davidH

Alright Amos, I see where you are coming from
But doesn't the Bible say that Jesus Christ is the head of the church?
For now I will leave it, but you may want to follow what I say and add your comments - it's good to get a different viewpoint.

zwi,
You wrote:


Yes, there are 2 explanations for this;

1. It never happened.
2. Egyptians wanted it covered up.

If you go with option 1 then you have to be sure that you can say with certainty that if the Exodus did happen the Egyptians would have recorded it.

However I'm of the opinion that the Egyptian wouldn't have recorded it.
Why:

1. The Egyptian gods were shown to have no power to protect Egypt - this could never be implied by Egyptian history.

2. Pharaoh would have looked extremely bad at having been so stuborn and brought all this on Egypt - this wouldn't have been recorded by him.

3. Egyptian had a great and vast empire - would they record the defeat of one of their armies and the escape of an umarmed load of slaves?

The choice is yours but as for me I would never have expected the Exodus to be recorded in Egyptian history.

But if you follow my theory I will show that the Exodus explains somethings that historians find puzzling - the Exodus explains this.

WRW Mattfeld,

No, this was an entirely different event - recorded acturately. You are following a strange method here - you take a period of history that is like the Exodus and then fit the Exodus into that time frame.
But, since the Biblical record doesn't fit it you say that this is where the myth of the Exodus comes from.

But bare with me and see what I think happened.

joejoejoe,

Again, I will cover this later but at the minute I concentrate on the exodus and whether it is possible to have happened when the Bible says it did.

Amos

You are correct, it is the subjugation of his authority. Mary is always in charge, as the dispenser of graces through the Holy Spirit while we are alienated from God, as the head waitres while we are in purgatory, and after the Coronation when we get to heaven.

The difference is that at first we do not recognize much intuit influence, in purgatory we do and must learn to walk on it, and in heaven we only go by it because we have placed reason (since been resurrected as Christ), subservient to it.

WRW Mattfeld

I must say I find david's logic rather confusing. He claims the Exodus is differnt from the Hyksos expulsion and that the Bible suggests a different date. My studies of the Bible suggest THAT THE BIBLE"S DATE FOR THE EXODUS MATCHES THE HYKSOS EXPULSION.

Another scholar, De Vries had made earlier, similar, observations:


"It should be pointed out, moreover, that the chronology demanded by the
books of the Judges and Samuel actually far exceeds the figure of 480 years.
As will be seen from Table 3, a total of 554 years plus two periods of
unknown length occupy the interval from the Exodus to the founding of
Solomon's temple. Josephus evidently based his estimate of 592 (Antiq.
8.3.1) or 612 (Apion 2.2) years for this period upon this observation (cf.
Acts 13:18-21)." (p.584, Vol.1. S.J. De Vries. "Chronology of the Old Testament." G.A.Buttrick, Editor. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville. Abingdon Press. 1962)


De Vries noted two periods of unaccounted length, the period of Joshua and
the Elders (Judg. 2:7) and the length of King Saul's reign, noting a "full
number" was lacking ( 1 Sam. 13:1). He renders these two anomalies as "X"
and "Y" in his formula thusly:


554 yrs. + X + Y + 966 BCE (Solomon's 4th yr) = 1520 BCE and "EARLIER" for
the Exodus.


De Vries, in passing, alluded to another important "dating marker" but did
not directly employ it in his article, the historical schema preserved in
Acts 13:18-21.


Acts 13:18-21 provides us with the length of Saul's reign, missing from De
Vries' "Table 3", equation "Y" and the missing data on Joshua and the
Judges, equation "X" :


"For some forty years he bore with their conduct in the desert. Then in the
Canaanite country, after overthrowing seven nations, whose lands he gave
them to be their heritage for some 450 years he appointed judges for them
until the time of the prophet Samuel. It was then that they asked for a
king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin. He
reigned forty years before God removed him and appointed David as their
King..."


The above statement is suppossedly from Paul, who claimed to possess Jewish
priestly training and knowledge. Evidently there existed in Paul's times
Jewish notions of a chronology at variance with 1 Kings 6:1 and its 480
years.


I note that according to 1 Kings 2:10-11, David reigned 40 years:


"So David rested with his forefathers and was buried in the city of David,
having reigned over Israel for forty years..."


We are told that in the fourth year of Solomon the Temple was begun (1 Kings
6:1)


So, when we add up the totals from Acts 13:18-21, 1 Kings 2:10-11, and 1
Kings 6:1 we have 40 yrs in the Wilderness, 450 years to Saul, 40 yrs for Saul's
reign, 40 yrs for David's reign, 4 yrs for Solomon and the temple, for a
grand total of 574 years between the Exodus and the Temple's founding. Add
this to 966 BCE when the Temple was begun, and we have 1540 BCE for the
Exodus date, on the "testimony of the sacred writings" of the Jews and Early
Christians.

David are you telling me that Acts 13:18-21, allegedly written by men under the inspiration of God and the Holy Spirit are WRONG, that the Exodus was NOT 574 years before Solomon's 4th year of 966 BCE, i.e., 1540 BCE (The Hyksos Expulsion). If so, then you have just destroyed the Bible's credibility. You need to get your Bible facts straight.

davidH

Ok now to carry on with my theory.

We've already seen how the first bit of the Biblical date fits in perfectly and shows why the Biblical pharaoh would want to enslave the Israelites.

But what about the rest of history - does it correspond?
----------------------------


Lets examine the time when Moses fled in 1486BC.

Before I go into Egyptian history I want highlight something in the Biblical account that is strange.

Now Moses was brought up by Ahmose's daughter as her son and as a prince. Now the interesting point must be made here - why did pharaoh try to kill Moses?
Why did pharaoh even have Moses retain his position if he was an Israelite - surely he would have been kicked out.

Now this is my reasoning (follow this and see if my logic is good).
Moses, by killing the Egyptian had given Pharaoh a reason to get rid of him (pharaoh tried to kill him). If Moses had been a normal Egyptian prince this would have all been covered up - there is no doubt in my mind about this.
However with Moses since he is an Israelite it is different - pharaoh tries to kill Moses.

Now, pharaoh trying to kill Moses shows that pharaoh didn't like having an Israelite in the court.

This leads on to another important point - why did pharaoh have to wait until Moses did something wrong to get rid of him? What was the reason that Moses was kept around so long if he was disliked so much?

The only reason that I can think of is that he was protected by someone who was extremely high up in position - held in respect by pharaoh himself.
So pharaoh couldn't get rid of Moses without Moses giving him a very good excuse to do so.

Logical so far?

So who could this person have been that had so much influence?

A look at Egyptian history gives us such a person.

Ahmose-Nefertari.

Why? Because she was the mother of the daughter that would have found Moses in the Nile - therefore she would have been Moses' "Grandmother" (as Moses was her daughter's adopted son.)

Ahmose-Nefertari, as I posted in my last post was an extremely powerful woman. So this is the reason why I said last post that Moses would have been under her protection.
Below is what is recorded by Egyptian history:

So we find that Ahmose-Nefertari retained this position of power (God's wife) until her death sometime during the reign of Thutmose I.
Thutmose I reigned (1504 - 1492).
When she died the position of God's wife was passed to Hatshepsut (Thutmose I's daughter).

Then came the pharaoh Thutmose II (1492 - 1479) and it is during the reign of this pharaoh that Moses flees (1486).

So 6-10 years after Ahmose-Nefertari died Moses flees....at this stage it could well be coincidence but bare with me a little longer.
Firstly I would like to examine Queen Hatshepsut who took over from Ahmose-Nefertari - especially for those that know nothing of her.

Basically if you look up any website on her you will see that she was someone who was hungry for power and is say to have dominated her husband Thutmose II before she took power in the reign of Thutmose III.

So her real influence began to show in the reign of her husband Thutmose II. This is significant because in the reign of Thutmose II Moses flees (1486)
- so could Hatshepsut have been the one that disliked Moses so much and wanted rid of him?

So Moses' offical protection ended most likely with the death of Ahmose-Nefertari, but it wasn't until the middle of the reign of Thutmose II that he was forced to flee approx 10 years later.

So although it could well have been Thutmose II that wanted Moses dead, I think it far more likely that it was Hatshepsut.
The reason is basically because of her lust for power. As shown above she stated that she saw herself as being Thutmose I's heir and it was in all likely hood that she ruled through Thutmose II. Moses must still have been held in high respect by others that knew Ahmose-Nefertari, since Hatshepsut has to wait until Moses gives her a good enough excuse.

Again looking at Egyptian history - Could Hatshepsut have had any reason to want rid of Moses?

Maybe she hated the Israelites and so hated Moses,but there is another reason...a much stronger one.

Moses, the Bible says was adopted as the prince of pharaoh's daughter.
Again lets look at this:

Merytamun was the wife if Amenhotep I so Moses was Amenhotep's adopted Son. So the question to ask is could this have put Moses the Israelite on the list for the throne of Egypt?

Again turn to Egyptian history and we notice something extremely interesting. Let me quote it:

So Thutmose I wasn't the member of Ahmenhotep I's family......but according to the Bible Moses would have been his Son.
So here we have it Moses would have been inline for the throne.

The Bible also implies this here:

So is this why Moses never attempted to claim the throne after Amenhotep I? But to me this verse does suggest the likelyhood that Moses at one time was inline for pharaoh - and this is supported by Egyptian history.

So was this why Hatshepsut disliked Moses? Did she fear that he might try to reclaim the throne saying that he was a Son of Amenhotep?
There are many possibilities that arise, but the motive is there.
Hatshepsut has written that she was of royal blood being descended from Ahmose (debatable) - I'll quote this later.

But again the Biblical Exodus does fit in and motives for unusual things arise.

As a summary - when Ahmose-Nefertari died Moses protection went to and things became uncertain. Hatshepsut took over Ahmose-Nefertari's position and after her father died she became thirsty for power - claiming that she was the heir of her Father. Thutmose II became pharaoh, but she was the real ruler. Seeing the threat from Moses as someone who could potentially have grounds to claim the throne, she saw and took the opurtunity to try and kill Moses when he killed the Egyptian.
Moses then Flees from Egypt.

Comment on this - I'm tired and so I could be making mistakes (had to read up a lot again).

Also something else to think about. Why was Hatshepsut still obsessed with the Hykos people's - trying to make out that it was her and not Ahmose that had driven them out?

I'll try and get more of the theory up tomorrow - but let me know what you think.

davidH

WRW Mattfield,

I will answer you fully later, but for the moment I will give you one thing to think about.

You are seriously wrong about Acts 13 v 20.
Possibly you got this off a website which sadly didn't give the first couple of verses.

Maybe you would care to read it again and correct yourself.

As for the rest of your answer I haven't read it completely - it is late and I will try and get answering it tomorrow.

Cya.

Mendeh

So a summary of the argument so far goes:

- Pharaoh tried to kill Moses, rather than just kicking him out. (This is only found in the Bible story, absolutely no basis in Egyptian records whatsoever, but let's not let that get in the way of things.)

- Ahmose-Nefertari might have wanted to protect Moses (And there's absolutely no reason for her to do this, any mention of her in the Bible story, or indeed anything even slightly relevant in the Egyptian record, but let's not let that get in the way of things.)

- Thutmose I wasn't directly related to Ahmose. (So what? If Ahmose had no heirs, then Moses couldn't have been in line for the throne, and there is nothing in the Egyptian record to suggest that he had any heirs, much less that one of them was some guy called Moses who appears nowhere in the Egyptian record, but let's not let that get in the way of things.)

- Hatshepsut might have hated Moses, because Moses might have been in line for the throne. (Notwithstanding the fact that there's no mention of her hating Moses, or indeed mention of Moses's existence anywhere in the record, but let's not let that get in the way of things.)

And then to cap it all, we're asked why Hatshepsut claimed herself as the one that drove out the Hyksos, when davidH relies on the claim that the Egyptian pharaohs routinely completely changed history to make it slightly more favourable to them, in order to support his argument!

It is difficult to accuse the Egyptians of rewriting history to any greater extent than other civilisations of the period – including the Israelites. They certainly used propaganda to favour their position, but no more than their neighbours; for example, both sides, Egyptian (under Rameses II) and Hittite (under Muwatalli), claimed victory at the stalemate Battle of Qadesh in Syria. Rameses spun the battle's disastrous beginnings, with the Hittite army running his advancing first division ragged, as an incredible escape from the jaws of death that proved he had the support of Amun. The eventual battle ended in a deadlock, with a truce rather than treaty being declared. And Rameses did not achieve his objectives in the region, neither did Egypt ever regain Qadesh or Amurru. However, he did return home with vast amounts of booty and prisoners of war, he severely damaged Muwatalli's army, and he was a sufficiently dangerous foe for the Hittites that he could utterly toss out Muwatalli's proposed peace treaty; and so his victory claim, if not completely accurate, is certainly not completely unfounded, either.

If one looks at the famous king-list of Seti I, one finds the omission of the kings Akhenaten, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen, and Ay, which shows that they had been completely written out of the official records: Amenhotep III is followed by Horemheb, and the regnal years of the heretical recent past were added to his reign. Hatshepsut found herself victim to a similar exercise. But the fact is, none of these examples were completely erased from either the archaeological or even just the literary record. The idea that the Egyptians had complete control over their history is simply bogus.

It needs also to be remembered that other cultures of the same time were guilty of exactly the same historical reimagination; including, it must be pointed out, the compilers of the Old Testament. For example, we now know that the supposedly united monarchy of David and Solomon actually consisted of distinctly different states, with unique cultures. The assumption that the complete lack of corroborating physical or literary evidence for an Exodus must be explained by a fraudulent re-writing of Egyptian history, and not by an exaggeration of the truth in the Bible stories, surely seems a to be little unfairly biased.

"Why did pharaoh try to kill Moses?
Why did pharaoh even have Moses retain his position if he was an Israelite - surely he would have been kicked out."

Moses was an Israelite, and last time I checked my copy of the Bible, they weren't too popular with the Egyptians at that time. A straightforward explanation could just be that Moses outlived his usefulness once he started showing signs of independence from his Egyptian indoctrination.
But hang on, that is taking for granted that the story is actually real: the simplest explanation is that Pharaoh is the wicked king, who of course would try and kill Moses because he's a bad man with a "hardened heart", and Moses is the good guy.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Ahmose-Nefetari was protecting Moses, either in the Egyptian record or in the Bible. In addition, queens and daughters in the Egyptian royal family come and go all the time. One could set the story in any time period you like and still find a suitable candidate to protect him. In any case, why should Ahmose-Nefetari want to protect Moses? Just because she's his _step_-_grandmother_? It's a rather tenuous link.

The Bible only mentions a good pharaoh and a new, nasty pharaoh – there is no suggestion that Moses lived through three pharaoh's reigns, whereas the theory above suggests Moses lived through Ahmose, Thutmose I and II, or that he had special protection from a powerful source inside the palace. Isn't this rather twisting the story to try and crow-bar it into place?

It is an implicit assumption that Moses was the step-son of Merytamun, when there was at least one other royal princess knocking about: Satkamose. Why arbitrarily define Moses as being adopted by Merytamen? Not because there's any evidence linking Moses to Merytamen, of course, but because that is the only way that this part of the Exodus story can be crow-barred in to fit with the known historical record.

Moses would have had no blood connection to the throne at all, being not only non-royal but also non-Egyptian. Any noble would have had a better blood-claim. The fact that succession passed without event to Thutmose I would tend to imply that he had plenty of support.
Need it be pointed out that there is absolutely no suggestion in the Egyptian record of anyone called Moses knocking about the royal palace at that time?

The idea that a pharaoh would need grounds before they could make someone 'disappear' is rather naive: if not the idea that the grounds would actually have to exist at all, then particularly the idea that those grounds would need to be based in fact. A small dose of poison would be far easier.

WRW Mattfeld

davidH

Ok, thanks for the posts. I'll reply first before going on with the theory.

Mendeh - thanks for posting.

Mendeh, if you look at the title of this topic you will see that it is "Exodus....possible or not?".

You are throwing out my theory because there is no evidence in Egyptian history that talks about it.
If you look at one of my other posts you will see that I give reasons why the Exodus (Biblical account) would never be recorded in history.
Unless of course you can show that if the Exodus had happened as the Bible says - that the Egyptians would have recorded it.

But I doubt sincerely that you will try to argue that - if the Exodus happened exactly as the Bible said then it is of little wonder that it is not recorded - do you agree with me on this?

However others see the Exodus as the expelling of the Hykos peoples - why? Because it offers them an alternative "Exodus" but without the plagues and the miracles that are supernatural.
That is the view that WRW Mattfield has taken.
But I am taking a date for the Exodus given in 1 Kings and applying it to Egyptian history.
If nothing fits...then the Exodus is unlikely to have occurred during that time. However if the Exodus story does fit in with Egyptian history then the truth of the Exodus has to be considered.

Ahmose is seen to have had no heirs because none of his sons have been recorded in history - which they would only have been if the throne had been passed onto them.
There is no mention of Moses - and why should there be, after all he was only their adopted son and an Israelite at that.

And why should this have been put onto a monument or something? It was hardly a great feat was it - I can see it now "Hatshepsut the Great fails to kill fleeing Moses."

No Mendeh This is not what I am saying at all.
I am not implying that the Egyptians changed their history around - and this has nothing to do with my theory at all.
I was asking out of interest to see if anyone else knew because the books I have give no reason why she would have wanted to do this.

So I am not accusing the Egyptians of rewriting history at all Mendeh.
But what I am saying is that the Exodus would never have been recorded in their History.

From what I have already written you will see that this is not my position.

But the next points you raise Mendeh are interesting.

Again as you said you are assuming the Biblical story is correct and so you have to ask the question - Why would an Israelite have been tolerated in royalty for so long? As you said he wouldn't have been popular - and yet he stayed until this particular time...

Again of course there is zero evidence because why should there be?
Again if you look at my theory so far it is based on the fact that Moses flees soon after she dies and Hatshepsut comes to power.
Moses was an Israelite in an Egyptian royalty - he had to be in someone's favour to stick it out that long. Someone that the pharaoh respected - therefore Ahmose-Nefertari is a candidate. Would you not say that a Mother would look after her grandchild after her son died?
- I see this as perfectly likely.

(But bare with me until I get the whole theory out because at this stage it's guess work.)

However Mendeh would you not say that it is significant that by the date given by the Bible, sofar it has fitted perfectly? Reasons have been able to have been guessed at - all perfectly reasonable ones.

No, the Bible only calls the ruler pharaoh, even in later times he is still referred to as pharaoh. The Bible only highlights the pharaoh that wanted Moses dead as having died - but the next King is still called pharaoh.
So I can see no problem in this at all - and hardly can be called crow-baring!
Maybe it is also worth mentioning that the Bible was never meant to be a historical document and so you can't expect it to record the deaths of every ruler - it only focuses on Israel.

Again this is only a theory, it is possible that is wasn't Merytamun. As it stands I have been unable to find much about Satkamose - searches on the internet turn up very little. So, if you have information that goes into detail on her I would be interested.

Again you use the word "crow-barred" - I don't have to twist Egyptian history at all to make her the one that found Moses. She is Ahmose's daughter and so she is a princess when Moses is taken from the Nile.

Also here is something else to consider - it the pharaoh had given a decree to have all Israelite males killed, how could the daughter of the Pharaoh have been allowed to keep the child? She would have to be an example before the people, however at the time when Moses' is found we find that Ahmose dies - so is that why Moses survived?
- Again it fits in.

Yeah, this is a good point and could well be why it happened. Then this reinforces the idea that Hatshepsut was suspicious of Moses and wanted rid of him.
Maybe she thought that he had hard feeling etc. This again provides a reason why Hatshepsut could have wanted rid of Moses.

Again you mention that Moses' name isn't mentioned anywhere - well, would it have been mentioned? Moses an Israelite but a prince - what reason would anyone have of putting his name anywhere?

In actual fact after the Exodus the pharaoh would have made sure that Moses name was removed from anywhere that it had been written - since he had caused so much trouble for Egypt.

Exactly - and so you have to ask yourself why did Moses hang around for so long? If only because he was under the protection of someone....

If you read the Exodus you will see that Moses knew that he was in danger after he had killed the Egyptian and he left Egypt...
Again no protection from anyone to stand between him and the Queen.
Do you really think that the Egyptian court would have tolerated an Israelite - one of the children of the slaves, if he wasn't protected in some way.

Think about it and you will see that he had to have been.

But before you reply to all this read the rest of the theory and see what you think.

davidH

WRW Mattfield.

No Mattfield - I was referring to what you said about Acts 13 v 18-21.
I think you understand the mistake that you made...though again you refer to passages that contradict each other...
Ok lets examine what you had said previously.

Ok based on 1Kings 2 10-11 we have established that David reigned for 40 years.
Based on 1Kings 6 v 1 we have 480 years since Israel left Egypt on the night of the passover
Saul reigned for approx. 40 years.
Now this is where you go wrong Mattfield.

Lets examine Acts 13 v 17-21

Now lets see how you interpreted this:

Reading the verses above you will see where you have gone wrong. The 450 years is from when the people where in Egypt UNTIL the time of the judges.
Not until the time of Saul - the period between the Exodus and the rebuilding of the temple is 480 years - and this includes the time of the judges, Saul and David.

I don't think you had the whole passage otherwise you would have surely seen all this.

Now lets examine what you said after that:

No, the men speaking under the Holy Spirit were perfectly correct in everything that was said - but the Exodus is not 574 years before Solomon's building of the temple.

Maybe at the minute you wonder if the time from when the Israelites first settled in Egypt and when they overthrew Canaan is about 450 years as was written.

And they were in the desert around 40 years.

So that gives the total of 470 years - how does that compare with the man writting Acts?

was about 450 years.

So the man is perfectly correct in what he has said.

Can you see this Mattfield? - There is no contradiction.
And I have gone through the period of the Judges and have made a timeline and it is complicated but going from a particular mile stone I could post some stuff up if you would like to see it.

Is it really so naive? There are no contradictions Mattfield - I think you now see that. So maybe now you will take seriously my attempts to form a theory with the date given by the Bible.

Yes, this is so - and why it is I don't know.
One question - what does the oldest Hebrew manuscript mentioning this say? - Ie. The dead sea scrolls?

But WRW Mattfield - maybe now you will begin to reconsider the viewpoint that you have taken - as I had to reconsider my previous theory of the Exodus.

Doh! - I've taken up too much time again and don't have time to put up the rest of the theory (which is nearly done) so I think I'll be able to get that squeezed in tomorrow.

Alright keep the opinion flying.
Cya.

zwi

I posted earlier that the Egyptians left no records correspoonding to the Biblical Exodus

Let me quote my friend David Egan who wrote elsewhere

There are other historical problems as well. For instance, the Bible would have us understand that about 600,000 Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, and that, in escaping, Moses and co. exacted cataclysmic revenge on their enslavers. The Egyptians have no record of this vast slave race, and they certainly have no record of frogs falling from the sky and all that other stuff (you'd think this would be the sort of thing Egyptians scribes would be interested in recording). Further, there seems to have been no evident cultural exchange between Hebrews and Egyptians, which would be odd if the two cultures had been living together over several generations.

I am looking for nonBiblical evidence of the Exodus story

Does any exist?

Zwi