Interesting You Tube Movie

@caissad4

More dishonest rubbish.

Other than accusations of dishonesty do you intend to deal with the literary problems with your conspiracy ?

No Egyptian records describe the Exodus. One would not expect such an account. The primary purpose of Egyptian records at that period was to cast pharaoh in a positive light, and the events of the biblcal narratives would do anything but that.

- Sailhamer

Expectations for archaeological confirmation go up manifold levels depending on the significance of what is being recorded.
examined. For something like God intervening in Exodus humiliating a world empire which lasted longer than any other on earth, calls for impossible standards by atheists.

Caissad4 is trying to portray herself as objectively considering a history that she hopes with everything is a fiction.
Then God is fiction - the longed for belief.

@caissad4

It is part of their Torah and they tried mightily to prove its' historicity but admitted after much searching it was not historical You would have to a be moron to think that approx. 3 million people wandered a small desert for 40 years and left no evidence to be found.

As a field archaeologist myself, I am keenly aware of how little has actually survived from the ancient past, owing to natural forces, such as moisture in many forms, deflation, and earthquakes, as well as human impact in the form of later occupation (in ancient times), reusing earlier building materials, human destruction (war and burning), and modern development (urban and agricultural). Realistic expectations about what archaeology can and cannot do for biblical studies must always be key in mind.)

Hoffmeier

You would have to a be moron to think that approx. 3 million people wandered a small desert for 40 years and left no evidence to be found.

My reasoning about it includes the possibility and power and Person of God.

You begin your reasoning excluding God, continue your considerations without the possibility of God, and arrive at your conclusion without any consideration to God's power.

Now Christ definitely took the historicity of Moses as authentic. Why again should I be more impressed with your integrity then that of Jesus Christ ?

@sonship said
My reasoning about it includes the possibility and power and Person of God.

Doesn't this mean - equipped with your religionist version of "reasoning" - that you can explain anything and everything away with some variant of 'God did it' if it doesn't make sense or if it is not credible to the person you're talking to?

And you then have the gall to argue it is morally coherent to 'hang out on chains' those whose ideas and beliefs don't just so happen to concur with your reasoning? Hmmm.

@sonship said

You would have to a be moron to think that approx. 3 million people wandered a small desert for 40 years and left no evidence to be found.

My reasoning about it includes the possibility and power and Person of God.

You begin your reasoning excluding God, continue your considerations without the possibility of God, and arrive at your conclusion witho ...[text shortened]... s as authentic. Why again should I be more impressed with your integrity then that of Jesus Christ ?

Since there was no Moses and Exodus, if it follows that Jesus guy did not know that Moses was a fictional character, then Jesus guy could not possibly be any sort of divine all-knowing being. Having said one, you must say two.
You assert the existence of God, but provide no proof, except your opinions.
I would gladly examine any real secular evidence, not opinions, backing your claims. You, on the other had, cannot let go of your imagined reality because it would diminish or eliminate your reason for living.

@FMF

Doesn't this mean - equipped with your religionist version of "reasoning" - that you can explain anything and everything away with some variant of 'God did it' if it doesn't make sense or if it is not credible to the person you're talking to?

Spend some time to encourage caissad4 to address the reasonable questions I asked which she quickly dismisses with the word "rubbish". If you find her explanation more credible.

@sonship said
Spend some time to encourage caissad4 to address the reasonable questions I asked which she quickly dismisses with the word "rubbish". If you find her explanation more credible.

Your dodge is noted.

@caissad4

I am unconvinced of your assertions over against the Bible. Here's one.

Since there was no Moses and Exodus,

Hardly impressed. Exodus does not read like a "Once upon a time in a far off land" story. It reads like history.
As the story gets moving, suddenly in chapter 6 the writer pauses to run through the genealogy so the audience is sure of exactly which Aaron and Moses he is talking about. I'll abbreviate it.

We jump from verse 13 -

And Moses spoke before Jehovah, saying. The children of Israel do not now listen to me. How then will Pharoah listen to me, since I am of uncircumcised lips?

And Jehovah spoke to Moses and to Aaron and gave them a charge for the children of Israel and for Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. (6:12,13)

The next 15 verses are a parenthesis where the author runs down the geneology to assure us the historicity of these two leaders. I will skip most of it and just write the conclusion to this historical style prose.

Skipping down to verse 20:

And Amram took Jochebed his father's sister for himself as wife, and she bore him Aaron and Moses; and the years of Amram's life were one hundred thirty-seven years. (v.20)

And the sons of Izhar: Korah and Neopheg and Zichri, (v.21)

And the sons of Uzziel: Mishael and Elzaphan and Sithri. (v.22)

And Aaron took Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, for himself as wife; and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. (v.23)

And the sons of Korah; Assir and Elkanah and Abiasaph, these are the families of the Korahites, (v.24)

And Eleazar, Aaron's son, took for himself one of the daughters of Putiel as wife, and she bore him Phinehas. These are the heads of the fathers houses of the Levites according to their families. (v.25)

It was this same Aaron and Moses to whom Jehovah said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies. (v.26)

It was they who spoke to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt; it is the same Moses and Aaron. (v.27)

And on the day when Jehovah spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, (v.28)

Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, I am Jehovah; speak to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, all that I speak to you. (v.29)

But Moses said before Jehovah, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How then will Pharaoh listen to me? (v.30)

This is not the writing of a Grimm's Fairy Tales - "Once upon a time ... etc. "
This is detailed historical writing of a clear minded and intelligent writer.
He is not begging you to believe. But he is in a matter of fact way establishing the background of persons deeply involved in the account.

The writer is informed, intelligent, given to meticulous detail.

if it follows that Jesus guy did not know that Moses was a fictional character, then Jesus guy could not possibly be any sort of divine all-knowing being. Having said one, you must say two.

It appears that you are saying to me that Jesus could not be both God and man.
You are doubting that the incarnation is possible.
I think you are saying that if Jesus was God then He could not be a finite typical human being too.

Your cavalier tone doesn't strengthen your unrealistic evaluation. Does Jesus appear to be a person excessively given to lies or delusions of men? Does the character of Jesus suggest a gullible and naive person?

You are objecting to the doctrine of incarnation - the Infinite God took on the form of a finite man.
He hungered, slept, was surprised, had to learn - carpentry, language, history, he wept, he was weary, he was an apprentice carpenter under his legal father, he was known by his brothers and sisters, and for 30 years mingled seamlessly with the people of Nazareth making no particular stir. Yet all this WITHOUT sin in His nature.

Then at the age of the commencement of a priest's profession His impact upon the world was cataclysmic.

You assert the existence of God, but provide no proof, except your opinions.
I would gladly examine any real secular evidence, not opinions, backing your claims. You, on the other had, cannot let go of your imagined reality because it would diminish or eliminate your reason for living.

I asked you about the very existence of the Aaronic priesthood. Ask a secular JEW who is perhaps not even a practicing member of Judaism. She or he could tell you that, yes, the tradition of Judiastic priests is so old and so established as part and parcel of the Jewish history.

I need a realistic alternative explanation of its origin - the offerings, the sacrifices, the Law of Moses, if all these things have another source then the account of the exodus and Sinai historical narrative.

You didn't even bother to use some imagination. Its a hard problem to solve for you. I think that is why the dismissive wave off.

@FMF

Your dodge is noted.

Your laziness not to spend time to give similar like advice to caissad4 was both anticipated AND noted.
Hard to fake genuine honest objectivity isn't it?

@sonship said
Hard to fake genuine honest objectivity isn't it?

Not faking anything, sonship. And neither of us is "objective" about any of this stuff. And I have always arguably been a more basically and instinctively honest poster than you. So this next pouty bit of your dodge misses its mark, I think.

Caissad4,

Stephen was the first Christian martyr - stoned to death for ceasing to preach about Jesus.

Stephen recounts in Acts 7 very clearly the history of Israel being led out of Egypt and into the wilderness and into Canaan. His audience, the exceedingly hostile scribes, Pharasees, and religious leaders don't bat an eye of objection to the basic outline. They object to the association it all has with this new Rabbi, Jesus.

They were all two thousand years closer to the events then you or I. For how many years and going back to WHAT point in their past did these Jews commence their prolonged self deception that these things took place to their nation?

When did the story begin to be fabricated, told, circulated, and definitely believed by all manner of Jews? - the traditionalist fundamental Pharisees, the modernistic Sadducees, the political activists Zealots ready for revolution, etc. Jesus Himself... etc.

Someone has interestingly brought out the legend of Sargon's birth and comparing it to Exodus version of the birth of Moses.

"Aha! The Jews obviously copied the whole the story from legends about the birth of Sargon. Look at the similarities!"

Well, there are some similarities to consider. And there are also some important differences to consider.
But mothers leaving their children in baskets to be left to fate is a repeated occurrence in ancient history.

Sargon, the mighty king, king of Agade, am I.
My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not.

The brother(s) of my father loved the hills.
My city is Azupirianu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates.

My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid.

She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me.
The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water.

Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er.
Akki, the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me.

So some argue that the Exodus account of the birth of Moses was copied from this earlier legend.
I'll consider the theory below in light of what experts on ANE folklore have said.

What are the similarities between the story of Sargon's birth and the birth of Moses.

Sargon's mother, like the mother of Moses, puts him into a basket and places him on water.
Sargon, like Moses, is saved from being totally abandoned there.
Sargon, like Moses, is adopted by someone other than his mother and is raised as that person's son.

I am told that burial baskets in the Cairo Museum that date to the Bronze age show what kind of common vessel might have served the purpose of Moses's mother to float him on the water.

It is argued that as the modern practice of leaving an unwanted or unable to be cared for baby in a crib on the steps of an orphanage, so in ancient times it was known for babies to be set adrift in water leaving their future to providence was done. Hoffmeier says many ancient accounts of this do exist.

Problem births were sometimes left to providence when a mother could not control circumstances related to a birth.
As in modern times, a parent may leave a baby in a crib on the doorstep of someone, a hospital, or an orphanage.

No one can insist the Moses story is a copy of the Sargon one for those similarities.

The "exposed child" motif is scene in folklore of legends of military leaders. That is the abandoned baby who becomes a great military figure.

The bio of Moses is very atypical of these "exposed child" legends in that Moses was kind of reluctant and even fearful military leader who murders a man. Then he flees for his life. He appears a bungling failure not like most of the "abandoned child - raised by someone else" type of ancient folklore.

Moses is reluctant to be a great leader and tries to get out of God calling him to do so about six times. Moses says he cannot speak well. And it is only after Yahweh gets angry with his hesitation and lack of faith that Moses cooperates.

This is not like most of the other "exposed child" motifs of great military leaders with rough childhood beginnings. This makes the Exodus story unlikely a copycat of one of these legends like that of Sargon.