Sauron

You made all the following claims. Whether they were about the Exodus or some book of the OT is irrelevant. You STILL made the claims - and you NEVER supported them:

• that Israelites starting out as Canaanites (i.e., the archaeologically correct conclusion) is actually compatible with the OT history of Israel, as it is written in the Old Testament;
• that the name Moses is actually Egyptian, and not Hebrew, in origin;
• that finding Egyptian names for Hebrews of that era unless demonstrates some kind of truth to the Exodus account, as opposed to being borrowed by later narrators or simply picked up as a result of cultural cross-pollenation between Egypt and Palestine, over a period of almost two millenia;
• that there is no way to determine when a particular human or animal died in Egypt, or what they died from;
• that the only source to explain any cultural cross pollenation is the biblical record, and not archaeology, not the history of contemporary countries in the region, not forensic investigation, not cultural anthropology -- just the bible, as you put it:
  For what type we must look elsewhere. And where else but to the Biblical narrative?
• that the story of being turned into forced laborers in a foreign country is NOT the typical background that is made up for a national mythology;
• that people in ancient times had no idea what caused disease or how to treat or quarantine those infected;

Many people like to play both sides of the fence, pretending to be agnostic and impartial, but are actually an advocate of the biblical record. You've claimed loudly that you are agnostic on the question of the Exodus, but your posts in this thread shows otherwise. Which would explain why:

1. you assumed, without any supporting evidence, that the mere presence of an (alleged) Egyptian name in Hebrew showed that the Exodus contained true details:

But the point still stands: you wouldn't have Egyptian names for Hebrews of that era (especially for a Hebrew as important as Moses) arbitrarily. It is a good indication there's SOMETHING behind the account of the time in Egypt and, at least in embryonic form, the Exodus (ie a journey from Egypt BACK to the Levant).....

2. in your (ahem) exhaustive hunt for the type of cultural interaction between Egypt and the Israelites that might explain an Egyptian name borrowed into Hebrew, you deliberately skipped over all the other more obvious sources of information such as archaeology, history of contemporary civilizations, forensics, etc. and jumped right to the biblical narrative. All while maintaining that you were "agnostic" on the question of the Exodus:

You're right about that: a name, in itself, doesn't tell us much. But it tells us there was contact. For what type we must look elsewhere. And where else but to the Biblical narrative?

Both are very strange things for a person to say, if they were truly agnostic as to whether or not the Exodus happened, don't you think?

Uh, no. My skills in all those areas are far better than yours - not saying much, really.

The problem here is that you've brought forth claim after claim, never with any proof, only to see them all shot down in flames. You're intellectually unable to support your arguments, and you are too lazy to do the research necessary to learn the material.

leonarde

Partial post by "spin" (well-named!);Sorry, pal, but no one "sets" problems here (or at any message board) for me. That was youses' foist mistake!

Cheers!

leonarde

No I don't. Don't at all. The Egyptian Book of the Dead can tell us LOTS of things about ancient Egyptian society. Even though it is arguably a "religious" book. Ditto with the "religious" books of other ancient peoples.

When the "religious" book in question tells us explicitly about major sustained contact between two peoples (here the Egyptians and the Hebrews) and there are NO other major written sources which deal at length with that contact, one has to make do with what is available.

Only anti-religious prejudice prevents Sauron and company from seeing that. Just as on the political forum partisan prejudice prevents him from seeing the true nature of public support for Dean and Kerry.....

Cheers!

Amaleq13

Are you suggesting that any unique claim must be taken at face value?

Are there any other "major written sources" that deal with it at all?

Shouldn't "what is available" include physical evidence supporting the story?

DrJim

It tells you nothing of the sort. It tells you a story. Whether the story is a reliable record of Hebrew / Egyptian contact is another matter entirely. That there are NO other texts describing it, and the non-textual evidence from the late second millenium bce suggests a fundamentally different kind of contact between the Hebrews adn Egypt (and that contact continued into the first millenium), suggest all one should do with the Exodus account is to treat it like the mythology of a later generation.

describe the story as reflecting real contact, then use the existence of the story to imply its own reliability. Circles can't get much rounder, bud.

Kosh

Hmm. Good point. Such as the realization that the Egyption Book of the Dead is the source for the 10 commandments, and not some tribal war God on a mountain....

leonarde

A matter which is not best disposed of by dismissing the Exodus out of hand which is what has been done by many in this thread.

The "story" is about some Hebrews who travelled to Egypt (the story of Joseph and his brothers). The selling-Joseph-into-slavery part does not reflect well on his brethren (especially since some wanted to murder him!). But then much of the action takes place in Egypt itself. Contact. Between two ethnic groups. Of the sort of interest even to non-theist historians and archaeologists.

Then many years later another "story" is about the Hebrews being forced laborers in Egypt. Winning their release/fleeing from Egypt under a man named Moses. Again, contact of a sustained sort between the two peoples. Of interest to those truly interested in archaeology ......

Cheers!

leonarde

Last I checked it was 5 of 10 commandments but at least you are getting warm!.....

Weltall

Seeing as the evidence (you know, stuff outside the Bible) flatly contradicts the Exodus narrative I think we've got a justification. It's up to you to prove otherwise.
Narrative taken from tales told by Ignorant Mineral Age Goat Herders (TM) doesn't count for much without supporting evidence. You haven't presented us any. If you claim an interest in archaeology you should know that there isn't supporting evidence for the Exodus story. You may cease Pulling The Other One With Bells On, we're not buying it.

Postcard73

I don't think this is entirely true, though please understand I am mentioning something that I am not very familiar with. Perhaps someone better informed than me could provide additional insight?

The Amarna Letters, which were discovered in 1887, exist on well over 300 clay tablets and detail the correspondence between Egyptian rulers and their Canaanite representatives when Egypt was the dominate power in the region. They provide information about international affairs between Egypt and many other nations of the ancient Middle East. I think they are mostly dated in the 1300's B.C., and they provide considerable insight into interactions between the Canaanites and Egyptians during this period...