Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-26-2002, 02:21 PM

davidH:
----------------
Actually it's hardly surprising that the Exodus was never recorded by the Egyptians.

If you think about it - it was the biggest of embarassements for the whole nation.
----------------

As we've seen there's no reason to believe that, if such an event had happened, I wouldn't get dealt with. Something would need to have been said. Pharaohs, we can see, didn't just cover things up that went bad.

(This is not what was attempted with Hatshepsut or Akhenaten. The action against them was to rob them of their names in the present so that they would receive no memories in our time so that they would be forgotten permanently and have no home in the afterlife.)

The battles of Qadesh and those against the sea peoples were pretty embarrassing, but still they were dealt with. The home population would always hear of what was happening elsewhere when soldiers or other people came back from distant places. This explains the repackaging of events found in some Egyptian records.

There is good reason for a Hebrew exodus not to have happened. The Egyptians had been bitten by the Hyksos and were well-aware of the possibility of letting such a thing to happen, so they took steps to make sure such a thing wouldn't. That's was the first movement which led to the Egyptian empire and we have a continuous historically strong Egyptian record from the time of Ahmose in 1550 BCE down to the time of the arrival of the sea peoples (including the Philistines) in about 1160 BCE. No pharaoh drowned. No records of subsequent build ups of foreigners in Egypt. There were none, for the xenophobic Egyptians didn't allow it, having been prepared by their Hyksos experience.

Marduk · 03-26-2002, 02:29 PM

"Also guys, remember that Moses spilt the red sea into two using his staff, so how come there is no mention of such incredible power as I certain that everyone who saw it will be greatly impressed(if it happens)."

Oh come on, if any Bronze age deity pulled off a stunt like this men would have lined up from Thebes to Baalbek to have their trouser snakes trimmed, Egyptians included. And all of Egypt's enemies would have pounced down on her upon hearing that the entire Egyptian army was just drowned. Egypt was full of gold in those days and everyone kissed Pharonic butt to get some.

Answerer · 03-27-2002, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck:

Oh come on, if any Bronze age deity pulled off a stunt like this men would have lined up from Thebes to Baalbek to have their trouser snakes trimmed, Egyptians included. And all of Egypt's enemies would have pounced down on her upon hearing that the entire Egyptian army was just drowned. Egypt was full of gold in those days and everyone kissed Pharonic butt to get some.[/QB]

Well, thats my point and thanks for proving it.To me, the bible is some ancient texts that is written illogically. If such power exists, wouldn't the Jews conquer the world already?

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]

Radcliffe Emerson · 03-27-2002, 06:18 AM

I think Israel might have lived in exile in Egypt, but I don't think they were slaves. Evidence being uncovered now as excavations sites indicates slavery wasn't that widespread in Egypt. Egypt was probably the most eclectic nation in that area during that period.
I think it's more likely the Jews were being taxed, and they finally just said "we're leaving" and the Egyptians replied "bye".
Then their legends of being taxed unfairly or whatever became exodus stories. Possibly also why tax collectors are treated so harshly in later bible stories.

RyanS2 · 03-27-2002, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by askeptic:
I think Israel might have lived in exile in Egypt, but I don't think they were slaves. Evidence being uncovered now as excavations sites indicates slavery wasn't that widespread in Egypt. Egypt was probably the most eclectic nation in that area during that period.
I think it's more likely the Jews were being taxed, and they finally just said "we're leaving" and the Egyptians replied "bye".
Then their legends of being taxed unfairly or whatever became exodus stories. Possibly also why tax collectors are treated so harshly in later bible stories.

Actually, that's a very interesting point about slavery and Egypt. The introduction of slaves in Egypt only begun with the Hyksos, they were the only people in Egypt to use slavery.

"The Hyksos immediately proceeded to kill all the Egyptian males. Many Egyptians fled to Crete and the Aegean mainland, where - with the indigenous population they reconstituted a semblance of their culture. This accounts for the architectural similarity along with the concept of the 'Living God' in the religion of the Classical Age. Further, the Hyksos introduced the idea of 'slavery' into Egypt. Prior to their occupation, no Asiatics or sub-Sahara Blacks were permitted into Egypt. The Hyksos, in fact, brought in Blacks as slaves..."

<a href="http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html" target="_blank">http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html</a>

This also strikes me as interesting because enforced slavery is a key issue in the Bible which the Old Testament fiercely advocates.

spin · 03-27-2002, 10:45 PM

This stuff is pretty rancid:

<a href="http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html" target="_blank">http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html</a>

It's dominated by Rohl neo-Velikovskian tripe.

The connection between the Hebrews and the Habiru (one should note the "i" in the Akkadian word: it tells you that "Hebrew" didn't come from the Akkadian) is merely because they words look similar. "Habiru" is a word which indicates people on the margins of society, be that in Palestine or elsewhere in the Akkadian using world. There were Habiru in the north of Syria and in Mesopotamia.

I can see this slack idea eventually being let go of as well, as many scholars have quietly dropped the conquest model.

.

RyanS2 · 03-28-2002, 02:43 AM

Interesting perspective. (The author of it has sections which he seems to simultaneously blast Christianity, while at others confirming it like a zealous believer, so I'm not sure what to make of some sections.) However, do you dispute that the Hyksos introduced slavery? The reason I ask this is because of another Christian website:

<a href="http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/qa/adb/millennium.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/qa/adb/millennium.htm</a>

This one asserts that the conquest of Egypt took place around the 2400 BCE mark. If the Hyksos introduced slavery, then it would be very hard pressed to make that date connectively, because the Israelites couldn't be slaves in a place where slavery did not yet exist. So, if this is true and the Hyksos did introduce slavery to Egypt, then the argument that the Hebrews did the conquest of Ai is placed on a hard balance scale, (which is why the time shift is being done here), along with the Exodus taking place here.

Peregrine · 03-28-2002, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by askeptic:

They said, however, that Egypt never recorded details of their defeats, only their victories. As the exodus, if it happened would have been a defeat, they would not have recorded it.

I am sure that if the exodus happened, the Egyptians would have recorded it as a victory. Nations have done this for centuries. I could see Egypt recording the exodus as a jewish army 100 times larger than the Egyptian forces being defeated at the shores of the Reed Sea (not Red Sea), but the great leader of the Egyptian peoples was killed.

leonarde · 03-28-2002, 07:55 AM

I agree essentially with Peregrine: when a monumental disaster strikes people head for the
hills and try to save themselves. Only the winners
and (possibly) a few survivors among the losers
get to write that history.
When there is a lesser defeat frequently it is
either glossed over or, in some cases, completely
misrepresented. In Iraq, I understand, the Gulf
War has been portrayed for a decade as a great
victory for Arabs, Iraq, and Sadam Hussein. Do we
really need to go into how one-sided THAT WAR
was?
If there is anything fishy about the whole thing
it has to do with the lack of a written record
about any of the plagues (at least any record that
I'm aware of ).
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-28-2002, 07:59 AM

Reading through Peregrine's account, I realize that we probably DON'T agree: in my opinion a minor defeat and even a significant semi-major
one which did not result in any loss of territory
could be omitted from written historical accounts.

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

03-26-2002, 02:21 PM	#41
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	davidH: ---------------- Actually it's hardly surprising that the Exodus was never recorded by the Egyptians. If you think about it - it was the biggest of embarassements for the whole nation. ---------------- As we've seen there's no reason to believe that, if such an event had happened, I wouldn't get dealt with. Something would need to have been said. Pharaohs, we can see, didn't just cover things up that went bad. (This is not what was attempted with Hatshepsut or Akhenaten. The action against them was to rob them of their names in the present so that they would receive no memories in our time so that they would be forgotten permanently and have no home in the afterlife.) The battles of Qadesh and those against the sea peoples were pretty embarrassing, but still they were dealt with. The home population would always hear of what was happening elsewhere when soldiers or other people came back from distant places. This explains the repackaging of events found in some Egyptian records. There is good reason for a Hebrew exodus not to have happened. The Egyptians had been bitten by the Hyksos and were well-aware of the possibility of letting such a thing to happen, so they took steps to make sure such a thing wouldn't. That's was the first movement which led to the Egyptian empire and we have a continuous historically strong Egyptian record from the time of Ahmose in 1550 BCE down to the time of the arrival of the sea peoples (including the Philistines) in about 1160 BCE. No pharaoh drowned. No records of subsequent build ups of foreigners in Egypt. There were none, for the xenophobic Egyptians didn't allow it, having been prepared by their Hyksos experience.

03-26-2002, 02:29 PM	#42
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Also guys, remember that Moses spilt the red sea into two using his staff, so how come there is no mention of such incredible power as I certain that everyone who saw it will be greatly impressed(if it happens)." Oh come on, if any Bronze age deity pulled off a stunt like this men would have lined up from Thebes to Baalbek to have their trouser snakes trimmed, Egyptians included. And all of Egypt's enemies would have pounced down on her upon hearing that the entire Egyptian army was just drowned. Egypt was full of gold in those days and everyone kissed Pharonic butt to get some.

03-27-2002, 06:18 AM	#44
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I think Israel might have lived in exile in Egypt, but I don't think they were slaves. Evidence being uncovered now as excavations sites indicates slavery wasn't that widespread in Egypt. Egypt was probably the most eclectic nation in that area during that period. I think it's more likely the Jews were being taxed, and they finally just said "we're leaving" and the Egyptians replied "bye". Then their legends of being taxed unfairly or whatever became exodus stories. Possibly also why tax collectors are treated so harshly in later bible stories.

03-27-2002, 10:45 PM	#46
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	This stuff is pretty rancid: <a href="http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html" target="_blank">http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html</a> It's dominated by Rohl neo-Velikovskian tripe. The connection between the Hebrews and the Habiru (one should note the "i" in the Akkadian word: it tells you that "Hebrew" didn't come from the Akkadian) is merely because they words look similar. "Habiru" is a word which indicates people on the margins of society, be that in Palestine or elsewhere in the Akkadian using world. There were Habiru in the north of Syria and in Mesopotamia. I can see this slack idea eventually being let go of as well, as many scholars have quietly dropped the conquest model. .

03-28-2002, 02:43 AM	#47
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	Interesting perspective. (The author of it has sections which he seems to simultaneously blast Christianity, while at others confirming it like a zealous believer, so I'm not sure what to make of some sections.) However, do you dispute that the Hyksos introduced slavery? The reason I ask this is because of another Christian website: <a href="http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/qa/adb/millennium.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/qa/adb/millennium.htm</a> This one asserts that the conquest of Egypt took place around the 2400 BCE mark. If the Hyksos introduced slavery, then it would be very hard pressed to make that date connectively, because the Israelites couldn't be slaves in a place where slavery did not yet exist. So, if this is true and the Hyksos did introduce slavery to Egypt, then the argument that the Hebrews did the conquest of Ai is placed on a hard balance scale, (which is why the time shift is being done here), along with the Exodus taking place here.

03-28-2002, 07:55 AM	#49
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I agree essentially with Peregrine: when a monumental disaster strikes people head for the hills and try to save themselves. Only the winners and (possibly) a few survivors among the losers get to write that history. When there is a lesser defeat frequently it is either glossed over or, in some cases, completely misrepresented. In Iraq, I understand, the Gulf War has been portrayed for a decade as a great victory for Arabs, Iraq, and Sadam Hussein. Do we really need to go into how one-sided THAT WAR was? If there is anything fishy about the whole thing it has to do with the lack of a written record about any of the plagues (at least any record that I'm aware of ). Cheers!

03-28-2002, 07:59 AM	#50
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Reading through Peregrine's account, I realize that we probably DON'T agree: in my opinion a minor defeat and even a significant semi-major one which did not result in any loss of territory could be omitted from written historical accounts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.