Freethought & Rationalism Archive

davidH · 11-03-2002, 01:08 PM

Back again.

Amos,
One thing I would have to put straight with you.

Quote:

If you are writing this for me I am glad you stopped because I am not about to study OT history if I see no history in the bible. It would be a cruel and malicious thing to do.

I like the daughter becomes "God wife" thing and the bible is loaded with such inconsistencies. That is kind of like "the child becomes the father of man" and "the woman who gives birth to the child becomes the bride of the child."

Amos, it is not the Bible that records the daughter becoming God wife (an inconsistency to you) it is Egyptian history. All that I talk about here is recorded in Egyptian History - all I am doing is comparing the Biblical account with what is known about Egyptian history at that time.

Quote:

the woman who gives birth to the child becomes the bride of the child

Absurd as it may seem this is what Egyptian history records. However like I said - the "God's wife" may have only been at Title, but someone who knows more is needed to clarify this subject.

Quote:

Don't you see that the anomalies are there to distract you from the literal interpretations? These, I should add, are never mine to give but are yours to grasp.

Amos, now that you know I am talking about what is recorded in Egyptian history.....which is literal..... maybe you will a little less quick to brush it aside.

Joel,

Quote:

I think you are begging the question in a way, since you assume that Deuteronomy is unadulterated historical fact. The number 40 itself as Moses' age (and number of days and nights it rained, and number of years in the wilderness, and reigns of David and Solomon, and time spent by Jesus in the desert) should make you suspicious. I would be much more confident of the number if it had been 39 or 41, because 40 has numerological significance in Jewish myth. As it is, it is probably simply a recognition of a generation, or a really really long time.

As most Christian apologists should tell you, numbers don't count in Biblical history.

Well, we will soon see - won't we? If the numbers aren't literal years then there will be no correlation at all between Egyptian history and the Exodus account at this time. - Logical?
I myself haven't worked this theory to completion so it could well fall apart. - We'll soon see.

Amos,

Quote:

So joe, you would agree that there is no history in the bible but that a historic desription is used to make a number of timeless messages known. Very good, and this should be true for all parables including the flat earth, the flood, and also the life of Jesus.

If the above is true we should not look in history for answers but in our understanding of the myth . . . which is real nonetheless, or it could not have been a parable that speaks on behalf of truth.

Amos, If there is no history in the Bible - why in the world shouldn't we look in history for answers?
I think Amos you will find that there is indeed history in the Bible and by looking at history we find that there is history in the Bible.

If you Amos fail to look in history then you deceive yourself about the Bible's historical origins.- you one of the few people that claims the Bible is not historical.
Others have looked in history and concent that the Bible does have history but only to a certain extent.

Mendeh - good to have you back.

Quote:

At most, all that one could show is that, IF the Israelites were ever in Egypt (for which there is no even slightly conclusive evidence at all), then the 18th Dynasty would be a pretty good time for them to be there.

-The Bible then just happens to place the date at this point then?

Quote:

One can't prove a massive exodus, or that Moses was a historical figure (especially if we are seriously expected to swallow Moses living 120 years in the 15th Century BC), or that the ten plagues of Egypt occurred, or that the successor to the throne drowned, etc., because there is simply no contemporary evidence to back any of those claims up.

Mendeh - You cannot disprove Moses living to 120 in this time. What if Moses did live up to 120? The Bible would record it as so....it will not be there fault that you dump everything just because you cannot believe one point.

Hmmm, there is no evidence in Egyptian history that this happened.....but then you would never have expected such an embarassing event where even the Egyptian Gods were humiliated. The Egyptian have been known to try and cover up embarassing situations - have they not Mendeh.

However I can make a very convincing theory that explains a lot - bare with me and you will see.
My evidence is based on a lot of circumstanial evidence because it is just not recorded in Egyptian history. However it also contains solid evidence in what has been found - this and the circumstanial evidence makes me sure that the Biblical account took place.

However it is up to all of you to decide for yourselves.

Asha'man,

Quote:

Pharaoh made the decision to let Moses go, and then God overrode that decision. Multiple times. Look at Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8, and look for the phrase “harden his heart.” God took away Pharaoh’s free will and forced him to make a stupid decision, and then punished everyone else in the country for making that decision.

No, God didn't take away Pharaoh's freewill and forced him to make a stupid descision. The phrase "harden his heart" means that God allowed pharaoh's heart to become hard. He didn't take away pharaoh's freewill and make him let the people go - he allowed pharaoh to harden his heart.
So it is in the sense that God allowed pharaoh's heart to become hard that the Bible says that God caused "his heart to become hardened".
In a fuller way - God caused pharaoh's heart to become hard by allowing pharaoh to have his own way.

That's the way I see it anyway.

I'll put this up and then post more of my theory below. - I appreciate all the input folks, it's good.

Please Note I will edit the last post I did because of a mistake on my part - the princess that I put down as the one that probably rescued Moses was wrong - she was actually Ahmose's wife.......so Ahhotep was actually Ahmose's mother.

I edit it to save me writing it up again and I put this here incase anyone accuses me of lying - it is not unknown believe it or not.

11-03-2002, 01:24 PM

Hello David, if you feel that bible history serves you well you should continue. I seldom come here because it is wrong for me to find fault in your search for the divine.

I like this one even better.

Quote:

==================================================
the woman who gives birth to the child becomes the bride of the child
================================================
Absurd as it may seem this is what Egyptian history records. However like I said - the "God's wife" may have only been at Title, but someone who knows more is needed to clarify this subject.

This same is true for Mary who gave birth to Jesus and later became the bride of the Lamb in Rev.21:9.

Please carry on and do not let me discourage you.

Sincerely, Amos

davidH · 11-03-2002, 01:30 PM

Amos,

lol.

Quote:

This same is true for Mary who gave birth to Jesus and later became the bride of the Lamb in Rev.21:9.

Not quite - it is not Mary who will become the bride of the lamb in revelation - if you read you will see that it is the church that is actually the Bride.

Out of curiousity - how did you come up with Mary being the bride?

davidH · 11-03-2002, 01:32 PM

I will post the next section of my theory tomorrow.

Mendeh, what do you think so far? (the little that there is).

11-03-2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidH:
Amos,

lol.

Not quite - it is not Mary who will become the bride of the lamb in revelation - if you read you will see that it is the church that is actually the Bride.

Out of curiousity - how did you come up with Mary being the bride?

Oh, sorry David. You are correct but we Catholics have Mary as the head of the Church and so when you get there you will find that they were all Catholics under Mary. Hence our "through Mary to Jesus" to make Mary our own bride and we the Church.

zwi · 11-03-2002, 06:30 PM

Can anyone ex[plain why the Egyptians themselves left no records of all these people and all these natural disasters?

Zwi

WRW Mattfeld · 11-04-2002, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zwi:
Can anyone ex[plain why the Egyptians themselves left no records of all these people and all these natural disasters?

Zwi

The Egyptians DID leave records of these people. The confusion is that only a FEW scholars, like Redford and Assmann (both are prominent Egyptologists)are aware that the Hebrews by a process of Literary INVERSION, took the Hyksos Expulsion and transformed it into the Exodus.

Cf. my articles on the Exodus at my website under the OT Menu at <a href="http://www.bibleorigins.net" target="_blank">www.bibleorigins.net</a>

Celsus · 11-04-2002, 05:30 AM

DavidH,

You might also want to consider that archaeological excavations show that Jericho was sacked sometime in the middle of the 16th century BCE as your latest possible date for the siege of Jericho.

Joel

WRW Mattfeld · 11-04-2002, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joejoejoe:
DavidH,

You might also want to consider that archaeological excavations show that Jericho was sacked sometime in the middle of the 16th century BCE as your latest possible date for the siege of Jericho.

Joel

You're quite right. The Middle Bronze IIC walls were the LAST ever built. NO Late Bronze Age or Iron Age has ever been found, despite the Bible's claim that a wall was built in the days of Ahab by Hiel the Bethelite. To get around this archaeological anomaly some have proposed that the Middle Bronze IIC walls were merely rebuilt upon. It is my understanding the Profesor Bimson is correct in identifying the torched Jericho of MBIIC as what is being described in the Bible as a city devoted to "herem" or destruction, noting CORRECTLY that the Late Bronze Age remains are very negligible and DO NOT FIT the biblical scenario of a mighty walled city being put to the torch. But the anomalies go even deeper. As noted by Finkelsetin and MacDonald, the Exodus is set in an Iron II world, the ONLY period of time witnessing most of the sites mentioned in the narratives being in existence at the same time. Soo- MBIIC events at Jericho, the torching and abandoing of the town, are being combined with a Late Iron II world (ca. 640-560 BCE). As for Jericho's FALLEN WALLS, this reflects Jericho in the Eraly Bronze Age. Kenyon documented that this city's walls fell down flat due to an earthquake. Sooo- Early Bronze II, Middleb Bronze IIC and Iron II are all telescoped, fused and conflated together in the biblical narrative.

Celsus · 11-04-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WRW Mattfeld:
To get around this archaeological anomaly some have proposed that the Middle Bronze IIC walls were merely rebuilt upon.

Well that might explain why the walls fell when 2 million Israelites started dancing and blowing trumpets. Are you sure the builders of Jericho weren't actually corrupt Italian bureaucrats?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2002, 01:32 PM	#24
davidH Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: N.Ireland Posts: 527	I will post the next section of my theory tomorrow. Mendeh, what do you think so far? (the little that there is).

11-03-2002, 06:30 PM	#26
zwi Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sarasota FL Posts: 60	Can anyone ex[plain why the Egyptians themselves left no records of all these people and all these natural disasters? Zwi

11-04-2002, 05:30 AM	#28
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	DavidH, You might also want to consider that archaeological excavations show that Jericho was sacked sometime in the middle of the 16th century BCE as your latest possible date for the siege of Jericho. Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.