Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[gnostic]

You also might want to read what some leaders of Judaism say about this:
17 Facts About Moses Every Jew Should Know - Jewish History (chabad.org)
Anyway, have a good day and please excuse if I don't keep it up with you, enjoy whatever there is to enjoy. I believe what the Bible says.

Excuse me, @YoursTrue, but this page relied on “leaders of Judaism”, who based interpretations of their “scholarship” scriptures, such as “rabbinic traditions”.

Traditions are neither historical verification - meaning it is not verifying the Bible with external and independent sources, such as with Egyptian sources, like official records or archives. If you can verify the Bible using Egyptian sources that are contemporary to the exodus setting, then this link may have some credibility.

But not once, do this link used Egyptian sources.

If you read my previous post, YoursTrue, you would noticed that I brought up the point, that the Exodus 1 & 2, it never provided the names, of the pharaoh or the pharaoh’s daughter.

In this webpage you have linked, in point 3 (Birth of Moses), this webpage used the word, “Batya”, for the pharaoh’s daughter. WRONG.

Batya is not a Egyptian name for any Egyptian princess, because it isn’t a name at all.

The word, “Batya” is just Hebrew word “Pharaoh’s daughter” or “daughter of the pharaoh”. Batya isn’t Egyptian name.

The word “pharaoh” is also not a name for any Egyptian king, it is title.

Exodus has never given any name for Egyptian kings, not for the time of Moses’ birth (Exodus 1), nor for pharaoh who eventually let the Israelites go free (Exodus 12).

If we are to believe that Solomon is real king, who ruled in the 10th century BCE, then his 4th year would have been around 967 BCE. The 4th year of his reign was when he started construction on the temple 1 Kings 6:1 says that this exodus (Exodus 12:37) took place 480 years before Solomon’s 4th regal year:

6 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.

This “480-year” would mean the Israelites left Rameses (Exodus 12:37) around 1447 BCE, when Moses was 80-year-old.

Hence, Moses should have been born, if Moses was born in 1527 BCE.

Both dates (1527 & 1447 BCE), would mean the story of Moses was set in the 18th dynasty (c 1543 - 1292 BCE) in the New Kingdom period.

The 18th dynasty, as well as the 19th dynasty, was like Egyptian version of the Renaissance, where Egypt reached the zenith of history, in term of military & territorial expansion (through conquests, empire), as well political stability (for the first 200 years), great wealth, advances in technology, medicine, art and literature.

If Moses was a real historical person and if he really wrote the Exodus, then he should have known names of Egyptian kings, because his alleged birth (1527 BCE) was set in the reign of the dynasty’s 1st king, Ahmose I (reign 1549 - 1524 BCE), and because Moses would have left Egypt (at age 80 in 1447 BCE) during the 5th king was Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE).

Ahmose has 2 daughters, neither are named Batya. They are named Meritamun and Sitamun.

Why didn’t the authors of Exodus know the name of Egyptian king at the time of birth, or know the name of the pharaoh’s daughter who adopted him?

The authors don’t know because no one who wrote the Exodus know of Egyptian history during the late 16th century BCE.

And if Moses wrote Genesis too, then why couldn’t the authors know name of the kings whom Abraham (Genesis 12) and Joseph (Genesis 41) encountered?

Like I said earlier, the word “pharaoh” isn’t a name.

Not only the authors didn’t know of any Egyptian kings, neither did anyone contribute to the rabbinical traditions.

Whoever wrote Genesis and Exodus didn’t know anything about Egyptian history.

I would be more impress historicity of Genesis and Exodus, if they could name some (or even one) real historical figures (whether it be from Egypt or from Mesopotamia) that were contemporaries to Abraham, Joseph or Moses, some kings that we can verify on writings or from archaeological sites.

All link you provided do, is just sum up whatever were written about Moses and the use of non-historical traditions; there are no facts in that webpage.

 

[rational experiences]

Thin king.

A man is any one self.

A theist. Just a human. And don't forget an egotist I know it all theme.

Theists first were considered evil by intention the subject science how to nuclear convert earths dusts.

Pretty basic first advice about not theories rationally as any human is not the dusts they named.

You have to see a dust body to name it a dust body to theorise dusts.

God O earth owned all dusts Alchemy.

If you write a document about dust and ashes it was nuclear. Conditions. Causes.

Not any status a human being a human.

So then as a common sense thinker you would realise theists who patent their egotistical man's advice gave any thesis a man's name.

As it's what human egotists did and still do. Yet you aren't God O earth body your first scientists thesis. God owned it stated his angered brother...you're just a human.

Forms space held first in planet bodies your thesis.

What you ignore as liars gases by term a form natural are also held in the same space advice are not any planet.

When you nearly destroyed life you were just a mutant. Non thinker. Yet was still bodily living.

Also ignored advice.

When life evolved you retold a Moses story yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Two Jews, three opinions.

Ain't that the cute truth. Some believe, others don't. Basically many who say Moses was not real, the book of Genesis was not directed by God, are also saying their religious ancestors have gone along with a lie, have gone along with lies for thouands of years.
But that doesn't refer only to one group of people. Still, Mars looks desolate.
(Hope you have a nice evening.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting question. In the science section I placed a thread about an article stating that mutations were not random. It is actually the second research project that I've read about that made this claim. I'm still waiting to see if this information goes mainstream.

lol, not random, I love that. That missing genetic link -- from branch swinging monkeys to "homo erectus." lol ok...

 

[rational experiences]

lol, not random, I love that. That missing genetic link -- from branch swinging monkeys to "homo erectus." lol ok...

A human as a human topic said by human is a human. The human makes all human claims.

Looks at living monkeys that are monkeys. Not any God just a human saying I am looking at monkeys. A humans claim.

Looks at some dug up bones. Dead humans. Makes a thesis out of dead bones. About dead bones.

The living. A monkey any type monkey has monkey babies.

Humans a baby themselves have as adults human babies.

Thesis about dead dug up bones claiming I am correct as a theist a human and a scientist.

Then he says something changed within the heavens that made a monkey of any type change into a human.

So first monkey as a monkey is used constantly the monkey. Term referenced a monkey type. Conversation monkey.

Just as the word human is inferred human the whole time.

Using coercive sophism his thought upon maths he studies cells not whole beings bodies himself. The scientist human not a God. Quotes a cell must have somehow changed.

O cell he quotes is a God by maths O.

Lies.

As he isn't any God. He's just a human lying.

So humans arguing said God did it. What and who is God?

In the human life a human mind he says father a man. As God he says conversation human only is he him his as men terms.

How did father man as pretend God change the cell monkey?

He didn't.

Did he however change mother's ovary cell? O.

Yes says a humans consciousness.

No man is God answer for lying egotists. Quote is a human description about just human behaviour.

Destroyer theism was human. Topics human choice. Proven wrong many times.

 

[joelr]

You mentioned church therefore I añnswered you. I don't go to church. Science in no way demonstrates that evolution is true. It's conjectural opinion.

There are vast lines of evidence that all point to evolution being true. If you think science "in no way" demonstrates evolution is true then again, you do not care about what is true. It isn't proven like a math proof. It's a theory and slowly over many decades new discoveries are all pointing to evolution in many different ways. Anti-evolution is like flat Earth at this point.

 

[joelr]

Again what I find interesting is that there is no proof, only conjectural opinion. Doesn't matter how well schooled a person is...the future is the future. Things are often not discovered from the past. But doesn't mean nothing happened.

If you ever decide you want to check and see if your beliefs are true and you actually read why Thomas Thompson says they are not historical, or many other scholars, you will see it's more like proof.
Throwing armchair apologetics at historical knowledge is just a method to continue being fooled by nonsense. You actually think these specialists in the field are just like "hmmmm, I don't know, let me just make a conjecture rather than do all the years of proper historicity on the subject?
For Thompson this was his PhD thesis, Moses and the Patriarchs being not historical. You think he just turned in a piece of paper that said "my conjecture based on opinion is......non-historical!" ??????
Well, the thesis is an entire book? So no that isn't what happened.

 

[joelr]

So you believe what you believe and I do not share your opinion.

I believe what evidence presents. I do not believe what I want to believe. I do not hide from information that might prove me wrong because I want to know what is actually true. I'm not interested in opinions.

 

[joelr]

Again, your opinion may align with others but like politics, doesn't mean you're on the right side. That there were accounts of a devastating flood only adds to the veracity of the flood happening.

Wrong. History isn't politics. History deals with evidence. It is a fact the OT myths are very similar to older myths. The flood story is at times a word for word copy from the Epic of Gilamesh.
Modern geology has ruled out the possibility of a world flood so those stories are myth.
Do you actually think there is a "right side" with ancient myths about Gods? Do you think that Zeus might have been real? Or Atum-Ra? In politics there are several positions. In history there are zero historians who think any of these myths were actually history. That isn't a position?
In fact most modern CHristians now consider the OT stories to be myths. A pastor friend of mine called the flood story a "mythology" in his last Easter sermon.
The work of Thomas Thompson is now consensus in the field which demonstrated beyond any doubt that Moses and the Patriarchs are a fictional construct.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09QD5497J/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0



Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

 

[Brian2]

There is a guy selling some crank about how he's proven Israel was in Egypt earlier and is basing his work on already debunked amateur Egyptology. The field of Biblical archaeologists are generally all in agreement. The OT is not history.

There is a guy, Tim Mahoney, who started hearing that scholars think the Exodus did not happen etc etc and was concerned and so went searching for answers to real archaeologists and Egyptologists etc. He started making videos of his findings.
I'm amazed that you do not know what he discovered and other things that have been discovered concerning Biblical archaeology.
I'm amazed that you don't know that the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan has been confirmed by the archaeology of Canaan for the time that the Bible says it happened (about 1400BC).
I'm amazed that you know only one side of the story and think that the other side is from amateur archaeologists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mentioned church therefore I añnswered you. I don't go to church. Science in no way demonstrates that evolution is true. It's conjectural opinion.

There is more evidence that the theory of evolution is true than that the theory of gravity is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

A human as a human topic said by human is a human. The human makes all human claims.

Looks at living monkeys that are monkeys. Not any God just a human saying I am looking at monkeys. A humans claim.

Looks at some dug up bones. Dead humans. Makes a thesis out of dead bones. About dead bones.

The living. A monkey any type monkey has monkey babies.

Humans a baby themselves have as adults human babies.

Thesis about dead dug up bones claiming I am correct as a theist a human and a scientist.

Then he says something changed within the heavens that made a monkey of any type change into a human.

So first monkey as a monkey is used constantly the monkey. Term referenced a monkey type. Conversation monkey.

Just as the word human is inferred human the whole time.

Using coercive sophism his thought upon maths he studies cells not whole beings bodies himself. The scientist human not a God. Quotes a cell must have somehow changed.

O cell he quotes is a God by maths O.

Lies.

As he isn't any God. He's just a human lying.

So humans arguing said God did it. What and who is God?

In the human life a human mind he says father a man. As God he says conversation human only is he him his as men terms.

How did father man as pretend God change the cell monkey?

He didn't.

Did he however change mother's ovary cell? O.

Yes says a humans consciousness.

No man is God answer for lying egotists. Quote is a human description about just human behaviour.

Destroyer theism was human. Topics human choice. Proven wrong many times.

I didn't make up the fact that there is no evidence of genetic shift in actuality from gorillas, bonobos, etc and humans. There's that "missing link." So with all the bones, not one shred (literally) of genetic proof that monkeys or bonobos or gorillas evolved to become humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is more evidence that the theory of evolution is true than that the theory of gravity is true.

That from one who keeps saying the book your apparent religion is based on is a book of lies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong. History isn't politics. History deals with evidence. It is a fact the OT myths are very similar to older myths. The flood story is at times a word for word copy from the Epic of Gilamesh.
Modern geology has ruled out the possibility of a world flood so those stories are myth.
Do you actually think there is a "right side" with ancient myths about Gods? Do you think that Zeus might have been real? Or Atum-Ra? In politics there are several positions. In history there are zero historians who think any of these myths were actually history. That isn't a position?
In fact most modern CHristians now consider the OT stories to be myths. A pastor friend of mine called the flood story a "mythology" in his last Easter sermon.
The work of Thomas Thompson is now consensus in the field which demonstrated beyond any doubt that Moses and the Patriarchs are a fictional construct.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09QD5497J/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0



Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Once I saw your comment about history isn't politics and deals with evidence, I knew we're not on the same page. Bye for now. Anyone who thinks or believes that all history books are not political is on a different branch of thought. Again bye for now...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That from one who keeps saying the book your apparent religion is based on is a book of lies.

Excuse me? A myth is not a lie. Saying that Genesis 1 is a creation myth is recognizing genre, not saying it is a lie. Good heavens, don't you read fiction?

 

[rational experiences]

Excuse me? A myth is not a lie. Saying that Genesis 1 is a creation myth is recognizing genre, not saying it is a lie. Good heavens, don't you read fiction?

Fact the living human writing the book.

Fiction the lies the advice read is about the living.

Living is a whole human body life with human DNA now.

A whole body conscious says I create inside my one body DNA. The creator human in living presence. DNA owner self creator living.

All the old meant it no longer was apparent.

Age in biology conscious human living present. Only living as old as the age the human stated is human living biology.

Subject human is not any past said intelligent human men. How dare you include death in our present life as science.

Topic subject human tribal family slavery reasoned why. Bully brother groups preyed on humans innocence.

Every human equal no human in fact owned earth the known family topic..

 

[YoursTrue]

Excuse me? A myth is not a lie. Saying that Genesis 1 is a creation myth is recognizing genre, not saying it is a lie. Good heavens, don't you read fiction?

What do you mean? If the Torah definitely talks about Moses and you don't believe Moses existed then what's exactly true as far as you are concerned in the Torah?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you mean? If the Torah definitely talks about Moses and you don't believe Moses existed then what's exactly true as far as you are concerned in the Torah?

First of all, I never said that Moses didn't exist. I said that Genesis 1 was a creation myth.

So what is the purpose of reading myth? Our deepest values are encoded in myth. It is the singular most powerful form of literature there is. IOW we read it for the lesson it teaches, not to learn history. Consider that Jesus preferred to teach using parables -- stories which were not historical but taught lessons. Clearly Jesus thought there was value in this sort of form of literature.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, I never said that Moses didn't exist. I said that Genesis 1 was a creation myth.

So what is the purpose of reading myth? Our deepest values are encoded in myth. It is the singular most powerful form of literature there is. IOW we read it for the lesson it teaches, not to learn history. Consider that Jesus preferred to teach using parables -- stories which were not historical but taught lessons. Clearly Jesus thought there was value in this sort of form of literature.

Many Jews believe that Moses wrote Genesis and that he was inspired of God. But then I wonder what you believe, since you speak of a "true God" as if He were real. Please notice what is written in the book of Judges, perhaps you think it's a myth also?
(Judges chapter 10) So the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and Ammonites,

(Did He sell the Israelites into the hands of the Philistines and Ammonites as recorded? Did that happen or was that a myth, too?)

"8who that very year harassed and oppressed the Israelites, and did so for eighteen years to all the Israelites on the other side of the Jordan in Gilead, the land of the Amorites.9The Ammonites also crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin, and the house of Ephraim, and Israel was in deep distress.10Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD, saying, “We have sinned against You, for we have indeed forsaken our God and served the Baals.”

So what do you gather from these verses? Mythical account?

Would you say the foregoing is also a myth?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many Jews believe that Moses wrote Genesis

Two Jews three opinions. Just like you have Christians who are anti-science and don't understand literature and insist that Genesis 1 is historical, you have some Jews that do the same. And just like you have some Christians who understand that Genesis 1 is a myth, you also have Jews that understand the same. It has more to do with reading comprehension and acceptance of science, than whether one is Christian or Jew.

What I'd like to get you to see is that it doesn't really matter whether a story is historical or not. It only matters what lesson it is teaching.