Zulk-Dharma
Member
No Jewish slaves ever. And no Semitic slaves after the Hyksos.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?
- Thread starter Zulk-Dharma
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
And what exactly did he say that helps confirm the exodus mythology?
All I am saying is that one cannot have the position that it really never happened.
Examining a steep stone bank inscribed with marks and dates showing how high the Nile crested each year, Rohl saw that there were, indeed, seven years of plenty (because the Nile crested high), and seven years of famine (because the Nile crested low, bringing too little water and loam into the Nile valley where the crops were grown). This happened in 1682-1668 B.C. Rohl dated when Joseph arrived in Egypt to around 1682 B.C. when Amenenhat III was pharaoh.
As we know from Scripture, the pharaoh empowered Joseph to be magistrate or vizier administering the storage and distribution of grain. From Egyptian accounts, Rohl learned that Amenenhat III had a palace built for Joseph at Tel-el-Daba, Area F. Rohl found Joseph's tomb. It was empty, of course, because the Israelites took Joseph's bones when they fled Egypt. Rohl also found a statue of Joseph at the tomb, but the statue was defaced by angry Egyptians. Finding a solid date for Joseph, Rohl concluded the Exodus occurred around 1417 or 1450 B.C. when Dudimose was Pharaoh.
The Best Reviews: David M. Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest Review
n 1985 Rohl became the first Director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS), and editor of its Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum since 1986. In 1988 he was accepted by University College, London and awarded the prestigious W.F. Masom History Research Scholarship by the University of London as well as being awarded his degree in Ancient History and Egyptology in 1990.
Examining a steep stone bank inscribed with marks and dates showing how high the Nile crested each year, Rohl saw that there were, indeed, seven years of plenty (because the Nile crested high), and seven years of famine (because the Nile crested low, bringing too little water and loam into the Nile valley where the crops were grown). This happened in 1682-1668 B.C. Rohl dated when Joseph arrived in Egypt to around 1682 B.C. when Amenenhat III was pharaoh.
As we know from Scripture, the pharaoh empowered Joseph to be magistrate or vizier administering the storage and distribution of grain. From Egyptian accounts, Rohl learned that Amenenhat III had a palace built for Joseph at Tel-el-Daba, Area F. Rohl found Joseph's tomb. It was empty, of course, because the Israelites took Joseph's bones when they fled Egypt. Rohl also found a statue of Joseph at the tomb, but the statue was defaced by angry Egyptians. Finding a solid date for Joseph, Rohl concluded the Exodus occurred around 1417 or 1450 B.C. when Dudimose was Pharaoh.
The Best Reviews: David M. Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest Review
n 1985 Rohl became the first Director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS), and editor of its Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum since 1986. In 1988 he was accepted by University College, London and awarded the prestigious W.F. Masom History Research Scholarship by the University of London as well as being awarded his degree in Ancient History and Egyptology in 1990.
I listed the points that do support an Exodus. I am not claiming that it is an open and shut case--for either side but rather it is still in limbo with archaeology working tirelessly to find evidence of all of Israel's history.
Deadtroopers
Member
Ahab and Xerxes were of course historical. Both of course were well after 1000BC. We have archaeological evidence, from an inscription, for bet w dwd (I think that's the transcription) 'house of David' or 'temple of the beloved' (a god) are possible and accepted translations. What the phrase 'house of David' means; if that is the correct translation; is anyones guess.
Moses is well beyond the historical horizon. There is no period of Egyptian history either the Joseph or Moses tales can be fitted into. You don't have to do much digging to find that David Rohl, Peter James and others who have touted a telescoped chronology began by trying to prove the Bible. David Rohl thinks he has done, James and most of the others have moved beyond that, just as Lehner, now a very noted Egyptologist, began as a Pyramidiot.
Mention has been made of Troy. Here archaeology has turnred up plausible cognates for the major place names and peoples, plus cognates for the names of individuals.The basic outline of the Iliad can be fitted into our reconstructions of that era. We have found actual artefacts and places previously known only from Homeric description; etc, etc. We can say none of that for Palestine before the Omrides. In fact the opposite; the facts on the ground contradict the tale; the itineraries in Egyptian inscriptions contradict the tale; etc, etc.
Insisting things are otherwise in the face of the evidence, the history and the science only marks a person as wilfully ignorant and their opinion to be discounted until they come to their senses.
Moses is well beyond the historical horizon. There is no period of Egyptian history either the Joseph or Moses tales can be fitted into. You don't have to do much digging to find that David Rohl, Peter James and others who have touted a telescoped chronology began by trying to prove the Bible. David Rohl thinks he has done, James and most of the others have moved beyond that, just as Lehner, now a very noted Egyptologist, began as a Pyramidiot.
Mention has been made of Troy. Here archaeology has turnred up plausible cognates for the major place names and peoples, plus cognates for the names of individuals.The basic outline of the Iliad can be fitted into our reconstructions of that era. We have found actual artefacts and places previously known only from Homeric description; etc, etc. We can say none of that for Palestine before the Omrides. In fact the opposite; the facts on the ground contradict the tale; the itineraries in Egyptian inscriptions contradict the tale; etc, etc.
Insisting things are otherwise in the face of the evidence, the history and the science only marks a person as wilfully ignorant and their opinion to be discounted until they come to their senses.
^ Thanks for the reference.
outhouse
Atheistically
Thank you. A certain person could not follow I stated "before", maybe their ESL?
Thank you.
outhouse
Atheistically
It is not in Limbo.
It is mythology that apologist will not accept the current state of study due to bias.
Factual evidence points to Canaanite origins not up for debate at all.
Just because apologist wont give up, does not mean there is a chance the Canaanite origins will be overturned.
AT BEST, we possibly can find out why Israelites created this theology and mythology. And possible historical core can only be remotely rooted to the biblical description.
There was no conquest, Jericho walls never fell to any Israelite, and Jews were never slaves in Egypt.
The problem with this position is the historicity of errors within the scientific field.
At one time Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was an historic king doubted by critics but now they have discovered it is true. Likewise, at one time they though King David was a myth, until they found evidence of the same.
Ahab and Xerxes are now also known to be true. I am not surprised.
This is a free country where people can have different positions as they view the same evidence. I respect your right to have a position.
And what source on Egyptian Archaeology might you suggest that claims or otherwise justifies this?
And can you comment on the contents of this site?
Interesting site.... thank you.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
@Zulk-Dharma how can u doubt weither prophet Moses existed or not when u are calling yourself muslim?
Zulk-Dharma
Member
Where did I doubt him? I am arguing for Moses existed, which he did as the general majority of credible scholars agrees on in spite of these minimalist misconceptions.
That is absolute nonsense.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
It doesn't address Jewish/Semitic slavery during Amarna period and from the majority of Egyptian sources such as those from Manetho and Chaeremon, they address Moses as an ancient Egyptians and his followers for that too. Sigmund Freud has been largely nullified in his credibility, but he makes a compelling case that Moses was not a Jew, but an ancient Egyptian in his book, Moses and Monotheism.
It's in the first chapter, only a 5 minutes read it here.
I have no reason to believe that Semitic slaves have any relevance for Moses and the Exodus, the Jewish slaves is an later interpolation during the oral transmission of the stories in Israel, where they were heavily exaggerated for literary purposes.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
You're confusing, what's your position on any of this? I need to make it clear.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
You said there is no evidence for Jewish Slaves by the Egyptians.
(Musa to Pharao: )22. "And this is the past favour with which you reproach me, that you have enslaved the Children of Israel."
Well there is the evidence from Quran, a revelation from the Knower of the Seen and the Unseen. However if u prefer science, that is your choice.
(Musa to Pharao: )22. "And this is the past favour with which you reproach me, that you have enslaved the Children of Israel."
Well there is the evidence from Quran, a revelation from the Knower of the Seen and the Unseen. However if u prefer science, that is your choice.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
Bani Israel doesn't mean Israelites - we don't know the definition of the title and it doesn't mean Jew, "Yahood."
Also there are similar names like "House of," it doesn't refer to a literal house.
Also there are similar names like "House of," it doesn't refer to a literal house.
… and one I make gladly.