who is the Modern-day man's parent? Or is it that you know that if you answer, you have sunk your position on Abraham.

 

[Kenny]

Do you believe moses parted the red sea as written?

And you have not showed how I am talking any kind of a mythical flat earth position, when I am the only one providing credible honest sources.

Did the Niagara Falls ever stop flowing?

 

[Kenny]

So you have no credible evidence for moses ??? or the Exodus?? outside apologetic sources provided by known dishonest people?

Are you being dishonest?

 

[outhouse]

You suggest I should through out Ben-Tor's theory just because of your flat-earth position

You mean throw out?

What part of you need to understand the material your debating, before quote mining apologetics you know nothing about, don't you get ?


How am I taking a flat earth position? I am posting credible sources, you are not.


Lets look at the overall view for the conquest of Canaan. You know, the one you have no knowledge of.



Book of Joshua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events


The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century BCE;[18] this was a time of widespread city-destruction, but with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish) the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time

 

[outhouse]

So... who is the Modern-day man's parent? Or is it that you know that if you answer, you have sunk your position on Abraham.

Spit it out. What are you trying to say here. Something against the facts of evolution? pro adam and eve? just what are you getting at ?

 

[outhouse]

Did the Niagara Falls ever stop flowing?

Non sequitur

 

[Greatest I am]

That is another theory.

Your God is a theory and an immoral one to boot.

Hail to the genocidal son murderer, Hail the satanic demiurge.

I can understand people wanting a God. I cannot understand why people would settle for such an immoral and vile God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Talmud; Tractate Shabbos; 31a -
"There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study."

And, this is also Torah.
It's a trick question.
But, you gave a good answer.
Is this in the "Book of the Dead?" I would be surprised.

No. I do not think they ever broke it down this way but they did believe in reciprocity.

Regards
DL

 

[psychoslice]

Hats off to you. I didn't have a religion and became a believer at the age of 28. Now I am free and can say that its great.

One of the definitions of religion is:

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Merriam-Webster.

you still have a religion.

Are you thick ?, I said I don't have a religion, and are you really free, can you really do all that you want without some big daddy looking down on you and judging everything you do, I have been there, I know what I am talking about, maybe you just need to realize it like I had to.

 

[Greatest I am]

I agree with you, I have no religion either, but those who believe cannot understand that, because they are imprisoned by their beliefs and they do like to see others free.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power." --Robert Ingersoll

Regards
DL

 

[psychoslice]

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power." --Robert Ingersoll

Regards
DL

Thanks for sharing that, very good.

 

[Kenny]

You mean throw out?

What part of you need to understand the material your debating, before quote mining apologetics you know nothing about, don't you get ?


How am I taking a flat earth position? I am posting credible sources, you are not.


Lets look at the overall view for the conquest of Canaan. You know, the one you have no knowledge of.



Book of Joshua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events


The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century BCE;[18] this was a time of widespread city-destruction, but with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish) the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time

Very simply... you call your sources credible because it supports your position.

Example:

The possibility that the Hyksos were Jewish

Hyksos

Gunnar Säve-Söderbergh Swedishpalaeontologist and geologist.
Sir Alan Henderson Gardiner Oxford) was one of the premier EnglishEgyptologists
Margaret Alice Murray Egyptologist, archaeologist, anthropologist,

These are some of the authors...

Which of these authors do you deem not credible?

 

[outhouse]

The possibility that the Hyksos were Jewish

They were never Jewish. Your problem is you lack the knowledge, to understand what your even debating.

There is ZERO possibility they were Jewish.


The only possibility is that some of the Hyksos evolved into the early Canaanite culture's, that would later evolve into the Israelite culture after 1200 BC.


To date there is no credible connection.

Hyksos

Quit posting with links you know nothing about. It actually backs me.

There is no warrant either in the Bible or outside it for simply equating the Hyksos with the later Hebrews

 

[outhouse]

Are you thick ?,

There are two serious problems here. Age and fanaticism, no matter how many times you add up 1 + 1 = he will never see 2 because his faith states the answer is 37.


he is posting things that help me due to his lack of understanding here.

 

[Kenny]

They were never Jewish. Your problem is you lack the knowledge, to understand what your even debating.

There is ZERO possibility they were Jewish.


The only possibility is that some of the Hyksos evolved into the early Canaanite culture's, that would later evolve into the Israelite culture after 1200 BC.


To date there is no credible connection.




Quit posting with links you know nothing about. It actually backs me.

There is no warrant either in the Bible or outside it for simply equating the Hyksos with the later Hebrews

I love it when Academia rejects possibilities.