@caissad4
You are trying to say a fairy tale is historically accurate.
No I am not. I am showing independent multiple attestation to the Moses story.
Stephen and those who stoned him to death were 2,000 years closer to the recorded event then you.
We don't see either party bewildered at the relating of something that never happened.
We see two parties at least vehemently seeking reasons to oppose each other. Yet they agree with the Exodus story.
You cannot just sweep things like this under the rug.
You are right about scant archaeological evidence.
No burning bush, Ten Commandments, plagues, sticks becoming snakes, sea being parted, water from a rock, manna from heaven and no "Let my people go !" .
You don't know that.
You hope that.
Moses is a plausible character.
And the writing of Exodus has many times more borrowed Egyptian words in it then any other book of the Old Testament.
It is noted that whoever wrote it had intimate knowledge of Egyptian life.
And the number of Egyptian borrowed words is evidence of the writer being heavily influenced by Egyptian education and familiar with Egyptian ways.
By the way, it is not unusual that a foreign captive would be raised in the household of Egyptian officials.
They had this strategy. Young men of other races, conquered or subversive races, would be brought up educated to be Egyptian. Moses was probably just one of a number of non-Egyptian boy brought up in the Egyptian royal court.
He was in fact
SO Egyptianized that the Medianite women reported that an Egyptian came to help them when Moses the Hebrews assisted them in the incident with the well.
My point is that though archaeological evidence is scant, the person of Moses is entirely plausible.
Israeli archeologists spent millions of shekels but were forced to conclude that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Moses.
I'll look into that what you say.
It is a myth, a story, a fable.
I will not jump to that conclusion though you do.
I asked for a number of alternative theories from you IF the account is entirely fictional. You ignored proposing alternative explanations. I'm just suppose to shrug at that ?
It is not historical truth.
You don't know that.
You hope that.
You can lie all you want but you cannot change the truth.
Therefore, Jesus guy could not have been some all-knowing divine being since he had no idea that it was a fable.
Jesus spoke of Moses. There is nothing in His discussion which suggests He didn't believe the Old Testament.
Exodus us treated as HISTORICAL throughout the whole Old Testament. The Bible is not a single source but multiple documents accumulated over time com-pended into a library. And Jesus authenticate the tradition. He used their authenticity as a guarantee of His own. The Law, the Prophets, He says spoke of Him. The Law has its source in Sinai. The following generations of prophets referred BACK to the Law time and time again in an unbroken chain.
You have to come up with a conspiracy theory as to how the deception was so strong and kept alive down the centuries from the time of Egyptian sojourn to the days of Jesus.
Have you done this?