Indy

Of course, no sooner did I post that last bit than I found not one but two references to Hebrew origins of Moses. *sigh*

But my question still remains: is there anywhere someone can cite to point to the history of the name? Just curious...

Indy

Are you seriously claiming you don't see the correlation in that analogy? The analogy is that if the Bible can be taken as absolutely, 100% true simply because it contains references to things we know as fact, than what's to stop us from applying the same flawed logic to anything. Using that xian line of reasoning, then simply because Deloreans exist, Back to the Future must be real.

This is the same line of illogic used in such cases as "Hey, we found a chariot wheel in the Red Sea, so that must mean the Bible is right, and countless soldiers in chariots MUST have been drowned when God finished with the parting of the waters... the Bible is right!"

-Indy

Sauron

That's because the story is implausible and has fatal flaws in it. Exodus is contradicted by:

* the archaeological evidence;
* the forensic evidence;
* comparative documents from contemporary civilizations; and
* linguistic evidence

Until someone (obviously not you) can answer these questions, then dismissing the Exodus story is the only responsible thing to do.

So what? There are other known fictitious stories that don't reflect well on the participants. The stories about the Greek and Norse gods make them out to be scoundrels and bastards. I guess that means the Greek and Norse myths are true, right?

Relating an embarrassing or unflattering doesn't prove that the story is true. Period. Moreover, the standard of evidence that you are suggesting (i.e., embarrassment) is useless, as Toto, Vork and I have argued repeatedly with regards to the gospels.

Except that there is no proof that it ever happened. The bible is not a record of such Israelite-Egyptian contact. That, in fact, is the conclusion you are trying to prove here. You cannot assume your conclusion within the body of your evidence. Especially when your conclusion has so many holes and unanswered questions.

Circular reasoning again. You haven't proven that the story is true, and you haven't answered key failures that are intrinsic to the story itself. Until you do so, the Exodus story is laughable and can't be regarded as accurate.

Most of us here are VERY interested in archaeology. We're just not interested in someone trying to substitute religious narrative mythology for hard evidence - which is what you're trying to do.

Sauron

BWAHAHAHAAA!

Says the person who never lifts a finger to support his own viewpoints. You're much better at stand-up than you are at archaeology or apologetics, leonarde.

Sauron

Sure you do. Every time you make a claim, and then fail to back it up, you create a problem for yourself.

Every time someone explains a position to you, and you ignore it because you realize you can't rebut it, you create another problem for yourself.

Every time someone explains the implications or holes of one of your famous statements, and you pretend to be oblivious to the explanation, you create a problem for yourself.

In point of fact - you're very good at creating problems for yourself, leonarde. It's digging yourself out of these holes that you happen to really suck at.

Sauron

It is not universally accepted. In fact, at least one person on this thread said they never heard it before at all, and asked you for a source.

As usual, you scurried away like a cockroach as soon as they made that request.

Sauron

Except that I provided you with evidence to the contrary. Which, predictably, you ignored.

After you confused:

* the starting point for the Age of Pyramids;
* the timeframe of dynastic Egypt;
* the burial practices of the poor and peasant;
* the significance of one of the he Hebrew word for "linen";

and a half dozen other things.

Celsus

leonarde,

If you are interested, I've plopped down the challenge over here. Please feel free to discuss it when I return. You may also state your actual position here or in that thread.

Joel

spin

Greek? Someone here is simply wrong, badly wrong.

Read Ex 2:10. "...she called him Moses (M$H) and said, 'Because I drew him out (verb: M$YTHW, infinitive: M$H) of the water.'"

The hypothesized Egyptian form is variously MS and MSS.

Maybe the Greek is the grecified form of the Hebrew.


spin

leonarde

Partial repost by Ipetrich:Yes, so if the (putative) Hebrews had converted to the Egyptian religion(s) we might expect more Egyptian names (and possibly common words) among the Hebrews of the 2nd millenium BC.......

Further repost:I don't see it that way:

the "Teutonic" names are essentially Yiddish ones: ie they are names based on the vernacular used by the Jews of the era. In even a putative stay in Egypt in the 2nd millenium BC the vernacular remained Hebrew (and didn't change to Aramaic until the time of the Babylonian Captivity). Lots of SLAVIC (specifically Russian but also Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Polish) names would be more like it.....if we are talking about the influence of the greater (non-Jewish) society on the Jewish onomastics.....(in this case in the Slavic-speaking Russian Empire).

Cheers!