tarasan
Well-Known Member
dont be mean, just let it go
-
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!
Moses did not write the Torah: The Ultimate Evidence
- Thread starter Many Sages One Truth
- Start date
dont be mean, just let it go
outhouse
Atheistically
what is pathetic is your poor rebuttle. You offered no evidence at all of a enslaved race of hebrews in Egypt. YOU WILL continue to supply your usual HOT AIR instead of facts regarding this mythical people in Egypt due to lack of knowledge, like a christian YEC due to your BIAS.
I have posted articles and evidence inwhich no one here can give a decent rebuttle to including most scholars and historians, a bitter biased view doesnt cut it.
You remind me of YEC.
Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance By Avraham Faust | Biblical Archaeology Review
Now the sad thing is im not even fighting Faust and go with alot of what he states. My view is not far from his and in no way DOES HE claim jews as slaved in Egypt
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
in the same breath you discount all modern christian scholarships
you can keep your faith and religious views while knowing the truth
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
heres another good reply that is informative and follows what ive been saying
http://www.amazon.com/Israels-Ethno...ogical-Archaeology/product-reviews/1904768989
The author sets out to apply anthropological analysis to data from the many archaeological excavations in the historical Land of Israel, in order to deduce when Israelite ethnicity emerged, and by what "markers" it can be identified. By using the Bible - a "problematic" source for most academics - only as a secondary source, the author hopes to avoid the criticism directed at what is now universally villified as "Biblical archaeology". The main period to which he directs his attention is the Iron Age I period (1200 to 1000 BCE), after which time (Iron Age II, 1000 to 600 BCE) many archaeologists accept that, under the unified monarchy of David and Solomon, Israelite ethnic identity was well established. The author's methodology is to enumerate traits - primarily from the archaeological record, but also from the Bible - that are recognized as markers of Israelite identity in Iron II, and to go back to Iron I to see which of these traits existed in that earlier period, and how they might have been "canonised" as defining Israelite identity.
Among the traits he identifies from the archaelogical record are: not eating pork (absence or scarcity of pig bones at a site), the presence of "four-roomed" houses, absence of monumental burials, Collar Rim Jars ( large jars with a characteristic collar, used for storage of both liquids and solids), undecorated pottery, absence of imported pottery, and relatively small variety of pottery. Many of these traits support the notion of an "egalitarian ethos", a characterization of early Israelite society (i.e. before the monarchy was established) which has been used by many archaeologists. To some extent these traits contrast with those of the Canaanite sites that both preceded and were contemporary with Iron I; but the major contrast is with the Philistine sites on the the southern coastal plain. At Philistines sites, very complex assemblages are found of their characteristic monochrome and bichrome decorated pottery; a high percentage of the animal bones found are pig, and the four-room style of house is rarely found. . The other important Israelite ethnic trait - although not one that leaves its mark in the archaeological record - is circumcision; in the Bible, the Philistines are often referred to with the epithet "the uncircumcised". The author cites many examples of how neighboring ethnic groups, who are in competition with each other for resources, avoid using artifacts or behaviors typical of the other - so-called "high boundary maintenance" - and how such habits - once lacking any particular meaning - become a group's defining characteristics in relation to the other group. He argues that Israelite identity was forged in Iron I principally in contrast to that of the Philistines, who represented their major "other".
Because the question of the origins of Israelite ethnicity is one that is contested by many different and sharply contrasting theories - rebel Canaanite serfs or "sedentarized" nomads from east of the Jordan, to mention just two - the author seeks to establish the independence of the "what?and when?" of Israelite ethnicity from the "whence ?" Nonetheless he also dives head first into the origins question. He comes to the same sort of conclusion as William Dever*, that Israelite identity was forged during Iron I from a number of diverse groups who had arrived in the central highlands, one of whom - perhaps the dominant one - was the "Israel" mentioned in the late thirteenth century BCE stela of the Egyptian king Mernepta. As this "Israel" is the only specific ethnic group referred to in an extra-Biblical source, the author places the burden of proof on those who would deny the emergence of an Israelite ethnicity in the central highlands during this period.
This is a very accessible book;chapters are short, and end with a useful summary of the conclusions of each. There is a certain repetitive feel to some of the arguments, probably because of the academic rigor, some of the nuances of which are lost on the general reader. The only other barrier to easy reading is the way that the narrative thread frequently dives under a mass of citations, only to re-emerge a paragraph later. The conclusions that the author wishes to reach are clear fairly early on in the book, as is the nature of his principal "other", the Biblical minimalists. However, his methodology is very rigorous and non-polemical; he does exactly what he says that he is setting out to do - an anthropological analysis of archaeological data - and, if he cannot prove every hypothesis about Israelite ethnicity, he certainly does succeed in placing the burden of disproof where it belongs.
http://www.amazon.com/Israels-Ethno...ogical-Archaeology/product-reviews/1904768989
The author sets out to apply anthropological analysis to data from the many archaeological excavations in the historical Land of Israel, in order to deduce when Israelite ethnicity emerged, and by what "markers" it can be identified. By using the Bible - a "problematic" source for most academics - only as a secondary source, the author hopes to avoid the criticism directed at what is now universally villified as "Biblical archaeology". The main period to which he directs his attention is the Iron Age I period (1200 to 1000 BCE), after which time (Iron Age II, 1000 to 600 BCE) many archaeologists accept that, under the unified monarchy of David and Solomon, Israelite ethnic identity was well established. The author's methodology is to enumerate traits - primarily from the archaeological record, but also from the Bible - that are recognized as markers of Israelite identity in Iron II, and to go back to Iron I to see which of these traits existed in that earlier period, and how they might have been "canonised" as defining Israelite identity.
Among the traits he identifies from the archaelogical record are: not eating pork (absence or scarcity of pig bones at a site), the presence of "four-roomed" houses, absence of monumental burials, Collar Rim Jars ( large jars with a characteristic collar, used for storage of both liquids and solids), undecorated pottery, absence of imported pottery, and relatively small variety of pottery. Many of these traits support the notion of an "egalitarian ethos", a characterization of early Israelite society (i.e. before the monarchy was established) which has been used by many archaeologists. To some extent these traits contrast with those of the Canaanite sites that both preceded and were contemporary with Iron I; but the major contrast is with the Philistine sites on the the southern coastal plain. At Philistines sites, very complex assemblages are found of their characteristic monochrome and bichrome decorated pottery; a high percentage of the animal bones found are pig, and the four-room style of house is rarely found. . The other important Israelite ethnic trait - although not one that leaves its mark in the archaeological record - is circumcision; in the Bible, the Philistines are often referred to with the epithet "the uncircumcised". The author cites many examples of how neighboring ethnic groups, who are in competition with each other for resources, avoid using artifacts or behaviors typical of the other - so-called "high boundary maintenance" - and how such habits - once lacking any particular meaning - become a group's defining characteristics in relation to the other group. He argues that Israelite identity was forged in Iron I principally in contrast to that of the Philistines, who represented their major "other".
Because the question of the origins of Israelite ethnicity is one that is contested by many different and sharply contrasting theories - rebel Canaanite serfs or "sedentarized" nomads from east of the Jordan, to mention just two - the author seeks to establish the independence of the "what?and when?" of Israelite ethnicity from the "whence ?" Nonetheless he also dives head first into the origins question. He comes to the same sort of conclusion as William Dever*, that Israelite identity was forged during Iron I from a number of diverse groups who had arrived in the central highlands, one of whom - perhaps the dominant one - was the "Israel" mentioned in the late thirteenth century BCE stela of the Egyptian king Mernepta. As this "Israel" is the only specific ethnic group referred to in an extra-Biblical source, the author places the burden of proof on those who would deny the emergence of an Israelite ethnicity in the central highlands during this period.
This is a very accessible book;chapters are short, and end with a useful summary of the conclusions of each. There is a certain repetitive feel to some of the arguments, probably because of the academic rigor, some of the nuances of which are lost on the general reader. The only other barrier to easy reading is the way that the narrative thread frequently dives under a mass of citations, only to re-emerge a paragraph later. The conclusions that the author wishes to reach are clear fairly early on in the book, as is the nature of his principal "other", the Biblical minimalists. However, his methodology is very rigorous and non-polemical; he does exactly what he says that he is setting out to do - an anthropological analysis of archaeological data - and, if he cannot prove every hypothesis about Israelite ethnicity, he certainly does succeed in placing the burden of disproof where it belongs.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I was referring to the OP, folks. 
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You're not presenting the truth IMO. You're presenting theories and speculations, mixing up topics (the thread is about Moses), and linking numerous authors that I most likely would take with a grain of salt.
Since you can't keep to the original topic, i bid you adieu.
outhouse
Atheistically
im on topic, we know the charactor of Moses never wrote anything at all.
Now I would be pleased if you could show me what your version of Israels origns and moses historicity is.
outhouse
Atheistically
Here is a great article in detail
Moses - Encyclopedia of Religion | HighBeam Research
Historicity of Moses
Any discussion about the historicity of Moses is entirely dependent upon an evaluation of the biblical account of his life and activity. There are no extant records from Egypt that make any reference to him or to the Exodus. Yet most scholars believe that a person named Moses existed and had a connection with the events of the Exodus and the wilderness journey as described in the four biblical books from Exodus to Deuteronomy. But there is little agreement about how much can be known about Moses or what role he played in the events, because the biblical accounts have been modified and embellished, and Moses' place in some of the traditions may be secondary.
The one point that seems to argue for regarding Moses as historical is his Egyptian name. An explanation of the name Moses that few would dispute is that it derives from the Egyptian verb msy ("to give birth"), a very common element in Egyptian names. This verb is usually combined with the name of a god (e.g., Re, as in Remesses, i.e., Ramses ), and the shortened form, Moses, is in the nature of a nickname. But whether in the long or short form, the name is common in Egypt from the mid-second millennium onward. None of the persons in Egyptian historical records bearing the name Moses can justifiably be identified with the biblical Moses, and to do so is quite arbitrary. The only argument for historicity to be derived from Moses' Egyptian name is its appropriateness to the background of Israel's sojourn in Egypt. Other examples of Egyptian names occur among the Israelites, particularly within the ranks of the priests and Levites. Such names may have survived in Canaan at sanctuaries and urban centers from the time of Egyptian control of the region in the Late Bronze Age.
A name by itself, however appropriate to the time and events described, does not make a historical personality. The various elements of the Exodus story do not correspond with known Egyptian history, and historians have usually set about reconstructing the events to make a better fit between the Bible and contemporary records. For instance, the presence of numerous Asiatic slaves in Egypt during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (15501200 bce) was not the result of an enslavement, out of fear and hatred, of a specific people already resident in Egypt, as pictured in Exodus. Slaves were brought into Egypt in large numbers as prisoners of war from many different peoples and social classes and were dispersed throughout Egypt to serve in many different capacities. Many Asiatics became free persons within Egyptian society and were found at various levels of rank and status. The nineteenth dynasty in particular was one of great assimilation of Asiatic religion and culture in Egypt. Furthermore, while bedouin were allowed certain grazing rights in the eastern Delta, there is no suggestion that they were enslaved or made to do menial labor. Nothing in the Egyptian records suggests any acts of genocide or any distinct group of state slaves resident in the eastern Delta.
None of the pharaohs in Exodus is named, but the reference in Exodus 1:11 to the Israelites' building the store cities of Pithom and Ramses is enough evidence for many to date the events to the nineteenth dynasty. Yet Pithom (Tell el-Maskhuta), in the Wadi Tumilat, was not built until the end of the seventh century bce, and the reference to Ramses and the "land of Ramses" hardly suggests the royal residence. The name Goshen, as the region where the Israelites were said to reside, is known only from the latest geographic texts. The few specific names and details, therefore, do not point to a particular period of Egyptian history, and scholars differ on the dating and background of the Exodus precisely because so many details must be radically redrawn to make any connection possible. The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.
Moses - Encyclopedia of Religion | HighBeam Research
Historicity of Moses
Any discussion about the historicity of Moses is entirely dependent upon an evaluation of the biblical account of his life and activity. There are no extant records from Egypt that make any reference to him or to the Exodus. Yet most scholars believe that a person named Moses existed and had a connection with the events of the Exodus and the wilderness journey as described in the four biblical books from Exodus to Deuteronomy. But there is little agreement about how much can be known about Moses or what role he played in the events, because the biblical accounts have been modified and embellished, and Moses' place in some of the traditions may be secondary.
The one point that seems to argue for regarding Moses as historical is his Egyptian name. An explanation of the name Moses that few would dispute is that it derives from the Egyptian verb msy ("to give birth"), a very common element in Egyptian names. This verb is usually combined with the name of a god (e.g., Re, as in Remesses, i.e., Ramses ), and the shortened form, Moses, is in the nature of a nickname. But whether in the long or short form, the name is common in Egypt from the mid-second millennium onward. None of the persons in Egyptian historical records bearing the name Moses can justifiably be identified with the biblical Moses, and to do so is quite arbitrary. The only argument for historicity to be derived from Moses' Egyptian name is its appropriateness to the background of Israel's sojourn in Egypt. Other examples of Egyptian names occur among the Israelites, particularly within the ranks of the priests and Levites. Such names may have survived in Canaan at sanctuaries and urban centers from the time of Egyptian control of the region in the Late Bronze Age.
A name by itself, however appropriate to the time and events described, does not make a historical personality. The various elements of the Exodus story do not correspond with known Egyptian history, and historians have usually set about reconstructing the events to make a better fit between the Bible and contemporary records. For instance, the presence of numerous Asiatic slaves in Egypt during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (15501200 bce) was not the result of an enslavement, out of fear and hatred, of a specific people already resident in Egypt, as pictured in Exodus. Slaves were brought into Egypt in large numbers as prisoners of war from many different peoples and social classes and were dispersed throughout Egypt to serve in many different capacities. Many Asiatics became free persons within Egyptian society and were found at various levels of rank and status. The nineteenth dynasty in particular was one of great assimilation of Asiatic religion and culture in Egypt. Furthermore, while bedouin were allowed certain grazing rights in the eastern Delta, there is no suggestion that they were enslaved or made to do menial labor. Nothing in the Egyptian records suggests any acts of genocide or any distinct group of state slaves resident in the eastern Delta.
None of the pharaohs in Exodus is named, but the reference in Exodus 1:11 to the Israelites' building the store cities of Pithom and Ramses is enough evidence for many to date the events to the nineteenth dynasty. Yet Pithom (Tell el-Maskhuta), in the Wadi Tumilat, was not built until the end of the seventh century bce, and the reference to Ramses and the "land of Ramses" hardly suggests the royal residence. The name Goshen, as the region where the Israelites were said to reside, is known only from the latest geographic texts. The few specific names and details, therefore, do not point to a particular period of Egyptian history, and scholars differ on the dating and background of the Exodus precisely because so many details must be radically redrawn to make any connection possible. The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.
outhouse
Atheistically
yes but you will only find people with a lack of credibility in that position.
there is ZERO evidence OR historicity for moses and the exodus as well as slaves in egypt.
None nada
Now what we do have evidence for is that moses was created in scripture around the 7th and 8th century and the exodus a few hundred years later.
If ancient hebrews/israelites began around 1200 BC, just when did all this take place?
We know for a fact Israel became populated between 1200 BC and 1000 BC. How could a huge slave exodus happen if we know Israel formed from a slow migration proccess?
outhouse
Atheistically
Off topic
go start another thread.
Alexander has Historicity
moses has none
Alexander has atleast 5 attested authors
moses has unknown authors heavily redacted
Alexander legends match archeology records exactly
moses matches nothing at all
Alexander, There is no debate he existed
moses, most historians, scholars and archeologist QUIT looking for his existance as its been dubbed frutile
Shermana
Heretic
Who are these 5 attested authors and how many centuries after the fact did they write of him? What archaeological records do we have of him, not his army and the Macedonian conquest, but him particularly? This belongs in the same thread, since it's comparing historicity of one figure to another.
outhouse
Atheistically
LOL
Alexander doesnt have a historicity section in wiki
moses has a historicty section that states he was created