any christians here in this entire site please stand up
POSTED BY: leelu7777
UPDATED: Monday, September 22, 2025 14:45
VIEWED: 32293
PAGE 15 of 23
Quote:That kind of thing was common in the ancient world. You can probably find examples of it today, as well. I’m not as familiar with Egyptian history as I am with Roman, but I can tell you that the Roman’s frequently portrayed defeats in various ways that took the emphasis away from what actually happened. However, you’re arguing that an event in which the Pharaoh’s army lost a battle is tantamount to an event in which Egypt may have been destroyed, and I don’t know if that is a valid assumption.
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
But the attempt to write Akhenaten out of the history books failed despite the fact that it was likely a greater threat to the status quo than a story about a few thousand slaves which could have far more easily been spun as an expulsion anyway.
We know from the records of the Battle of Kadesh between Egypt and the Hittites that the Egyptians were certainly not above spinning a story to make a defeat, where Ramesses the Great was likely repulsed, look like a glorious victory. Why not do the same for the Exodus (which supposedly happened at roughly the same time according to some chronologies)?
However, if the Egyptians couldn't have found a way to spin the Battle of Kadesh, they might have attempted to expunge it. So still, I don't think there is any way to argue that the Exodus wasn't covered up.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My point is that one simply cannot argue that the Exodus was not based on an actual event, simply because there is no Egyptian account of it, because it is quite possible that there wouldn’t be.
No, but the Bible isn't what you can really call an unbiased historical document, so the fact that the plagues of Egypt are mentioned in Egyptian records (as well as records of other civilisations) with out a mention of the Israelites casts a fair bit of doubt. In fact the Israelites are never mentioned, by your account that's a lot of history that would have to have been rewritten, since the Israelite slaves would have appeared at least a few times in the records. Yet they don't, how do we account for that?
Did the Egyptian scholars say "Well, this looks bad on us, so if we just rebuild all these temples with the stories on the walls and burn the libraries we can start again, what do you reckon, weeks work?"
Quote:
So still, I don't think there is any way to argue that the Exodus wasn't covered up.
This makes no sense. Why not? If it never happened they needn't cover it up. The possibillity that it never happened is at least as likely as the possibillity that it was covered up.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd go with Occam's razor.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are no such things as unbiased historical texts, but I don’t even know what you’re talking about. The first historical mention of the Israelites is a 12th century Egyptian tablet, [1] and the Egyptian word ‘apiru used during the 12-14th Egyptian dynasties is thought, by many historians and linguists, to refer to the Hebrews. [2]
Originally posted by citizen:
No, but the Bible isn't what you can really call an unbiased historical document, so the fact that the plagues of Egypt are mentioned in Egyptian records (as well as records of other civilisations) with out a mention of the Israelites casts a fair bit of doubt. In fact the Israelites are never mentioned, by your account that's a lot of history that would have to have been rewritten, since the Israelite slaves would have appeared at least a few times in the records. Yet they don't, how do we account for that?
And we mustn't forget The Exodus which also places the Hebrews in Egypt and is certainly as valid a historical text as any other. [3]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
[2] http://www.answers.com/topic/habiru?method=5&linktext=Habiru
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But apparently they mentioned Israelites in the context of bedouin-like nomads in the land of Shusu, not as runaway slaves. Apparently they're mentioned a few times, rather offhandedly, as rather unsavory foreigners, and lumped in with all the other unsavory wanderers ("gyspies, tramps and thieves" comes to mind) who didn't wear clothes, who smelled, and weren't above a bit of thievery and merc-work.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One thing which I've found interesting regarding the Bible and the historical accuracy thereof was the whole issue of the King Belshazzar mentioned in the book of Daniel. For the longest time, historians scoffed at that account in Daniel (as they have always done with most of the Bible), saying there was no record of any King called Belshazzar, and that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus.
Then they found the Nabonidus cylinder (which is now in the British Museum) which mentions that Nabonidus's son, Belshazzar ruled as a co-regent to his father.
What I find as icing on the cake to the finding of the Nabonidus cylinder was Daniel's account in the Bible that if anyone could interpret Belshazzar's dream (which Daniel subsequently did), that Belshazzar would make that person "the third ruler in the kingdom."
Why third? Why not second? Because, as we now know (thanks to the Nabonidus cylinder), Belshazzar was the second ruler in the kingdom (behind his father, Nabonidus).
I just love when they find things like this. 
BTW, if anyone's interested in reading a bit on some biblical archeology, I found this page at Wikkipedia discussing finds in Biblical archeology over the past century or so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
P.S. Still don't know what the name of that documentary was showing the chariot wheels, but here's a little something which mentions it: http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/redsea.htm
EDIT: I found the name of the documentary. It's "The Exodus Revealed", and Christian Book currently has it at a good price.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My point was you can't really call it an historical account. It's not records; it's a collection of stories about God. The bias is different; a biased historical source will attempt to show the writers in a good light. The Bible is at least partly entirely fiction.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cuhmal:
The first historical mention of the Israelites is a 12th century Egyptian tablet
You know, or at least you should, what I was saying. What game are you trying to play?
Okay, we know that the Biblical account of exodus is false because it refers to the people who became the Israelites as 'the Israelites', a name they weren't know by at the time of the exodus, so it's obviously all made up.
Or we can stop playing silly word games and you can recognise that I was talking about references to the people who became the Israelites in the word that we can all recognise.
And actually it doesn’t mention Israelites, it mentions only Israel, that’s also according too your source.
Quote:
the Egyptian word ‘apiru used during the 12-14th Egyptian dynasties is thought, by many historians and linguists, to refer to the Hebrews.
It's also thought by many others to not refer to the Hebrews. From your own source that was just one of the possibilities.
Quote:
And we mustn't forget The Exodus which also places the Hebrews in Egypt and is certainly as valid a historical text as any other.
Not sure that's true. The Jewish Exodus in the Torah is essentially the same source as the Bibles Old Testament. Its one source, and the documents still aren't historic accounts, they're sacred texts.
Thanks for the links; I wasn't aware of some of that. Last I had heard there were no hints of a reference to the people who became (since I have to verbosely qualify it) the Israelites.
However, there are still mentions of the Plagues of Egypt, the Santorini eruption and slave revolts in Egyptian texts. These don't all appear at the same time, so I still think it's at least a possibility that Exodus is an amalgamation of various historic accounts.
The Bible isn't an exhaustive and correct historical account. For instance the story of Noah. There's evidence that backs up aspects, for instance there’s evidence that points to a flood of the 'Biblical area' (though not the whole world) and the hull of the ark, though that's shaky at best. Point is there was probably a flood, but the whole world was not submerged, so the Bible is wrong on that one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
I just love when they find things like this.
I'm sure you do, because in your warped twisted little world the Bible being correct in a minor insignificant matter proves the whole thing is litteral fact. But that's because your a nut.
I toughly believe that the above is the level of converse you are truly capable of and deserve.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's the interestring thing about the Bible. Like all writings of ancient lineage, it provides us clues about ancient societies and history. But in that context it's difficult to take literally as "the word of God" because while many things correlate with other writings from contemporary societies, others things don't.
I suspect that the Jews (Hebrews) were at least passingly familiar with their neighbors' gods and customs because they show up in the Bible. One of the things I found interesting was a comparison of an Egyptian god (whose name I don't recall now) who was killed and rises from the dead. That particular mythology parallels Biblical prophesy amazingly well.
EDITED TO ADD: The god is Horus, the resurrected version of Osiris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Exodus is as historical account as any contemporary source from that time period. Whether or not Exodus is a sacred text to any religion today is irrelevant. It sounds to me like you’re trying to play favorites (or unfavorites) with the source. If you can’t view Exodus impartially, then all we’re doing here is arguing your disapproval of Christianity or Judaism. And I couldn’t care less what you think about these or any other religion.
Originally posted by citizen:
Not sure that's true. The Jewish Exodus in the Torah is essentially the same source as the Bibles Old Testament. Its one source, and the documents still aren't historic accounts, they're sacred texts.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Exodus is as historical account as any contemporary source from that time period. Whether or not Exodus is a sacred text to any religion today is irrelevant. It sounds to me like you’re trying to play favorites (or unfavorites) with the source. If you can’t view Exodus impartially, then all we’re doing here is arguing your disapproval of Christianity or Judaism. And I couldn’t care less what you think about these or any other religion.
Well if this is true you’re playing favourites with the Exodus. It must be correct and where other sources deviate they must be wrong or 'covered up'. But you know, rubbish what I'm saying any way you wish.
The Old Testament account and the Torah account are essentially the same source, but you were saying they are sources that support each other. Of course they do, they're the same source.
The fact that the Egyptian accounts deviate from the Bible and the Torah sheds doubt on both perhaps, but your position, at least came across as meaning that the Egyptian account must have been wrong, or altered. So your protestations that I'm the biased one because I'm offering the alternative view fall flat.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME