Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The Mesopotamian myths are 1 thousand years older. There were no Israelites. You understand that every civilization made up a mythology that started with the creation and put their people back at the beginning being the first created by their deity. This is fiction. The OT is no exception.

The Biblical text is 1000 years after Enuma. But the content of the Bible, such as the narrative of Adam, is, in my understanding, older that Enuma. The time of composition of a text and content of a text need not be same. The Biblical narrative could be carried orally for a longer time.

Recurrence of themes (of basket and 10 commandments) do not make them fiction. Regarding the serpent, I have a long explanation from psychology that I am still working on. Give me a few months on that.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

"As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins.

Scholars disagree on many points. I find the Canaan origin is not tenable.

I give very briefly how some of the major problems of geography of the pre-Exodus Biblical narrative and how they are resolved in the Indus Valley.

1] Four rivers not known in West Asia. Indus: We have 4 rivers emerging from Pushkar in India. This place is believed to be the seat of creation in the Hindu beliefs.

2] No Flood of 150 days in West Asia. Waters of Mesopotamia drain out soon. Indus: The city of Jalore (“city of water”) is located in a bowl-like geological structure where rain water stays put.

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

4] No land between two rivers that was bequeathed to Abraham. Indus: The two rivers Ghaggar and Yamuna enclose a fertile area.

5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

6] There is no suggestion for the location of Yam Suf 2 (Gen. 33:10). Indus: Hmun-e-Mashkel lies dot on the route.

7] No volcano in Sinai. Indus: Taftan. It is a live volcano emitting sulfuric fumes even today.

8] Yam Suf 3 is supposed to be Gulf of Aqaba. But no reason is forthcoming as to why Hebrews would go south to Aqaba. Indus: Shatt al-Arab.

These are just the main points. I am happy to provide more evidence on each point. Thanks for your kind conversation.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The question that Riders asked though is more in the realm of convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence when establishing historical facts. In order for a person to do that they have to know what they are even looking for in the first place to deal with such.

BTW - For thousands of years Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews been examining what we know. It is literally an every day thing for us [Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews].

I am looking for the resolution of the following problems:

1] Four rivers not known in West Asia. Indus: We have 4 rivers emerging from Pushkar in India. This place is believed to be the seat of creation in the Hindu beliefs.

2] No Flood of 150 days in West Asia. Waters of Mesopotamia drain out soon. Indus: The city of Jalore (“city of water”) is located in a bowl-like geological structure where rain water stays put.

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

4] No land between two rivers that was bequeathed to Abraham. Indus: The two rivers Ghaggar and Yamuna enclose a fertile area.

5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

6] There is no suggestion for the location of Yam Suf 2 (Gen. 33:10). Indus: Hmun-e-Mashkel lies dot on the route.

7] No volcano in Sinai. Indus: Taftan. It is a live volcano emitting sulfuric fumes even today.

8] Yam Suf 3 is supposed to be Gulf of Aqaba. But no reason is forthcoming as to why Hebrews would go south to Aqaba. Indus: Shatt al-Arab.

These are just the main points. I am happy to provide more evidence on each point. Thanks for your kind conversation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Pyramids don't tell whether made by slaves or wage labour.

I think we have invoices and even strikes.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am looking for the resolution of the following problems:

Greetings Bharat,

The first thing i would note is that your questions seem centered around English bible translations and not what is in the actual Hebrew texts of the Torah (found among Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews, Karaites, or even Samaritan) nor what Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources (Oral Torah) say about it. See below for the reasons I say that.

1] Four rivers not known in West Asia. Indus: We have 4 rivers emerging from Pushkar in India. This place is believed to be the seat of creation in the Hindu beliefs.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that the rivers it mentions are in what is "modernly" known by the names it mentions. In reality, there are a number of Oral Torah texts that say that the geography of that time was completely different than it is now, and has been for some time, something more akin to the concept of Pangea.


In term of a "seat of creation" there is claim in the Torah that there is a "seat of creation" in one particular location. In fact, the Hebrew Torah never claims that Adam Harishon was created in Gan Eden. It states he was placed/inserted/planted there.

Further, the Midrash mentions something more akin to the following:

2] No Flood of 150 days in West Asia. Waters of Mesopotamia drain out soon. Indus: The city of Jalore (“city of water”) is located in a bowl-like geological structure where rain water stays put.

The word in Hebrew (מבול) “Mabul” doesn’t mean, on its own, flood. It also carries the meaning of destruction, decay. A better English approximation would be the term "Mass Extinction Event." The Hebrew text used several other words to describe what was taking place and a number of Jewish sources state that something to the level of either a comet, asteroid, shift in earth axis, splitting of Pangea Earth level of events. There is also the issue that there are two different distinctions of time used in the Torah a) time that is spread out over large units of time akin to the concept of galactic time and b) time relative to humans.

The Zohar places the Mabul as something which started the process of the following.

מהפך מאת הרב זמיר כהן

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that there was a Ziggurat that was “width < height.” It is instead, along with the Oral Torah, claims that there was a group of societies that united in building a culture that had a common them. Pyramid and Ziggurat structures being one of the hall marks of them, but the ancient Hebrew word (מגדל) can mean any structure that is even minutely tall or wide or just big, in scope or in purpose. That is why the Hebrew text states they built (עיר) and (מגדל) and not just a (מגדל). You also notice that, as I marked below, in both cases the (עיר) is mentioned first.

4] No land between two rivers that was bequeathed to Abraham. Indus: The two rivers Ghaggar and Yamuna enclose a fertile area.

According to the Hebrew text of the Torah, the land that is spoken of in the text is what today is known as (ארץ ישראל). Further to this point, some of the regions that it encompassed were known to the Egyptians and even to later inhabitants of the Syrian/Iraqi regions.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

4]5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

Torath Mosheh sources do not claim that the Yam Suf was what you stated. Further, the Torah states that the winds had stopped during the crossing of the region described as Yam Suf and that the water was frozen in place.

There are Torath Mosheh sources that state that what was crossed was a land bridge that was once under water during the period but is exposed now due to the changes made to the Suez Canal.

4]6] There is no suggestion for the location of Yam Suf 2 (Gen. 33:10). Indus: Hmun-e-Mashkel lies dot on the route.

The location of Yam Suf is mentioned in Torath Mosheh sources.

Also, note what Rashi and Ibn Ezra state on the matter.

4]7] No volcano in Sinai. Indus: Taftan. It is a live volcano emitting sulfuric fumes even today.

Neither the written or oral Torah of Torath Moshe Israelis/Jews claims that there were volcanos in Sinai or that there were volcanic sulfuric fumes coming from any mountain in the Sinai, further there is no Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim of any event in the Indus: Taftan area.

4]8] Yam Suf 3 is supposed to be Gulf of Aqaba. But no reason is forthcoming as to why Hebrews would go south to Aqaba. Indus: Shatt al-Arab.

Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources do not claim that the Gulf of Aqaba is a Yam Suf. It could be that you are referencing the legends of a different group of people than the ancestors of us Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews which were the Ivrim, Banei Yisrael, and Qahal Hashem. Maybe you had spoken to some older member of the Bombay Jewish community that mixed up a few terms here and there.

I hope that helps.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I think we have invoices and

Torath Mosheh sources do not claim that the Yam Suf was what you stated. Further, the Torah states that the winds had stopped during the crossing of the region described as Yam Suf and that the water was frozen in place.

View attachment 66034
View attachment 66029
View attachment 66030

There are Torath Mosheh sources that state that what was crossed was a land bridge that was once under water during the period but is exposed now due to the changes made to the Suez Canal.



The location of Yam Suf is mentioned in Torath Mosheh sources.
View attachment 66031

Also, note what Rashi and Ibn Ezra state on the matter.
View attachment 66032

View attachment 66033




Neither the written or oral Torah of Torath Moshe Israelis/Jews claims that there were volcanos in Sinai or that there were volcanic sulfuric fumes coming from any mountain in the Sinai, further there is no Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim of any event in the Indus: Taftan area.



Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources do not claim that the Gulf of Aqaba is a Yam Suf. It could be that you are referencing the legends of a different group of people than the ancestors of us Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews which were the Ivrim, Banei Yisrael, and Qahal Hashem. Maybe you had spoken to some older member of the Bombay Jewish community that mixed up a few terms here and there.

I hope that helps.

Hello Ever (if I can call you so).

Thanks for your kind reply.

I do not know Hebrew. So, I have looked up the Hebrew words at Bible Hub and Net Bible sites. I admit that my knowledge is wanting. I am happy to be guided.

I accept your view that the Bible may not say what I have assumed it to say. I am happy to look at alternative understandings. The way forward, I suggest, is for you to state what, in your view, the Bible does say and where, in your view, that event is geographically located. Then I will examine whether the alternative interpretation can be located better in West Asia or the Indus Valley. I am not responding to your points about what the Hebrew text says where you have not given the English translations. Please bear with this my limitation.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

1] Four rivers not known in West Asia. Indus: We have 4 rivers emerging from Pushkar in India. This place is believed to be the seat of creation in the Hindu beliefs.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that the rivers it mentions are in what is "modernly" known by the names it mentions. In reality, there are a number of Oral Torah texts that say that the geography of that time was completely different than it is now, and has been for some time, something more akin to the concept of Pangea.

BJR (Response): If we consider Adam c. 4000 BCE and Noah c. 3000 BCE then the alleged changes would have left a geological imprint. But I am happy to look at these Oral Texts. Please give links.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

2] No Flood of 150 days in West Asia. Waters of Mesopotamia drain out soon. Indus: The city of Jalore (“city of water”) is located in a bowl-like geological structure where rain water stays put.

The word in Hebrew (מבול) “Mabul” doesn’t mean, on its own, flood. It also carries the meaning of destruction, decay. A better English approximation would be the term "Mass Extinction Event." The Hebrew text used several other words to describe what was taking place and a number of Jewish sources state that something to the level of either a comet, asteroid, shift in earth axis, splitting of Pangea Earth level of events. There is also the issue that there are two different distinctions of time used in the Torah a) time that is spread out over large units of time akin to the concept of galactic time and b) time relative to humans.

BJR: The geological changes you mention took place millions or even billions years ago. The Torah speaks of Adam as a human being. That has to vbe <160 kya.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that there was a Ziggurat that was “width < height.” It is instead, along with the Oral Torah, claims that there was a group of societies that united in building a culture that had a common them. Pyramid and Ziggurat structures being one of the hall marks of them, but the ancient Hebrew word (מגדל) can mean any structure that is even minutely tall or wide or just big, in scope or in purpose. That is why the Hebrew text states they built (עיר) and (מגדל) and not just a (מגדל). You also notice that, as I marked below, in both cases the (עיר) is mentioned first.

BJR: Gen 11:4: Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens. The word for tower here is migdal <04026> means in In NET: “tower 19, towers 13, Tower 11, watchtower 3, towering platform 1, fortified towers 1.” In AV: “tower 47, castles 1, flowers 1, pulpit 1.” I am happy to understand this in more detail from you.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

4] No land between two rivers that was bequeathed to Abraham. Indus: The two rivers Ghaggar and Yamuna enclose a fertile area.

According to the Hebrew text of the Torah, the land that is spoken of in the text is what today is known as (ארץ ישראל). Further to this point, some of the regions that it encompassed were known to the Egyptians and even to later inhabitants of the Syrian/Iraqi regions.

BJR: The point is where was this land between 2 rivers located? Please give your suggestion.


Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

Torath Mosheh sources do not claim that the Yam Suf was what you stated. Further, the Torah states that the winds had stopped during the crossing of the region described as Yam Suf and that the water was frozen in place. There are Torath Mosheh sources that state that what was crossed was a land bridge that was once under water during the period but is exposed now due to the changes made to the Suez Canal.

BJR: The isthmus of Suez does not match because no drowning would take place.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

6] There is no suggestion for the location of Yam Suf 2 (Gen. 33:10). Indus: Hmun-e-Mashkel lies dot on the route.

The location of Yam Suf is mentioned in Torath Mosheh sources. Also, note what Rashi and Ibn Ezra state on the matter.

BJR: Please provide English translations. Thanks.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

4]7] No volcano in Sinai. Indus: Taftan. It is a live volcano emitting sulfuric fumes even today.

Neither the written or oral Torah of Torath Moshe Israelis/Jews claims that there were volcanos in Sinai or that there were volcanic sulfuric fumes coming from any mountain in the Sinai, further there is no Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim of any event in the Indus: Taftan area.

BJR: Ex 19:18+: 19:16 On 29 the third day in the morning there was thunder and lightning and a dense 30 cloud on the mountain, and the sound of a very loud 31 horn; 32 all the people who were in the camp trembled. 19:17 Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their place at the foot of the mountain. 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was completely covered with smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a great furnace, 33 and the whole mountain shook 34 violently. 19:19 When the sound of the horn grew louder and louder, 35 Moses was speaking 36 and God was answering him with a voice. 37

Please suggest what this means and where located.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

8] Yam Suf 3 is supposed to be Gulf of Aqaba. But no reason is forthcoming as to why Hebrews would go south to Aqaba. Indus: Shatt al-Arab.

Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources do not claim that the Gulf of Aqaba is a Yam Suf. It could be that you are referencing the legends of a different group of people than the ancestors of us Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews which were the Ivrim, Banei Yisrael, and Qahal Hashem.

BJR: I am posting the pic regarding aquaba separately.

Ever, I really appreciate your input. Please do provide the references to the oral traditions you mention. Let us take this forward. Please rest assured I am willing to change my position if I can access the relevant evidences. Thanks.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Torath Mosheh sources do not claim that the Yam Suf was what you stated. Further, the Torah states that the winds had stopped during the crossing of the region described as Yam Suf and that the water was frozen in place.

View attachment 66034
View attachment 66029
View attachment 66030

There are Torath Mosheh sources that state that what was crossed was a land bridge that was once under water during the period but is exposed now due to the changes made to the Suez Canal.



The location of Yam Suf is mentioned in Torath Mosheh sources.
View attachment 66031

Also, note what Rashi and Ibn Ezra state on the matter.
View attachment 66032

View attachment 66033




Neither the written or oral Torah of Torath Moshe Israelis/Jews claims that there were volcanos in Sinai or that there were volcanic sulfuric fumes coming from any mountain in the Sinai, further there is no Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim of any event in the Indus: Taftan area.



Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources do not claim that the Gulf of Aqaba is a Yam Suf. It could be that you are referencing the legends of a different group of people than the ancestors of us Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews which were the Ivrim, Banei Yisrael, and Qahal Hashem. Maybe you had spoken to some older member of the Bombay Jewish community that mixed up a few terms here and there.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Greetings Bharat,

What you have provided is a Christian source from a Christian minister. That is not a valid source for Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews. See below.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Hello Ever (if I can call you so).

Ehav is my first name.

Thanks for your kind reply.

I do not know Hebrew. So, I have looked up the Hebrew words at Bible Hub and Net Bible sites. I admit that my knowledge is wanting. I am happy to be guided.

Okay. That is important to note. What one gets from English Christian sources is going to be different than what one gets from Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources. Sites like Bible Hub and such are Christian sources of inforamation. We Torath Mosheh Jews don't use such sources since they are not based on the information that Torath Mosheh Jewish communities have been keeping for thousands of years. Further, such Christian sources can lead one astray since they have a jesus focus for much of their work.

I accept your view that the Bible may not say what I have assumed it to say.

The correct term for Torath Mosheh Jews is "Tanakh" in Hebrew and Aramaic. Bible is a Christian term which normally describes their translations and also their ideas. Western Jews sometimes, unfortunately, use that term when speaking English for ease of communication with non-Jews.

The following video may help.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

BJR (Response): If we consider Adam c. 4000 BCE and Noah c. 3000 BCE then the alleged changes would have left a geological imprint. But I am happy to look at these Oral Texts. Please give links.

Greetings,

I provided you the text from the Oral Torah that explains this. It is in Hebrew/Aramaic. It from the Zohar and several midrashim. I.e. the time frame you have is more of a Christian one w/o an explaination of how time worked. The Torath Mosheh Jewish position is that the time frames given in the Torah have to be understood in Hebrew and on a case by case basis. For example, 150 days in the Tevah for Noah and his family. There Torah gives two different frames of time. I.e. for Noah only 150 days pass, yet outside of the Tevah geological time was different. Same as with Adam Harishon. Time prior to him was different than after, and the Midrash states that there were almost 1,000 generations before Adam Harishon.

BJR: The geological changes you mention took place millions or even billions years ago. The Torah speaks of Adam as a human being. That has to vbe <160 kya.

See my above comment:

The Torath Mosheh Jewish position is that the time frames given in the Torah have to be understood in Hebrew and on a case by case basis. For example, 150 days in the Tevah for Noah and his family. There Torah gives two different frames of time. I.e. for Noah only 150 days pass, yet outside of the Tevah geological time was different.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that there was a Ziggurat that was “width < height.” It is instead, along with the Oral Torah, claims that there was a group of societies that united in building a culture that had a common them. Pyramid and Ziggurat structures being one of the hall marks of them, but the ancient Hebrew word (מגדל) can mean any structure that is even minutely tall or wide or just big, in scope or in purpose. That is why the Hebrew text states they built (עיר) and (מגדל) and not just a (מגדל). You also notice that, as I marked below, in both cases the (עיר) is mentioned first.

BJR: Gen 11:4: Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens. The word for tower here is migdal <04026> means in In NET: “tower 19, towers 13, Tower 11, watchtower 3, towering platform 1, fortified towers 1.” In AV: “tower 47, castles 1, flowers 1, pulpit 1.” I am happy to understand this in more detail from you.

Again, the translation you are using is a Christian one. As I explained before. The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that there was a Ziggurat that was “width < height.” It is instead, along with the Oral Torah, claims that there was a group of societies that united in building a culture that had a common them. Pyramid and Ziggurat structures being one of the hall marks of them, but the ancient Hebrew word (מגדל) can mean any structure that is even minutely tall or wide or just big, in scope or in purpose. That is why the Hebrew text states they built (עיר) and (מגדל) and not just a (מגדל). You also notice that, as I marked below, in both cases the (עיר) is mentioned first.

It is not different than in the language you speak there are all kinds of nuence to that can't be easily translated, especially by those who are not native the langauge. The same exists in the Hebrew language. Christian translators had a goal in how they translated.

Torath Mosheh Jews are native to the Hebrew langauge. I.e. what Christians insert into their translations reflect at times their lack of knowledge of the information they are trying to translate because it is not their ancestral culture.

BJR: The point is where was this land between 2 rivers located? Please give your suggestion.

I answered this already. (ארץ ישראל) is the place that the Hebrew text of the Torah and the Oral were designated by Hashem that Avraham ben-Terah's "descendants" would occupy. The Hebrew text of the Torah already made clear that that Beni Yisrael already arrived and occupied some of that land. There is a larger portion that Avraham ben-Terah was promised which extends further.

Think of like this, if one sees that there was a Torah based kingdom somewhere in the past then that is pretty much the center of said location. Two such places in Israeli/Jewish history have been the seat of Jewish Torah based leadershp. There are Talmuds named after both.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: ↑

5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

Torath Mosheh sources do not claim that the Yam Suf was what you stated. Further, the Torah states that the winds had stopped during the crossing of the region described as Yam Suf and that the water was frozen in place. There are Torath Mosheh sources that state that what was crossed was a land bridge that was once under water during the period but is exposed now due to the changes made to the Suez Canal.

BJR: The isthmus of Suez does not match because no drowning would take place.

I didn't write that the isthmus of the Suez was the place of anyone drowning. I wrote:

There are Torath Mosheh sources that state that what was crossed was a land bridge that was once under water during the period but is exposed now due to the changes made to the Suez Canal.
​

That is different than what you wrote. Also, if you look at the Hebrew text it explains why an army was able to sink into the level of water that once existed near the Lake Tibnah area. Again, as I wrote there is more than Torath Mosheh view on the exact body of water, but it not near the area you wrote about earlier. Again, it could be because your source is a Christian minister.

BJR: Please provide English translations. Thanks.

Both describe a "region of Yam Suf" which is closer to the Goshen area that the Yisraelim were already found in. The region described in Torath Mosheh sources is far away from the area that the Christian minister you cited stated.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

BJR: Ex 19:18+: 19:16 On 29 the third day in the morning there was thunder and lightning and a dense 30 cloud on the mountain, and the sound of a very loud 31 horn; 32 all the people who were in the camp trembled. 19:17 Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their place at the foot of the mountain. 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was completely covered with smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a great furnace, 33 and the whole mountain shook 34 violently. 19:19 When the sound of the horn grew louder and louder, 35 Moses was speaking 36 and God was answering him with a voice. 37

Again, the English translation is at fault. The Hebrew text of the Torah does not claim that even of the environmental events came from the Mountain. It states that they were all external to the mount thus the word (ערפל) and it is stated that the events from above the moantain and not from inside of it.

There are some Torath Mosheh sources point to several areas in the Sinai and a few closer the Negev desert. One strong one is Har Karkom in the Negev Desert.

Further, there is no way a group of people would have been able to stand close to an active volcano like that.

BJR: I am posting the pic regarding aquaba separately.

I posted the problem with the pic that came from that Christian minister.

Ever, I really appreciate your input. Please do provide the references to the oral traditions you mention. Let us take this forward. Please rest assured I am willing to change my position if I can access the relevant evidences. Thanks.

Essentially some of the Torath Mosheh sources are

Tarjum Onkelus
Tarjum Yehonatan
Talmud Yerushalami
Talmud Bavli
Midrash Rabba
Midrash Hagadol
Rav Saadya Gaon
Rashi
Rambam
Ibn Ezra
Tehillhim

There are a lot more. Virtually, you have to check what each ancient Jewish communities says as a whole.

 

[joelr]

The Biblical text is 1000 years after Enuma. But the content of the Bible, such as the narrative of Adam, is, in my understanding, older that Enuma. The time of composition of a text and content of a text need not be same. The Biblical narrative could be carried orally for a longer time.

Yes every mythology writes in characters who happened to be from that religion even though the religion and people didn't actually exist yet. It's called fiction.
The narrative of Adam is from 600 BCE when Genesis was written and used Mesopoptamian and Egyptian myths as a source to write stories for themselves.

Adam is from a mythology that is ALSO found throughout many ancient cultures. The Israelites were not Jewish people thousands of years prior. They were not Israelites. They were Canaanites. Around 1200 BCE they moved away from Canaan. Early Israelite settlements show that Yahweh had a consort, a mother Goddess Ashera. She was also a Canaanite deity.
These people were Canaanites and then formed a new nation around 1200 BCE. In 600 BCE they began writing a mythology by copying Mesopotamian creation stories and flood narratives. Of course they invented people who "existed" long ago in their mythology? Like all myths, it's not real.

Recurrence of themes (of basket and 10 commandments) do not make them fiction. Regarding the serpent, I have a long explanation from psychology that I am still working on. Give me a few months on that.

No it's evidence that the stories were borrowed (they were) from older stories. Noah used the Epic of Gilamesh verbatim at times. A deity giving commandments on stone on a hill in older religions is pretty clear confirmation that that story was sourced from another story.
They are also fiction the same reason stories about Allah, Krishna and any other deity are fiction. There is no evidence of a theistic deity being real. There IS evidence of similar stories in older but nearby nations.
The things attributed to Yahweh are the same old religious tropes since the Sumerian scripture about Inana.

20:28

Genesis uses Mesopotamian

Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou Professor of Hebrew Bible

Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a British biblical scholar and broadcaster. She is currently Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion.


“Scholars agree much of Genesis is riffing off much older Mesopotamian stories..”

“We all know there are much older versions of the flood going around..”


8:40
Yahweh originally Canaanite, a son to EL the highest God

 

[joelr]

Scholars disagree on many points. I find the Canaan origin is not tenable.

I give very briefly how some of the major problems of geography of the pre-Exodus Biblical narrative and how they are resolved in the Indus Valley.

1] Four rivers not known in West Asia. Indus: We have 4 rivers emerging from Pushkar in India. This place is believed to be the seat of creation in the Hindu beliefs.

2] No Flood of 150 days in West Asia. Waters of Mesopotamia drain out soon. Indus: The city of Jalore (“city of water”) is located in a bowl-like geological structure where rain water stays put.

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

4] No land between two rivers that was bequeathed to Abraham. Indus: The two rivers Ghaggar and Yamuna enclose a fertile area.

5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

6] There is no suggestion for the location of Yam Suf 2 (Gen. 33:10). Indus: Hmun-e-Mashkel lies dot on the route.

7] No volcano in Sinai. Indus: Taftan. It is a live volcano emitting sulfuric fumes even today.

8] Yam Suf 3 is supposed to be Gulf of Aqaba. But no reason is forthcoming as to why Hebrews would go south to Aqaba. Indus: Shatt al-Arab.

These are just the main points. I am happy to provide more evidence on each point. Thanks for your kind conversation.

I don't see any point to this? First of all the flood story was taken from the Epic of Gilamesh and all flood stories are mythology. Abraham is fiction. You are analyzing stories as if they are real?
Early proto-Israelite villages are built on Canaan soil with no evidence of armed conflict. Canaanite deities like Ashera are being worshipped with Yahweh, who also was a son to a Canaanite God. They are from Canan.

You are not answering to any of the evidence I presented but giving evidence as if the stories are real which hasn't been demonstrated. So again.

William Dever, Biblical archaeologist
THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."

Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Q: Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?

Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.

Q: Was this an egalitarian movement?

Dever: Some have argued that early Israel was an egalitarian society, that there was no social stratification. I'm not sure any society was ever really egalitarian, but there is a sort of egalitarianism in the Hebrew Bible: "Every man under his own fig tree, equal in the eyes of Yahweh." It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences, no monumental architecture of any kind. These are farming villages in which every household is independent. I think there is a kind of primitive democracy in early Israel, which is enshrined in the vision of the good life in the Hebrew Bible.


Abraham and the Patriarchs have no evidence. However Thomas Thompsons work demonstrated they were literary creations.
The History of the Patriarchs, T. Thompson


THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM
Q: According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?

Dever: One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

"It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods, we archeologists haven't much to say."

Are we to become unbelievers if we can't prove that Abraham ever lived? What is the story about? It's a story about freedom and faith and risk. Does it matter exactly how Abraham and his clan left, and when they arrived in Canaan, or where they settled? What really matters is that Abraham is seen later by Jews and Christians as the father of the faithful.

Abraham moves out on faith to a land he has never seen. You have to think of how perilous the journey would have been had it really taken place. We are talking about a journey of several hundred miles around the fringes of the desert. So it's an astonishing story. Is it true? It is profoundly true, but it's not the kind of truth that archeology can directly illuminate.

Q: Why is it difficult for archeologists to find support for the accounts of the patriarchs?

Dever: It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods such as the so-called patriarchal period, we archeologists haven't much to say. The later we come in time, the firmer the ground we stand on—we have better sources. We have more written sources. We have more contemporary eyewitness sources.

For the earlier periods, we don't have any texts. Abraham might have lived around 1800 B.C.E. This is the dawn of written history or prehistory, when the archeological evidence can't easily be correlated with any external evidence, textual evidence—even if we did have it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ever, I really appreciate your input. Please do provide the references to the oral traditions you mention. Let us take this forward. Please rest assured I am willing to change my position if I can access the relevant evidences. Thanks.

There a few translations that have been made of Torath Mosheh sources that go over the topics you mention. I can't vouch for the translation in English since I have read them in Hebrew but here are a few.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

One more book that may help. Again, this is an English translation of the original which is in Hebrew. It covers some of the topics you asked about.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I don't see any point to this? First of all the flood story was taken from the Epic of Gilamesh and all flood stories are mythology. Abraham is fiction. You are analyzing stories as if they are real?
Early proto-Israelite villages are built on Canaan soil with no evidence of armed conflict. Canaanite deities like Ashera are being worshipped with Yahweh, who also was a son to a Canaanite God. They are from Canan.

You are not answering to any of the evidence I presented but giving evidence as if the stories are real which hasn't been demonstrated. So again.

William Dever, Biblical archaeologist
THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

"It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences."

Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

Q: Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?

Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.

Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.

Q: Was this an egalitarian movement?

Dever: Some have argued that early Israel was an egalitarian society, that there was no social stratification. I'm not sure any society was ever really egalitarian, but there is a sort of egalitarianism in the Hebrew Bible: "Every man under his own fig tree, equal in the eyes of Yahweh." It's interesting that in these hundreds of 12th-century settlements there are no temples, no palaces, no elite residences, no monumental architecture of any kind. These are farming villages in which every household is independent. I think there is a kind of primitive democracy in early Israel, which is enshrined in the vision of the good life in the Hebrew Bible.


Abraham and the Patriarchs have no evidence. However Thomas Thompsons work demonstrated they were literary creations.
The History of the Patriarchs, T. Thompson


THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM
Q: According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?

Dever: One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

"It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods, we archeologists haven't much to say."

Are we to become unbelievers if we can't prove that Abraham ever lived? What is the story about? It's a story about freedom and faith and risk. Does it matter exactly how Abraham and his clan left, and when they arrived in Canaan, or where they settled? What really matters is that Abraham is seen later by Jews and Christians as the father of the faithful.

Abraham moves out on faith to a land he has never seen. You have to think of how perilous the journey would have been had it really taken place. We are talking about a journey of several hundred miles around the fringes of the desert. So it's an astonishing story. Is it true? It is profoundly true, but it's not the kind of truth that archeology can directly illuminate.

Q: Why is it difficult for archeologists to find support for the accounts of the patriarchs?

Dever: It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods such as the so-called patriarchal period, we archeologists haven't much to say. The later we come in time, the firmer the ground we stand on—we have better sources. We have more written sources. We have more contemporary eyewitness sources.

For the earlier periods, we don't have any texts. Abraham might have lived around 1800 B.C.E. This is the dawn of written history or prehistory, when the archeological evidence can't easily be correlated with any external evidence, textual evidence—even if we did have it.

JR: The narrative of Adam is from 600 BCE when Genesis was written and used Mesopoptamian and Egyptian myths as a source to write stories for themselves.

BJ: The time of composition of a text can be much after the event. A history of WW2 written in 2022 does not mean the WW2 took place in 2022. The Biblical oral tradition is much longer.

JR: Adam is from a mythology that is ALSO found throughout many ancient cultures. The Israelites were not Jewish people thousands of years prior. They were not Israelites. They were Canaanites. Around 1200 BCE they moved away from Canaan. Early Israelite settlements show that Yahweh had a consort, a mother Goddess Ashera. She was also a Canaanite deity.

BJ: New point. Please do provide me with reference to Goddess Ashera both in Bible and Canaanite texts.

JR: These people were Canaanites and then formed a new nation around 1200 BCE. In 600 BCE they began writing a mythology by copying Mesopotamian creation stories and flood narratives.

BJ: The Mesopotamian legends say that creation took place in the east. So there must be earlier creation stories of the east that the Mesopotamians followed.

BJ: Recurrence of themes (of basket and 10 commandments) do not make them fiction. Regarding the serpent, I have a long explanation from psychology that I am still working on. Give me a few months on that.

JR: No it's evidence that the stories were borrowed (they were) from older stories. Noah used the Epic of Gilamesh verbatim at times.

BJ: The legend of Gilgamesh actually says that creation and the Flood did NOT take place in Mesopotamia. Gilgamesh travelled across the sea to Dilmun which has been identified as the Indus Valley by Kramer. Here he met Utnapishtim who told him about the creation and the Flood. So no Sumer here, please.

JR: Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou… “Scholars agree much of Genesis is riffing off much older Mesopotamian stories.”

BJ: I doubt if the Prof takes note of the point above regarding Gilgamesh; or Sumerians saying creation took place in the east. Then, scholars disagree. Let us apply our minds please. Now regarding the pointers to the Indus Valley.

JR: Early proto-Israelite villages are built on Canaan soil with no evidence of armed conflict.

BJ: Regarding Dever on no conflict in Canaan. That is post-Exodus period. I have nothing to add.

JR: Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement.

BJ: The question is of time. >12c BCE would be post Exodus. My theory is only pre-Exodus, please. This is not relevant unless it is first shown that Exodus took place from Canaan to Canaan or something like that.

Dever: Abraham and the Patriarchs have no evidence. However Thomas Thompsons work demonstrated they were literary creations. Dever: One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived.

BJ: I agree with Thompsons. But that is in Canaan. Perhaps he would find evidence in the Indus Valley.

JR: Dever: For the earlier periods, we don't have any texts. The Hindu narrative of Rama runs exactly parallel to Abraham. I will send you some matter on that if you are interested. I agree, no evidence for Abraham in W Asia. So 2 ways forward. 1. Make Abraham a fiction. 2. Look elsewhere. I support the latter.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

One more book that may help. Again, this is an English translation of the original which is in Hebrew. It covers some of the topics you asked about.

Thanks for these suggestions. I recently read Arthur Green's Intro to Zohar. In the meanwhile I'd like to hear more from you on the specifics of my suggestions. I am happy to read more here.
I am generally familiar with the Targums. I'd like your guidance as to how they help or harm the specific points we are discussing. Thx.

 

[Muffled]

Is there proof of the Egyptian Exodus the story of Moses, the desert, and the red sea, is there any chariots found in the red sea? What's the Red sea deal anyways, I always heard that Moses' group got through the Red Sea, and the Egyptians got stuck, but some say the Red Sea was so shallow anyways that it didn't make sense.

What about the Pharoah, the leader of Egypt, what has been written by Egyptians about him?

average depth of 490 m (1,608 ft) - Wikipedia

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see any point to this? First of all ...

Oh, gee whiz ... you've discovered Dever.