Do you believe in the Jews were enslaved in Egypt? Even though there's no evidence of it...

If a was a wandering desert tribe that finally found some good land to conquer, I would also try to build legitimacy by making some sort of bullshit claim about being descended from a

you don't know what middle means

*an ancient and powerful kingdom. It's similar to what the Romans did by claiming to he descendants of the Trojans.

You are probably a bit retarded because Israeli archaeologists widely accept and leading the work on non historicity of the exodus and the conquest of Canaan.
The only reason to assume there is something is the seemingly unlikeliness of inventing a slavery origin ethos because it's more typical to invent something more glorious.
One of the interesting theories today is that the Egypt story is a recollection of Egyptian rule over Canaan in the late bronze age (around the time the exodus supposedly took place). This can also be traces of some priestly Egyptian elite escaping Egypt and inserting itself into what would later become Israelite's.

Well it appears the kangz DID-DU SUMTHIN.... poor jews, having to make alien landing platforms

>taking pride in descending fom a defeated city
More likely that Virgil was trying to give Augustus divine pedigree with a narrative that was the continuation of the most popular legend at te time

Considering egypt had the most ancient, powerful, and popular mythos in the area at the time, it's easy to see how these instances are exactly the same.

I've heard the term could also mean "mercenary".

It can mean a lot of things, sometimes it's applied to very high ranking people like [x] the "eved" of king [y] but its clear that the [x] guy is an important nobleman that leads armies or treasurer etc. Also used to describe the relationship of people to god.

There's massive, overwhelming, proof positive of it. It's properly in the bible. Everything properly in the bible is true.

Bad working conditions without pay defines slavery.

Second.

Son of the pharaoh.

The Egyptians never bought the Hebrews. They just slowly enslaved them after Joseph and his family and their servants moved to Egypt and multiplied for a few centuries.

why even bother posting?

To nonchristians, do you think the "muh bible" argument is going to work? Furthermore, if your audience is fellow christians, then why reiterate the basic fundamental faith that you all have in the first place to believe such a story?

Basically your post has no audience. Nonchristians obviously won't be swayed by such lazy and ancient reasoning, and for other Christians you're basically setting the obvious for them.

So what are you trying to accomplish? Convincing yourself?

Which term? Habiru or Eved? Because offhand, the only Hebrew word in the Old Testament that refers to mercenaries I can think of at the moment is שְׂכִרֶיהָ in Jeremiah, chapter 46. It's not a speific term. It means someone who is hired to perform a task. Unlike an עבד though, it implies a one time thing, a day laborer as opposed to a general handyman.

If ancient manuscripts painfully copied down over dozens of centuries doesn't appeal to people posting on a Veeky Forums board, they're in the wrong place.

And idiots to boot.

I'm sure you know Solomon built a monument on the other side of Al Aqaba, where the Jews crossed over.....and of course you've read the Ipuwer papyrus that detailed all of the plageus of Moses...and of course you know that all of the Jews for the past 3500 years have all celebrated the Exodus with their Passover feasts, which are mandatory.....

Yes, you know ALL about the evidence outside the bible, but somehow inside the bible, the evidence is, what, void? Meaningless? Not persuasive?

kek

You're just another idiot dude.

You do realize that unless you are me, my post had an audience that was not just me, yes?

I mean, even the dimmest bulb knows when he contradicts himself, yes?

historians take all ancient accounts with a grain of salt because even books written as a "history" are always bias and generally shift history to hit whatever ruler is in power. It's rare to find something that isn't completely fucked by bias, and so what historians do is they test the book by cross referencing with other artifacts, books, etc in order to find contradictions and seek the most likely truth based on the evidence presented.

No historian has ever read a single fucking source and felt he was done with his work, nobody takes any source material at face value, this is literally rule 1 of reading history, have you EVER been in a history class? Have you ever read the MOUNTAIN of sources at the end of your textbooks? You're not physically or mentally capable of even seeking this truth when your entire philosophy is basically a massive confirmation bias.

In short, you're fucking retarded and you don't know shit.

>evidence outside the bible

[source needed]

I realize Christians are used to just "mentioning" that they have a "source" (that is usually a blog) but you don't have any sources.

I guarantee as soon as your finished reading this you're gonna go Google for some blogs that support you, written by other Christians who are equally blinded by confirmation bias.

The truth is, you're talking out of your ass. The only "source" you've read is the bible, and you're just hoping someone smarter than you has all the answers.

>The only reason to assume there is something is the seemingly unlikeliness of inventing a slavery origin ethos because it's more typical to invent something more glorious.
That actually makes perfect sense, religion of pity etc

yeah I've already crushed that argument by mentioning the romans. If your generalization doesn't line up with the romans, you probably said something stupid.

Not him, but it's pretty inconsistent with the rest of the tone of the OT. From Joshua to Jeremiah, it's pretty much a long list of probably fictitious conquests and slaughters of enemies.

>inconsistent with the tone

being a bunch of badass warriors that God loved so much that he plagued the most powerful civilization in the area in order to allow them to escape because they're so fucking awesome is hardly inconsistent with the conquests afterwards. Being a "former slave" means you'll fight that much harder for your independence from foreign powers, lest your people are enslaved again.

"We'll never be slaves again! Fight to the death!" sort of thing, see the appeal? There's no inconsistency.

>The only reason to assume there is something is the seemingly unlikeliness of inventing a slavery origin ethos because it's more typical to invent something more glorious.
>what is slave morality
You obviously don't know the Jewish mentality, as they rely on emotional manipulation instead of strenght to blackmail their enemies into giving them stuff. I know, it sounds counterintuitive and even, but it's because you're probably not a Jew.

Well think of it that way, at the time Egypt still exists as one of the worlds 1-2 great powers. You deal with them daily, sometimes you go to war against them and sometimes you go to war on their side against others. Why would you position yourself as their former slave? It's kind of degrading and creates a lot of geopolitical baggage. And also you would expect them to say like "dude what are you talking about?" As I said, I don't believe the evidence that currently exists can support exodus but the slavery thing is unlikely ethos to adopt.

Anyone who takes the bible with a grain of salt is wise.

Anyone who carries around a salt lick so they don't have to realize the bible is precise and accurate on everything it touches is a fool.

Hostile, antagonistic historians have documented the facts alleged in the bible.

You take their hostility, but not their conclusions.

Face your own bias. You do not want the bible to be historically accurate (and it is) because you don't want to know you have an authority figure over you that you cannot escape, and who will not let the slightest matter pass his attention.

A. Fuck of to /pol/
B. I am a Jew actually but please tell me more about my mentality
C. Thinking that 21 century morals and dynamics are the same as in 1000 bc and Egyptians would be anything but proud about enslaving someone.

There's dozens of them. Google for yourself. I'm not your Google monkey.

Google extra-biblical evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ/the Exodus/anything you want.

>probably fictitious
[citations needed]

That's a long way from being a "religion of pity". Plus, given the Israelite take of slavery, both slavery from without and slavery of each other, I'm not really convinced.

You must be insane. From the Exodus forward Egypt has been nothing and no one on the world stage. Ask them how well their wars against Israel went last century.

Slavery of each other was indentured servitude that lasted no more than 7 years.

You are trolling right?

>from the Exodous forward Egypt has been nothing and no one on the world stage

I'm sorry but you're just not as smart as you think you are.

If you live next to the most powerful and ancient civilization in the world(that you know about), what better way to convince them to allow their existence by convincing them of a shared cultural heritage? Even when the kingdom of Israel was founded, the supposed mythos was even by their times considered history, so nobody was alive to question it. If the egyptians never kept records of it it's probably because they were skeptical of it themselves, but why turn down such a tempting idea? "oh what's that, you were our slaves once? So we could easily justify a war with their own logic, and justify peace also by their own logic, depending on how we feel that day? Seems like a good setup".

Remember that the egyptians also made up a bunch of bullshit, everyone did. Of you start questioning their bullshit they start questioning your bullshit, it's better to just say "sure whatever u wuz slaves or whatever"

Your argument basically isn't an argument.

>knows nothing about history
>posts on a history board

what did he mean by this?

>Why do people post bait on imageboards?
Truly a mystery

Yes, we were your slaves and than our god butchered all of your first born blah blah, What shared heritage? If anything Israelite's claimed shared heritage with Mesopotamia from where Abraham came, naming a specific city something that actually makes sense historically because this coincides with other semitic tribes living in the region, shared language family and even genetic research.

You know how I know you're an evangelitard? Not even that Zionist Jew ITT is so delusional.

Why did the book of Exodus never mention the pyramids?

The Bible mentions plenty of pagan temples to Baal and Dagon so it's not like the Hebrews just couldn't write about them.

>What are Mamluks

so no sources?

not one specific thing to reference from my post? Just some vague bullshit about "antagonistic historians," "hostility," "conclusions," etc.

you basically just said "no u, I'm right, ur wrong, kthx". No arguments, no sources, not even the slightest reference to anything in particular. Every sentence in your post is generalized nonsense with no supporting evidence.

As long as you respond last you win I guess

Oh, and American too. It's always Americans who say this kind of retarded nonsense.

>Implying it's not a troll a la the Landover Baptist Church.

oh what's that, they claim a shared history with BOTH the major power centers in their area? How convenient for them.

Do you even realize how ridiculous your argument is? "uhhh there's no evidence but you know it just doesn't sit right with me feels off..." that's not an argument it's a fee fee.

Trolling here with christian retardation, than copies your answers and trolls Christians with your answers. Ingenuous in a way, but still has not sex.
Actually it's not only my argument, it's an academically acceptable biblical criticism tool

>The criterion of embarrassment is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about himself. Some Biblical scholars have used this criterion in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.[1]
>The criterion of embarrassment is one point listed in the Criteria of Authenticity used by academics which also lists: the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of language and environment, criterion of coherence, and the criterion of multiple attestation.[2]

Don't have conclusive evidence for either so I won't make any conclusions.

the exodus story isn't fucking embarrassing that's what I'm trying to get through your thick skull. The whole reason they were slaves in the myth is because they had angered God in the first place, and when they escape it is also God's will. Their very intrinsic beliefs about the nature of the universe show that they do not take responsibility for the great game, and assume that God decides everything. This isn't embarassing, it basically says "your gods are wrong our God is right because he fucked up your powerful civilization and your gods didn't protect you. Now we're a powerful civilization and you better not fuck with us or our God will fuck you up again"

It's a threat in itself. "We have the only true God, he defeated egypt, he will protect us as long as we are faithful to King Shekelstein "

You're fucking stupid

Egypt was the power hegemon in the area at the time. Ancient Hebrews were little more than one violent petty hill-dwelling goat herder in the Levant back then, and weak as fuck. Some may have been enslaved or indentured, some probably went willingly, but not the entire group en masse or whatever.

Slave is a relative term.

>The whole reason they were slaves in the myth is because they had angered God in the first place

Not him, but that simply isn't true. Go re-read Genesis and Exodus. There's no mention of God's wrath in pretty much any of it before the leave Egypt. They go down there in the first place because of a general famine, they get enslaved because of what are described as very realpolitik reasons, and then they get out.

This is the stupidest fucking argument. Its always "hurr durr you don't want to be accountable for your actions". The reality is living with no hope of afterlife, something you bible fuckers take for granted, is depressing. I would love for the bible to be true, but containing a couple facts does not make the whole thing true. Independence day has many facts about our world accurate, but Jeff goldbloom did not hack into an alien mother ship.

There are better ways to position yourself than being a slave. Other people had legends about being a child of some god and a human etc. Showing the greatness of your god doesn't requires you to be slave you just describe some victory in battle. Which both the bible and other ancient texts do a lot.
It sounds more like an apologetic text dealing with the known fact of subjugation but trying to put the best spin on this by describing a heroic escape with the help of god.

>no mention of God's wrath

genesis, the literal first book in the bible, is a series of fuck ups by man that are then punished by God. Everything from Genesis to exodus is literally God getting really mad at them over and over again and punishing them. Their 400 years of enslavement was basically an extension of his original punishment of Adam and eve, it is an extension of the suffering he gave adam

>I can think of another way
>so its true

that's your argument.

What better way to show the greatness of your God than to show that he is so powerful that he doesn't even need you? All you have to do is walk once he clears the path, and he proceeds to guide then every step of the way. He opens the sea, he attacks the egyptian army with pillars of fire, tears down the walls of Jericho, etc.

Exodus is basically a book that says this: "no matter how weak we look (and we do look weak that much is clear) we're actually protected by the one true God, and he already fucked up Egypt basically by himself, so don't mess with us"

>genesis, the literal first book in the bible, is a series of fuck ups by man that are then punished by God.

Not really. You're thinking of later books, especially the prophetic stuff. The only real "fuckups that are punished by God" are the pre-abrahanuc stuff, which isn't directly related to the Hebrew origin myths. Stuff like Abraham's travels, the war of the 5 vs 4 kings, the dispute with Lot, the binding of Isaac, etc, is definitely not people screwing up and God punishing them for it.

>Their 400 years of enslavement was basically an extension of his original punishment of Adam and eve,

I'm going to need a serious citation for this.

>i'm going to need a serious citation for this

so you're denying that the jews attribute all suffering to Adam and eve's punishment? So you're saying that 400 years of suffering was in fact, not suffering? So is slavery and defeat not suffering, or is the origin of suffering not clearly stated in the bible? Either way you're fucking retarded. An eloquent retard, but a retard nonetheless.

>so you're denying that the jews attribute all suffering to Adam and eve's punishment

Yes, actually.

>So you're saying that 400 years of suffering was in fact, not suffering?

I'm saying that it is not in fact related to any particular sin being punished.

> Either way you're fucking retarded. An eloquent retard, but a retard nonetheless.

I'm not seeing any actual support of your assertion, just you being loud and stupid.

>Yes, actually.

Then I have nothing more to say. You're retarded. Good day.

Yup.

>This entire fucking post
Holy shit, please be trolling.

That is why you are depressed.

Physician, heal thyself.

You are aware that there are divides within Judaism that don't even claim that Adam was the universal ancestor, right? And that therefore his sin cannot be the ultimate cause of all suffering?

And of course, the Bible is rarely shy about delinating punishments to specific sins. When you get the mass purges in Exodus and Numbers over this, that, or the other sin, it's not "LAWL ADAM ATE DA FRUIT YOU'RE ALL FUCKED!" It's justified by very specific, immediate sins committed recently; dancing around the golden calf, breaking a sabbath, fucking the Moabite women.

Your assertion that the exile to Egypt was punishment for some sin because all of humanity is destined to suffer because of what Adam did is completely unfuckingsupported in Jewish theology. Calling me a retard won't change that.

Well first of all it's not my argument, if you re-read my post than you will see that I wrote that the widely accepted view is that exodus is not a historical event, but I also added that the slavery a an ethos is dubious when viewed trough the embarrassment criterion and pointed out some theories about this being a collection of Egypt's rule of the area of Canaan which is a historically documented event. So I'm not claiming whether exodus has basis or not, I'm withholding judgment.
That's good fuck off. Adam and Eve's original sin doctrine is a Christian concept that is not accepted by Judaism. According to the bible the sin was payed by humanity by very specific punishments (banishing from Eden, childbearing, mortality) and does not hang over humanity and accumulates to include more punishments.

That's completely bogus.

The reason the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt was to give the Amorites 400 fucking years to repent, and they never did. They just became irretrievably wicked.

Like most of you.

Hence the cleansing of the promised land was necessary, and had Joshua finished the job, there would be no ISIS today.

Know that even though Joshua failed to rid the promised land of these wicked people, Yehoshua will not.

There will not be a Canaanite in the promised land under King Jesus' rule.

Does "trolling" mean being 100% correct to you? Because if so, then yes, he's trolling.

You must be a reprobate to be trolled by the truth.

how is the exodus story any less than a perfect example of the curse he gave adam? He cursed adam to walk the earth and struggle to survive, to be a weak babe in the woods and to be subject to the suffering that a nature outside the garden would entail. The exodus story is about a group of weak refugees wandering the earth, finding egypt, and suffering at their hands. It fullfils the prophecy of adam's curse, it is a reocurring theme that men faulter and God punishes. It is a reoccurring theme that men must suffer. These themes come from the origin of sin, and sin is the foundation on which judaism functions.

Original sin is a catholic idea, and if you know anything about catholic history, they call you people Christkillers and do their level best to exterminate all of you.

Original sin is merely the spiritual death of Adam and Eve; after all, Adam had the Ruach Elohim breached into his nostrils to become a living being, and Eve was cloned from Adam.

That's the bit you Jews miss.

Adam and Eve lost something that your Jewish messiah made the recovery of possible.

Because it's only in your imagination, not in the bible.

You've already been told how the enslavement of the Hebrews happened in the land of Goshen. They came down during the famine; their family member had been elevated to the second or third highest position in Egypt; and he saved them all.

Joshua is a type of messiah, as in Moshiac ben Josef, the man who was "killed" at the hands of his brothers.

Suffering entered the earth at the fall of man; you can connect literally any suffering to the fall of man.

But as I posted above, the length of the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt was predicated on God mercifully allowing the Amorites to repent for 400 years, and they never did.

God does not delight in the death of the wicked; only allah does that.

Here is what really happened (my theory).

Some canaanites were allowed to settle in egypt in return for military services to the Pharaoh as that has been recorded in the past. The jews got uppity though and started to demand more shekels and/or rob egyptians by force. Or perhaps egypt was in a difficult situation, the plagues allude to all sorts of disasters. Anyway the jews take advantage of this and finally the Pharoh gets it under control and drives them out of Egypt.

Stabbed in the back like usual

There is evidence of border skirmishes between the canaanites and the Hebrew slaves living in Goshen.

The events that transpired in the Exodus are faithfully recorded in the book of Exodus in the only holy book on the planet, the bible.

reminder, the hebrews were only in egypt because they were following along with an army that invaded egypt.

they arrived thinking they would be conquerors. Then left crying about oppression and muh holy land.

>how is the exodus story any less than a perfect example of the curse he gave adam?

Because it isn't? It has nothing to do with it?

>He cursed adam to walk the earth and struggle to survive, to be a weak babe in the woods and to be subject to the suffering that a nature outside the garden would entail.

And you know, to die. And for women to give birth in pain, neither of which are emphasized in the slightest.

>The exodus story is about a group of weak refugees wandering the earth, finding egypt, and suffering at their hands.

That logic is so broad it's meaningless. Lot's wife turning to salt is a perfect example of the curse he gave Adam, in an attempt to gain knowledge she shouldn't have, she went into pain and died. Dinah's abduction and rape at the hands of Schechem is a story of a weak woman wandering, being taken somewhere, and enduring great suffering. Clearly an example of the curse!

> It fullfils the prophecy of adam's curse,
No it doesn't, because the "prophecy" (which you are, by the way, misquoting, it's a judgment, not a prophecy), is equally applicable to all of Adam's descendants, of whom the Hebrews are a small portion.

>These themes come from the origin of sin, and sin is the foundation on which judaism functions.

Which is of course why none of the terms in the Bible used for sin are to be anywhere found in the Eden narrative.

What is your point? Adam and Eve's sin being eternal is a catholic idea not Jewish one. The Jewish idea is that they have existed at all and sinned. Nobody asked you to take this old story seriously, I sure don't. You could have continued worshiping Odin who asked you to get attached to our made up mythology when you had your own? The only funny thing is Christians that don't even read Hebrew and unfamiliar with the cultural context claiming that the Jews interpret the bible they wrote in a wrong way. It's like some Chinese guy that works at Kasio coming in and claiming that Casio got it wrong and the watch supposed to be from cheap plastic.

>There is evidence of border skirmishes between the canaanites and the Hebrew slaves living in Goshen.
Yes the hebrews were likely a buffer state of sort, kind of like how the romans would do in later years with foederati.

>The events that transpired in the Exodus are faithfully recorded in the book of Exodus in the only holy book on the planet, the bible.
If you say so Moishe!

I couldn't find anything. What sources are you talking about?

Nobody asked you to go to heaven, either. You can go wherever you want.

No wonder you're so ignorant. Your Google Fu is weak.

Here's why we believe the Jews do not understand Moses and the prophets following the crucifixion of Jesus:

2 Corinthians 3
But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.

It doesn't matter who says so, or who says otherwise.

That's the nature of objective truth.

Except you're completely wrong. The myth was founded on the idea that Moses' kingdom was the ancient and powerful one, not the Egyptians.

I think it's a metaphor for how egypt used to rule over the hebrews.

>ctrl+f
>hyksos
>no results
amateurs, the lot of you

the metaphor meme has gone too far

>Do you believe that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt?
Some of them may have been. There is evidence of a Semitic population residing in the eastern Nile delta, some of whom may have been slaves (the Shiphra papyrus gives a list of slaves from the Middle Kingdom, some with Hebrew names that match those in the Bible). But given that the area floods every year the archaeological record is rather scant.

That said, there certainly isn't any evidence of some 600,000 men not including with their wives and children (a total host of up to 2 million) crossing the Sinai. It could be that the Exodus story is simply an amalgamation of lots of different stories, like the expulsion by the Egyptians of the Semitic Hyksos, that was then built upon by the Hebrews to create their own legend. So although the biblical account isn't supported with archaeological evidence there may still be some origin of truth in the Exodus story.

Never really care too much about the Exodus, though the strands left by the writer can give us a hint that they were likely enslaved or put under by the Egyptians.

In the continuing quest by the minimalist to delegitimize the Exodus as total myth, several scholars of the Old Vanguard discussed the problem with the minimalists presuppositions they hold and also the data they omit or forgot about. See image.

This also relates to the Exodus. It is likely that the Exodus was true in some form or another. Early literary chapters found in Exodus 15 consider the notion that the Egyptians had a early conflict with the early israel. Extra-biblical evidence helps us trace where YHWH comes from located around the Gulf of Aqaba and southern Edom. A topography shows of a "shasu" (bedouin) of Yhw (or Yahew?) cause of it being a topography, some scholars have speculated that the Egyptians had know of a land where YHWH came from. Using secular scholarship, it is likely that the Egyptians had some bad encounters with these people leading to the narrative of the exodus. Though the accuracy of the exodus does also include some accurate statement about Egyptian magic that would have been likely dated around the time of the Exodus. This personally is not my interest and only did some small research on this issue which I have now presented.

I don't think the Israelites were around that early

Well we know the first alphabet was created as short hand for hieroglyphs.