Was there a real Moses? If so whoml was he? What did he really do?

See that's what I don't know though, the hyskos are the only feasible candidate and I'm unsure how strong their connection to Hebrews/Israelites are.

Not forgiven.

No. The earliest biblical figure we can say to be real is David, though he was probably a minor pastoral chieftain rather than a ruler of a kingdom.

The exodus story probably came together over several centuries in the kingdom of Judah, possibly based on distorted memories of Canaanite interactions with Egypt, including Egyptian rule in Canaan, the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta and centuries of minor population movements between Canaan and Egypt.

The actual Exodus story is filled with anachronisms that make it impossible to have been completed before the 7th century BC.

Hyksos?
The flaw is they used chariots the jews didnt, not for battle formations

Well then fuck off
You are asking me to believe in some theory that will change in a couple years for my religious beliefs
Nah I'll hold off on your
>current consensus

>my religious beliefs
kek

Read Moses & Monotheism by Freud.

DO NOT believe Cecil B Demille.

Read Josephus.

AND Read Exodus. Sinai WAS A VOLCANO in Arabia. It's a no brainer. It erupted c. 1426 BCE.

AND Moses was the guy who wasn't happy with Joshua's decimation of the Midianites. He ordered Joshua to go back and kill the little boys and keep the virgin girls as war booty. I wonder where ISIS got the idea...

They made a documentary about him in Somalia.

>m.youtube.com/watch?v=-XpUIOARk5g

Of course he is a real person, as real as my grandfather was.

>Egypt on the brink of collapse
>the Jews take the opportunity to kill Egypt
>write a fanfic about how their big daddy God killed all of the "oppressors"
>delude themselves into thinking they invented law
>Moses and Joshua fanfic of the brave and powerful Jews (name a few Jewish athletes please) conquered everyone around them against incredible odds

>WW2
>get kicked out of Europe again
>delude themselves into believing that 6,000,000,000 Jews were cooked in ovens
>Jewish writers in Hollywood write fanfic about the millions of brave Jewish-American soldiers that killed the "oppressors"

It's pottery. This is the MO of the Jewish people, they cry as they strike you.

>You are asking me to believe in some theory that will change in a couple years for my religious beliefs

Or in other words
>your empirical evidence ends where my feelings begin

The name david is not hebrew & was never used before his time.
Dwd is a compression of the sentence 'commander of the kings army'
In the book of kings there are two stories of david one good another bad so there was possibly two davids. One who served saul from a young boy, who saul eventually killed, & another who returned from exile after sauls death.

>The name david is not hebrew & was never used before his time
How do you know? How do we know what names were or weren't used in early iron age Judah?

>Dwd is a compression of the sentence 'commander of the kings army'
Isn't the earliest known use of Dwd in reference to the royal house of Dwd? I doubt there would be a dynasty called 'House of the commander of the kings army'.

An exile guiding exiles.
Its not that hard to imagine though the motives are hard to explain.
Anyway the jews still use this egyptian name today as well as seth, the negative confession & side locks

Respectfully...
Please cite your references. I would like to further research this.

Taking sex slave as war booty was a common practice back than, we can't judge them from today's standards.

>what are you saying that you can fall off the edge of the earth if you sail far enough
>moron we have evidence and science

Yes we can... The murdered innocent children at the behest of their leader who spoke with the authority of their God. That God CAN NOT be deserving of worship

Seriously... God said murder the innocent. That God and the people who follow him are unworthy of respect.

>empirical evidence
>history
lol
It amazes me that people think can prove definitively what did and do not happen thousands of years ago.

It is a created name & has no meaning.
This makes it posslbly foreign like el, baal, elyion, adoni which you probably know are all forms of the word lord.

> That God CAN NOT be deserving of worship
>Waaah people who were going to die eventually anyway, DIED! That's awful how could you do that God?!
Stop being a pussy.

>from today's standards.
This meme needs to end. A sober historical discussion and moral relativity are not the same thing.

...

Besides which, common practice and common standards were not taken to be the same thing.

What's the point of casting moral condemnation on people whose bones often don't even exist anymore because they died so long ago, who were simply acting in the same manner as everyone else that existed at the time?

1, kings - two stories of david make david seem like he's got bi-polar. Also there was disent during the early part of his reign so the bad david could be tradition stories from the supporters of sauls family notably benjimites
2, john romer, i think it might be testament
3, adopted words that mean lord, boss, big guy, top dog.
El, baal, al, adoni, elyion
4, why your at it find the meaning of the name aaron because i never have. Dump the constonants it becomes rn & that could come from anywhere. I'm guessing egyptian & it's a title for preist

Nope. They walked into an unguarded Egypt and took it over without a fight right after the Exodus, as the pharaoh and army lay dead at the bottom of the sea.

Maybe the earliest you can say, because you don't know anything about God's Word.

The earliest biblical figure we can say for sure is real is Adam.

Oops meant keep the cons & dump the vowels

No, no there is not.

Few modern Biblical archaeology discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription—writing on a ninth-century B.C. stone slab (or stela) that furnished the first historical evidence of King David from the Bible.
The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.

The broken and fragmentary inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over his two southern neighbors: the “king of Israel” and the “king of the House of David.” In the carefully incised text written in neat Aramaic characters, the Aramean king boasts that he, under the divine guidance of the god Hadad, vanquished several thousand Israelite and Judahite horsemen and charioteers before personally dispatching both of his royal opponents.

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa says this is clearly the same regional ruler as the "Toi, king of Hamath" referenced in II Samuel 8:10, which records that when this king "heard that David had defeated the entire army of Hadadezer, he sent his son Joram to King David, to greet him and to congratulate him on defeating Hadadezer in battle --- for Hadadezer had been at war with Toi."

According to Prof. Galil: "We know for sure now that Toi of Hamath existed, and that he was indeed a historical figure. The biblical text in the Book of Samuel is therefore well supported by the historical reality of the 10th century BC."

Leading journals recently wrote on the discovery of eight significant sites in Turkey and northern Syria which revealed the existence of a large Philistine kingdom under the rule of Tai(ta) of Hamath.

Part 1 of 2, posted out of order.

I have a hebrew, celt & english name
& they all have a meaning.
What is the meaning david (dwd)?
Any combination of vowels still isnt hebrew.
But if there was al, el even ad would make its origen easier to track down.
Maybe it means "i am nothing" a pun given to david by saul, he was that type of king

I've read it & it only states that the title was used but not who is using it.
If it said david friend of johnathon, captain of saul then it would be a bingo find.

There's a point when modern people want to enact their moral and civil teachings on society as a whole.

You are aware that it has been almost entirely proven at this stage that Moses, at least in terms of the fictional biblical character, never existed?

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

There remains debate about whether there was some sort of leader that inspired a legend to spring up, someone who's real story would be entirely different to the bible Moses.

A bit similar to the debate over whether there was a King Arthur despite acknowledgement that the traditional stories about him are entirely fictional.

> There's a point when modern people want to enact their moral and civil teachings on society as a whole.

By all means point out the people who want to bring back massacres of the vanquished as an accepted practice in modern society.
Or were you making the ad hominem argument that since some people did mean things over a thousand years ago that means nothing those people ever believed could possibly be correct or applicable among 21st century people?

putlocker.is/watch-patterns-of-evidence-the-exodus-online-free-putlocker.html

This is an overly dramatic documentary that shills for Israel, you can start at 25 minutes in, you won't miss anything if you do. But it's worth watching. Basically the premise is that the dating for Exodus has been wrong, and it has been dated because Exodus mentions "the City of Ramses". This hypothesis is that it was written that way because the readers would be more familiar with it, or that it was a gloss later added (this has precedence in the OT, since the "City of Ramses" is used to refer to a location since Genesis). If you plug in a much earliest date for Exodus, than a lot of evidence shows up, but this evidence is almost universally rejected as evidence for Exodus because it doesn't agree with the common scholarly dating for the event.

There is no evidence that suggests they were in Egypt in the first place

But there is no evidence of them NOT being in Egypt

wut m8? you can't prove a negative

Precisely.

What is Avaris

>the bible
Not a credible source m8

There's a detailed account in the most historically vetted work in the existence of the earth.

It's the only holy book on the planet. You ignore it out of your own personal bias.

Muslims say the exact same thing about the Quran

As it directly contradicts the bible, only one of the two can be correct.

As the quran contains many scientific errors, and many internal inconsistencies, and many horrific sayings, it's hard for me to understand why you can't easily discern between the two claims.

Unless you think a 54 year old man who marries a 6 year old girl is "holy", and that the angel Gabriel staged a revolution against God 600 years after Jesus rose from the dead.

No, the simplest explanation for the quran is the best, and was known to Mohammad from the beginning.

His angelic inspiration was satan, the father of lies, and the arabs worship Ba'al, aka HaBaal, aka Hubel, the god of Mohammad's father, in the kaaba. Still in the kaaba.

The god of the Arabs has never been the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Ridiculous.

Besides which, in this case, since Egypt is possibly the most heavily archaeologically researched place on the planet, a lack of evidence of vast population decline and a vast exodus of slaves and a large Jewish population that was there for hundreds of years is good evidence it never happened.

Where does Islam claim Gabriel staged a rebellion against God?

>it's the only holy book on the planet
>personal bias

Kek.

>As the quran contains many scientific errors, and many internal inconsistencies, and many horrific sayings, it's hard for me to understand why you can't easily discern between the two claims.

But that describes the bible too. Unless a universe being created in seven days is scientifically accurate, or killing kids for being disobedient isn't horrific.

>As it directly contradicts the bible, only one of the two can be correct.

Yes, or they're both fucking wrong

>As the quran contains many scientific errors

As does the Bible

>and many internal inconsistencies

As does the Bible

>and many horrific sayings

As does the Bible

>it's hard for me to understand why you can't easily discern between the two claims.

It really isn't. They're two piles of dogshit, all that's different is that the Quran smells somewhat worse

The responsibility to prove that the Jews were in Egypt lays with those who insist that they were indeed there despite having no evidence for it.

And how does that prove anything about Jews being in Egypt? I don't see the connection between the capital of Hyksos-ruled Egypt and somehow proving the Jews were enslaved in Egypt.

Muslim here. Literally every point you raise is false. The inconsistencies in the bible are dispelled after even little study : so are those in the qur'an. The age of aisha was most likely the same as that of mary at her pregnancy, djibreel never did anything of the sort, and Isa being god is a herecy you guys decided on hundreds of years after his death.

Stick with your books and be still on things that you only know a bit about from sources with an axe to grind. Or tell me, did you make a serious study of the tafseer of qur'an, and did you learn Arabic?

Yes, along with other detailed accounts of supernatural and paranormal feats taking place in addition to teachings about the creating of the planet and life on it that have been proven false, clearly we should take it at its word!

>not a credible source m8
But all the other spoopy legends and historiographies of the ancient world are amirite?
:^)

>You ignore it out of your own personal bias.
No it simply doesn't match historical facts

No, legends, fables and myths are just as untrue as the bible. A good read but not historical fact.

>historical fact
lol

No, not necessarily. The point is that there is no physical archaeological evidence for it that is taken seriously.

Claiming that word-of-mouth and religious texts can somehow be held up as evidence is no different then afro-american "WE WUZ KINGZ" or Hindus claiming Rama was real and did everything in the Ramayana.

Uh no they didn't because the exodus story is fictional.

>But all the other spoopy legends and historiographies of the ancient world are amirite?

Who the fuck thinks this except in your mind?

Show me one single solitary fact in the bible that does not fit reality.

No chariot wheels in Al Aqaba?
No monument made by Solomon on the other side?
No Illwur Papyrus detailing the plagues?
No Hyskos invasion that met zero resistance @ 1446 BC?
No pottery shards found in the land of Goshen?
No Jews celebrating the event each and every year since it happened?

Wake up dude.

What's so funny? Suddenly ''fact'' is a no no?

What you think is a fact is absurdity.

The flood and the ark
Adam and Eve
The burning bush
God

Is 4 enough?

>The flood and the ark
Happened as advertised @ 4500 years ago.

>Adam and Eve
First two human beings.

>The burning bush
The bush did not burn; it was a curiousity to draw Moses in to speak with God.

>God
God is I Am, and you will see Him with your eyes soon.

AND YOU ARE NOT READY.

No, what think or will accept as fact is any statement supported by credible sources

Yes, it's absolutely absurd for you to not consider the proven Word of God to be the most credible source on the planet. Absolutely absurd.

>Happened as advertised @ 4500 years ago.
Nope.

>First two human beings.
Nope.

>Burning bush
See a doctor about that, there are various treatments.

>>god is fictional and I am delusional
Fixed for reality.

>Happened as advertised @ 4500 years ago.
No. Outside the bible there is ZERO evidence

>First two human beings
I know. But there existence is a biological impossibility

>The bush did not burn
Glad we agree

>God is I Am, and you will see Him with your eyes soon.
Great """evidence"""

If the earth is 6000 years old, then how can we see stars billions of light years away from us?
If the flood was real, how did the different continents of the world manage to get such different faunas, especially considering the one of the Australia and the pretty much defenseless dodo?
How are we finding fossils from sea creature at the tops of the mountains if the world is that young?

>The point is that there is no physical archaeological evidence for it that is taken seriously.

So what?
Just because no one has found any thousand year old trash supporting the occurrence if an event does not mean it did not happen.

To be honest this whole "we can't find forensic evidence so it didn't happen" line of reasoning is awfully reminiscent of the arguments used by Holocaust deniers.
>but we have forensic evidence to support the Holocaust
Yes but will we still have it in two thousand years? How certain could you be that archeologists in the far future after the collapse of multiple civilizations will be able to find evidence to support it?

The fact that you think you can treat history like science and talk definitively about the facts is hilarious.

You don't get to vote on what happened in the past.

You're delusional if you think you do.

There need be no evidence outside the bible for it to be true.

There need be no evidence inside the bible for it to be true.

Your generation has zero comprehension of the word "objective".

You don't. You see what happened on Day Four when God stretched out the universe.

Those stars are gone. They're not there. They burned out in their relative times. The heavens are collapsing towards us.

Well, hopefully people won't be using the holocaust to seriously alter the laws of various nations then.
People are kinda doing that with the exodus (You must help Israel or else God will punish your nation like he did with Egypt is one example I have seen)

God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel.

That's been plain for 3500 years.

Where is it written God stretched out the Universe? All I can find is that he made the stars and stuff that day.
And why would they be dead if our sun is still burning?
And Scientists have "seen" stars getting born, which should disprove they are all dead.

Yeah, and we don't really have any proof he did curse Egypt to let the Jews out, so trying to use it to push for modern Political actions becomes rather pointless.

>There need be no evidence outside the bible for it to be true
Mkay. Im gonna stop debating you now.

Do you seriously believe any government is actually supporting Israel based solely on the Old Testament?

If anyone is attempting to change the law using historical revision, it's the people pointing to the "ahistorical" nature of the Bible as justification to encourage secularism and the abandonment of the Christian traditions of the West.

I understand you hate the Bible and Christianity and all that stuffy old time religion stuff but it is entirely possible for a historical event to be recorded in only one oral /written source.

>Do you seriously believe any government is actually supporting Israel based solely on the Old Testament?
No, but it's a pretty important part of some of it's hardcore supporters, like Christian Zionists.

>If anyone is attempting to change the law using historical revision, it's the people pointing to the "ahistorical" nature of the Bible as justification to encourage secularism and the abandonment of the Christian traditions of the West.
What's so wrong about secularism, really? Everyone gets to keep their faith, and should have no power to force it at others.
And most people I know of don't really want to drop all Christian traditions, just whatever ones that limits the rights of Women and Sexual minorities (Leviticus as an example))

What about expecting others to believe it rather than some work like, let's say, the Quran or the Hindu Texts?

but we don't assume that any other historical sources are 100% true. when we can we compare them to archeological data and other sources. archeology has shown that many parts of the bible are false and some parts of the bible are true. there is no reason to assume that it is 100% objectively true

I dont hate the bible or christians. And yes it is possible for a historical event to be recorded in only one oral /written source. But there are a lot of sources that contradict the bible. It is a priori very unlikely that ALL those sources are wrong on ALL counts and that one source is accurate on such a wide range if events.

But you are only willing to accept confirmations of your bible. Anything that contradicts it MUST be wrong, because the bible MUST be true. Right?