Steven Avery

Yes, I understand, and I appreciated what you shared above immensely. 'FM' is 'Father Mithras'

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Diogenes the Cynic

1. The Hyksos story, unlike the Biblical evidence, is strongly corroborated by archaeological evidence as well as by documentary evidence such as writings on the walls of the Hatshepsut Temple. It actually isn't true that all or most of the evidence comes from Manetho. You're wrong about that.

2. The reasons for discrediting the historicity of the Biblical Exodus are in no way dependent on any assumptions about the Hyksos.

3. None of the authors you named would come close to affirming anything about the historical claims of Christianity, even if they were taken as 100% reliable (not counting the obvious forgeries in the Testimonium Flavianum...those don't affect his OWN reliability). It doesn't matter if they believed what they were saying. The problem is that they were not in a position to actually know anything.

Nuwanda

Contention #1. Are you in fact saying that no Biblical evidence is supported by archaeology and that there are no documentation of the Biblical claims outside of scripture from the same time period? What will you do with the thousands of archaeological finds that support various stories in the Bible? I haven't the time or inclination to attempt to list even the top 100, but this contention seems way too left field to be taken seriously.

#2. No, discrediting the Exodus is not dependent on the Hyksos, neither is the opposite true. I'm glad we agree on this one.

#3. So you wouldn't mind taking Eusebius' word for it when he quotes Quadratus (one of the disciples of the Apostles who lived during Christ's time and bishop of the church in Athens) who made his defense of his faith before Hadrian stating that Jesus' miracles were true; that those who were healed and raised from the dead were seen by many, and in some cases still alive (at the time) to testify.

And if it's true that they were not in a position to know anything then you must disregard what you know of the Hyksos that derives exclusively from their sources (i.e. Manetho's Aegyptiaca, which, by the way, is where we construct our understanding of the various Egyptian dynasties).

Diogenes the Cynic

If you're talking about the Exodus, that's correct.
Bring them on. I think you'll quickly discover that you've been grossly misinformed. Very little of the Bible is corroborated by archaeological evidence and much is contradicted, especially in the Deuteronomic histories.
We agree that the Biblical Exodus is discredited with or without the Hyksos? Good.
I wouldn't take Eusebius' word for much of anything, but my point was that even if he actually believed everything he said, it wouldn't mean anything because his beliefs were not founded on any real evidence.
You don't know much about Egyptology, do you? You shouldn't believe everything you read on Biblical inerrantist websites.

FatherMithras

Of course you'd think that, when you completely ignore what I actually said.

The fact is, nothing links the Hebrews to Egypt except for some writings in their Holy book. No links in language or art, which would surelya have come about in even the most insulated, clannish of cultures if they were enslaved for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Jews likewise, were not rulers of Egpyt, and their history in no way matches the Hebrews, except that the Hebrews have a story about leaving Egypt in triumph, while the Hyksos were kicked out. So, the only thing in common was a story about leaving... Hmmm... The conclusion the Exodus never happened comes from the lack of facts. I don't say the Hebrews weren't the Hyksos because the event never occured, I said the Hebrews weren't the Hyksos because nothing valid links the two.

Ie the Bible has tons of support, but I'm not gonna name any so your wrong. Baseless assertion maybe? Obviously, some Biblical stories are going to have vague, historical roots from which the myths arose. Anyone doubting that would be rather odd in my opinion. However, to say the bible stories are supported by archaeology is too vague a statement to take seriously in the slightest. Please give some examples maybe? After all, we know there was a king david, but that he didn't rule a unified Israel. As for myhts, many cultures shared the same myths, that in no way validates the tales. Conquest and cultural relations more than explain that.

Except your ignoring the fact we go on way more than those writers. We go by the archaelogical finds that show us evidence that cetain stories have an immense basis in fact, and some don't. The Hyksos story does. This was pointed out above and you seem to have disregarded it.

Good thing that's not all we use, thus your argument is invalidated.

Sarpedon

Did they happen to say which Pharaoh it was? I've been waiting for that for years.

Kosh

Ahmoses.

sbaii

I saw that show. The most interesting bit was the piece of a seal they said they found that supposedly had the name of Joseph written on it in some strange script. The rest of the show was explaining the ten plagues through natural phenomena which I have seen before. What I can't understand is why Yahweh didn't know the difference between blood and iron oxide in the water.
Oh, well. They did show some graffiti inside an Egyptian cave which supposedly was a prayer to the god El.

FatherMithras

they've never proven the natural disaster theory is valid either. It's just a vague "This maybe coulda happened" force fit.

miss anthrope

My father and I had a good laugh at the program, particularly as the show repeatedly jumped around in time and distance. We still aren't certain what sort of chronology of events they were putting forth. The best part were the three stone panels interpretted as Moses holding a staff (the man at the museum contended it was a figure holding a sword). I realized immediately what the figure held.
It's a baggette.