Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Kenny]

So, a professional politician--the chief Likudnik, no less--uses the myth of Moses to support his party's particular brand of ethnic nationalism, and that says... something... about the consensus of academic Biblical scholars on the subject?

Judaic history begins in the Two Kingdoms period. Everything before that is mythic. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon--all mythic characters. They're on the level of Gilgamesh, Heracles, Agamemnon, et al.

At the same time, mythic is not the same thing as fictional. A single person didn't just sit down and invent Moses; myths grow out of whole cultures over time, with a lot of people contributing to the narrative. The goal of myth isn't to make stuff up but to express things like cultural identity and values in the form of stories, usually set in the distant past.

I'm not sure who is speaking of fiction here. We have evidence of King David but you say it is mythical. You say that the Judaic history begins with the Two Kingdoms period, but you don't accept that Rehoboam was the son of Solomon and is listed during the Two Kingdoms period.

Perhaps, fiction is in the eyes of the beholder?

 

[outhouse]

We have evidence of King David but you say it is mythical

Ken, we know the biblical portrayal of David is mythical built around oral traditions of a possible man.

The history that is biblically described did not take place. It is not that we have more to discover, a lot of evidence shows us it is historically not accurate.

Perhaps, fiction is in the eyes of the beholder?

No, it is in the eyes if what historian can make up from the evidence, then see where the bible fits in, and if possible try and figure out why they wrote what they did.


You may not realize, much of the OT is talking about events they claimed happened over 400 years in the past.

Without any study of the American revolution, how much history could you rewrite of the daily lives before Washington? Remember these were not historians, they were writing theology without the aid of any history books. And many of these cultures were not their own, they have always been multi cultural, with one story about multiple cultures.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I am interested in your responses. I chose "Maybe. Half historical, half fictional."

If we all agree that the historical Moses as related in the Bible never existed, then we have to account for what (if anything) he is based on (since it was likely oral tradition before it was written down).

You can argue that some ancient Jewish scribes made it all up, which is possible, but some educated guesswork can be made, since it's also possible for it to have a historical core beneath the legends and myths.

Okay. Let's say you want to invent a bunch of stuff.
Tell me which parts of the (Hebrew/ Aramaic) Torah you would invent and why.

I find the notion that people want to have absolute verifiable facts about historical events that the majority of the world could care less about - such as the origins of the People of Israel...
Yet, things that are defined as speculation and theory - such as the Darwinian theory of evolution and its attendant philosophies - THAT'S the "bridge to die on" for people who "believe" that science is the be all and end all.
It's so cute.

I judge the world by results - when it is unverifiable, I choose to believe what makes the most sense. The Torah is unique in the history of mankind. I vote for Moses being real.

 

[outhouse]

things that are defined as speculation and theory

They are not really defined that way.

A scientific theory is about the same as fact.

History is based on plausibility.

Since the Torah is a collection of collections redacted from multiple cultures collections, each sentence is studied trying to find a plausible date of origin.


History is not some willy nilly attempt to discredit the bible, it is a venture into exploring the past with credibility.

Its a shame you refuse education and knowledge.

such as the Darwinian theory of evolution and its attendant philosophies

Evolution is fact. It has not been up for debate.

 

[Salvador]

There is a picture of a chariot wheel that could have been submerged when God closed the Red Sea to save Moses and the Israelites from pharaoh's army.

 

[psychoslice]

Even when I was a little child I never believed that the story of Moses was real, it must have been my own intelligence that knew the answer.

 

[Kenny]

q

Ken, we know the biblical portrayal of David is mythical built around oral traditions of a possible man.

The history that is biblically described did not take place. It is not that we have more to discover, a lot of evidence shows us it is historically not accurate.



No, it is in the eyes if what historian can make up from the evidence, then see where the bible fits in, and if possible try and figure out why they wrote what they did.


You may not realize, much of the OT is talking about events they claimed happened over 400 years in the past.

Without any study of the American revolution, how much history could you rewrite of the daily lives before Washington? Remember these were not historians, they were writing theology without the aid of any history books. And many of these cultures were not their own, they have always been multi cultural, with one story about multiple cultures.

You missed the point completely. (Probably because this is old stuff between you and I). I don't think we need to rehash this.

My emphasis was simply to point out the inconsistencies of what he/she said

 

[Greatest I am]

All Abrahamic religions hold severe bias to his existence. That and Abraham as well.

Fanaticism and fundamentalism are hard to reverse.

I agree.

Seems the religious do not want or care to listen to their hierarchies who are less literal in most cases.

That is why I suggest changes to the Qur'an and Bible in terms of making those documents preach peace instead of war.

I think that governments have the right and the duty to move religious text to civilized and moral tenets.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

What part was wrong? Healing the afflicted, giving mercy or was was misused?


Hardly, in as much as you weren't there when it happened, have no idea of why it happened and have no concept of why it needed to happen.

Let's look at something closer to history to open your beautiful eyessssss and see if we can find at least something like it (although there is much that isn't like it) so that you can understand a little better.

We sent the atomic bomb twice to Japan and, unfortunately, had to include children and babies. The Japanese were inhumane (Nanking and others) and would continue that process if not stopped. One was forced to do something that one didn't like to do because the options of not doing it were worse than if one did do it.

Would you have suggested to let the raping and killing of Japanese to continue?

You are such a literalist instead of looking deeper into the meaning. He was advising them of the realities of what was to come:
bring hither, and slay [them] before me;
which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies; John Gill


I don't think so. I am just being gentle as a dove. Please feel free to continue, if you so desire. I would be happy to share my viewpoints. Knowing that I am not God, I don't claim to be 100% correct, but I have learned something since I started growing some grey hairs.

When you are ready to follow the advice Jesus gives and become as God then I am here for you my friend.

The only God fit to rule men and women is a man or a woman. That is how it has always been and all we have ever had. Who but a man can express the will of God?

There have always only been men and women of good hearts able to express God’s will.

Like Jesus and his wife who preached to seek God perpetually even after finding a bit of him or her within the self.

We are to perpetually raise the bar of excellence for ourselves and our God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So, a professional politician--the chief Likudnik, no less--uses the myth of Moses to support his party's particular brand of ethnic nationalism, and that says... something... about the consensus of academic Biblical scholars on the subject?

Judaic history begins in the Two Kingdoms period. Everything before that is mythic. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon--all mythic characters. They're on the level of Gilgamesh, Heracles, Agamemnon, et al.

At the same time, mythic is not the same thing as fictional. A single person didn't just sit down and invent Moses; myths grow out of whole cultures over time, with a lot of people contributing to the narrative. The goal of myth isn't to make stuff up but to express things like cultural identity and values in the form of stories, usually set in the distant past.

No argument.

I could go semantic and say that myths are definitely fiction but I do not mind your explanation.

Welcome. You will be an asset to the forum.

The way I understand the Jewish view is that every generation is supposed to have a (copy) of every type that they put into their myths. That is why scriptures have Jesus asking his disciples, who do they say I am, and some of the prophets are named.

It seems to me that Jesus was wanting to be the type shown in the more ancient Jewish tradition.

Regards
DL

 

[Moishe3rd]

They are not really defined that way.

A scientific theory is about the same as fact.

History is based on plausibility.

Since the Torah is a collection of collections redacted from multiple cultures collections, each sentence is studied trying to find a plausible date of origin.


History is not some willy nilly attempt to discredit the bible, it is a venture into exploring the past with credibility.

Its a shame you refuse education and knowledge.




Evolution is fact. It has not been up for debate.

Indeed. Like Global Warming Climate Change Disruption...

I know. Facts are stubborn things.

However, I do enjoy that the first part of my post was worthy of your aversion.
And, that you chose to latch onto the one sentence of your "bridge to die on" as worthy of your disapprobation.
And, that the conclusion was also unheeded.
This is good.
It appears that you reinforced the point I was trying to make...
No?

 

[Greatest I am]

Even when I was a little child I never believed that the story of Moses was real, it must have been my own intelligence that knew the answer.

It is usually taught as literal but the Jews were never literal readers of their myths.

That is why Rabbis could overrule God. This is rather obvious when you read about their Divine Council.

Jesus asked, --- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

Most people have but not s Gnostic Christians.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

There is a picture of a chariot wheel that could have been submerged when God closed the Red Sea to save Moses and the Israelites from pharaoh's army.

Sigh.

You are not keeping up my friend.

Regards
DL

 

[Vishvavajra]

I'm not sure who is speaking of fiction here. We have evidence of King David but you say it is mythical. You say that the Judaic history begins with the Two Kingdoms period, but you don't accept that Rehoboam was the son of Solomon and is listed during the Two Kingdoms period.

Perhaps, fiction is in the eyes of the beholder?

I chose the Mesopotamian and Greek examples for a reason. Those are names that appear in king lists. By your logic, one must accept Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, et al., as real historical people. Many ancient Greek noble houses claimed descent from Heracles, including the royal house of Macedon and by extension the successors of Alexander the Great. Therefore Heracles' slaying of the Lernean Hydra must be historical fact, yes?

We know about the Two Kingdoms period from external sources. That's not the same as saying that the Biblical account of that period (written during the Exile) is historically accurate. Indeed, Judaic national identity has a lot to do with how the inhabitants of Judah framed their relationship with the northern kingdom. Similarly, they used myth to frame their relationship to their big neighbors on either side, Mesopotamia and Egypt. So Abraham is identified as Mesopotamian, whereas Moses later rescues the Hebrews from of Egypt--so the ancestors of the people of Judah are tied to both those ancient cultures by extension. Figures like David and Solomon also allow Judah to claim the legacy of the kingdom to the north.

The Romans did something very similar in their national myths with Aeneas the Trojan and other figures, which not only tied them to the older Greek culture via the Trojan War narrative, but it also laid down mythic relationships with various peoples that the Romans had conquered in historical time. Pretty much every culture does this sort of thing; it's hardly unusual.

Okay. Let's say you want to invent a bunch of stuff.
Tell me which parts of the (Hebrew/ Aramaic) Torah you would invent and why.

I find the notion that people want to have absolute verifiable facts about historical events that the majority of the world could care less about - such as the origins of the People of Israel...
Yet, things that are defined as speculation and theory - such as the Darwinian theory of evolution and its attendant philosophies - THAT'S the "bridge to die on" for people who "believe" that science is the be all and end all.
It's so cute.

I judge the world by results - when it is unverifiable, I choose to believe what makes the most sense. The Torah is unique in the history of mankind. I vote for Moses being real.

Well, first of all, the Torah isn't unique, except in the sense that everything is unique in some way. No serious student of ancient myth is going to find the Torah essentially different from what other cultures have produced. That doesn't mean it isn't valuable, but it's not valuable because it's this special thing that is unlike any other--it's valuable because it's the cultural heritage of all peoples of Judaic origin. Its value doesn't lie in its uniqueness or in its historical veracity (God help anyone who chooses that hill to die on), but in its value to the people who share in that culture.

Not sure what the off-hand snipe at biological science is supposed to be doing here, but if you think that evolutionary theory is simply speculation, then you're going to want to educate yourself about that. The term "theory" in a scientific context refers to a conceptual model of how things work that is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence (indeed, it's a cornerstone of modern biological and medical science). To suggest that it has the casual meaning of mere speculation makes you sound as if you're talking about something without bothering to learn about it first.

And really, it's not about science or anything being the be-all, etc. It's a question of objectivity. One doesn't get to believe things just because one wants to believe them and still claim objectivity. Now, there's nothing wrong with subjective beliefs and impressions, but if we're making decisions about what to believe based not on what the evidence requires of us, but rather on personal desires, then in the process we relinquish any claim to objective truth. If objective truth doesn't matter, then that's fine as far as it goes. The problem is when people lay claim to it despite approaching things in a decidedly subjective manner.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Well, first of all, the Torah isn't unique, except in the sense that everything is unique in some way. No serious student of ancient myth is going to find the Torah essentially different from what other cultures have produced. That doesn't mean it isn't valuable, but it's not valuable because it's this special thing that is unlike any other--it's valuable because it's the cultural heritage of all peoples of Judaic origin. Its value doesn't lie in its uniqueness or in its historical veracity (God help anyone who chooses that hill to die on), but in its value to the people who share in that culture..

Okay.
Could you give me some direct comparisons from other cultures that are essentially the same as the Torah?
Seriously.
And, just to be fair - I have studied a lot of religious or legal or mythological codes of law, including Hammurabi's and, the Torah is most definitively different. But, please try as I am interested in this kind of thing.

Not sure what the off-hand snipe at biological science is supposed to be doing here, but if you think that evolutionary theory is simply speculation, then you're going to want to educate yourself about that. The term "theory" in a scientific context refers to a conceptual model of how things work that is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence (indeed, it's a cornerstone of modern biological and medical science). To suggest that it has the casual meaning of mere speculation makes you sound as if you're talking about something without bothering to learn about it first.

Oy. I apologize for being unclear but - there is a great deal of difference between the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and today's modern extrapolation from that theory.
And, quite frankly, there is NO basis in science for macroevolution nor does "science" claim that macroevolution is an established theory or fact.
However, if y'all would like to educate my uneducated opinion on this specific data - that would be nice. No objections on my part. Maybe I'm wrong. Please - give me some short factual data to prove the error of my ways. Thank you.

And really, it's not about science or anything being the be-all, etc. It's a question of objectivity. One doesn't get to believe things just because one wants to believe them and still claim objectivity. Now, there's nothing wrong with subjective beliefs and impressions, but if we're making decisions about what to believe based not on what the evidence requires of us, but rather on personal desires, then in the process we relinquish any claim to objective truth. If objective truth doesn't matter, then that's fine as far as it goes. The problem is when people lay claim to it despite approaching things in a decidedly subjective manner.

Okay. My belief lies in history. As far I can tell, so does "scientific belief." At one point all scientists knew that the Universe Always Existed - Steady State. With the proposal of the Big Bang, the scientific world was outraged - that implied a Beginning and, if there was a Beginning, Science could not define where "The Beginning" came from. And now, today, Quantum Mechanics tells us that Steady State is the latest new and improved theory.
Peachy. Whatever floats everybody's boat. But, it's all history.
I like history.
I like science.
The Jewish Nation is a-historical. There is no other culture; people; or religion on planet Earth that has been extant for over 3,000 years; has remained among the smallest and most despised of all peoples; has so influenced every facet of every human being's life on planet Earth; is such a focus of attention by the human race; etc., etc., etc....
That's history.
According to Jews - this is because of G-d's Torah and its unique values.
According to science? I don't know. One big accident repeated over and over and over and over again for thousands of years at random? You tell me.

 

[outhouse]

Like Global Warming Climate Change Disruption...

Red Herring

there is a great deal of difference between the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and today's modern extrapolation from that theory

Yet the foundation is identical.

They have taken and built on the foundation.

And, quite frankly, there is NO basis in science for macroevolution

Factually false.

Evolution is fact, no matter how much biased religious people deny it.

nor does "science" claim that macroevolution is an established theory or fact.

Yes they do. Thanks for playing.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

The Jewish Nation is a-historical.

Pseudo history yes.

There is no other culture

They were multi cultural for over a thousand years. Starting at 1200 BC all the way to 200 CE ish and maybe further.

 

[outhouse]

And now, today, Quantum Mechanics tells us that Steady State is the latest new and improved theory.

It does not overthrow the BB as the start of time and space.

They new hypothesis that was just produced, has changed nothing and has not even passed peer review as a credible hypothesis.

There was no exodus, and no one with credibility is even looking anymore for it, its given up on, as it is theology not history.

 

[Shad]

There is a picture of a chariot wheel that could have been submerged when God closed the Red Sea to save Moses and the Israelites from pharaoh's army.

An alternative idea is that a trade vessel lost part of it's cargo or sank itself. One picture of a wheel is evidence of nothing, no more than sunken structures are evidence of Atlantis. Instead of a picture link the research on the wheel which has been published.

Let me guess, Ron Wyatt...

 

[outhouse]

There is a picture of a chariot wheel that could have been submerged when God closed the Red Sea to save Moses and the Israelites from pharaoh's army.

Because there is no way dat is photo chopped mang

 

[outhouse]

An alternative idea is that a trade vessel lost part of it's cargo or sank itself. One picture of a wheel is evidence of nothing, no more than sunken structures are evidence of Atlantis. Instead of a picture link the research on the wheel which has been published.

Let me guess, Ron Wyatt...

Here ya go brother.

Wyatt's wife, Mary Nell, told Kovacs the same. She went diving with Wyatt at the Red Sea site and said that at first she thought everything was a chariot wheel.

he bottom line is that at this point all that seems to exist to support the claims of chariot parts on the bottom of the red sea are pictures, most of which are of coral formations.


The photo above is a hoax