Did Moses Exist?

[POI]

I created the 'Exodus' thread here (viewtopic.php?t=40622), after being inspired to do so when Otseng made the (paraphrased) statement -- "if the Exodus did not happen, then we must question Biblical veracity".

From there, the topic of "Moses" ultimately came up; which is what I believe eventually prompted the follow-up topic, created here (viewtopic.php?t=42501).

However, since it seems to be imperative and crucial for Moses to be a real character, let us examine....?

For Debate:

1) As compared to other claimed figures from ancient antiquity, such as Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, and-the-like, how exactly does the claim(s) of "Moses" stack up as a real character? Meaning, if the (confidence-level) for Alexander and Pilate are fairly high, due to 'evidence(s)', how exactly does 'Moses' compare on the "confidence-meter"? (i.e.) Low, medium, high, or other?

2) If we have low-level confidence that a "Moses" really existed, as compared to other said characters from antiquity, does this jeopardize Biblical veracity claims in any way(s)?

3) Can one even logically remain a believer without accepting "Moses" as being a real dude from history?

4) Outside the Bible's say-so, what evidence suggests a "Moses" actually existed?

[1213]

I think this is why Otseng knows he must link another group to the 'Israelites, via the Hyksos. Otherwise, there is really nothing out there, yet, to nearly substantiate such a claimed mass amount of alleged people, who are claimed to have been enslaved for centuries.

I think you are expecting something that is not reasonable. If there would be the evidence you demand, it would actually disprove the Biblical story.

Why do you think they were forced to built cities like Pithom and Rameses? I would assume they more likely were building for example the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut.

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

So, you had no reason to claim they were building cities like Pithom and Rameses?

But are they contradictory?

This isn't even what I asked. Please re-read what I asked.

But it is the crucial thing. Of course the stories would not be identical, because written by different people, but if they are not contradictory, they could be about the same events.

[1213]

And how exactly do we know the non bleeding virgins were truly virgins?

The answer to your question is in the peer reviewed journal article that was linked in my previous post. You would likely acquire the same answer from your family paediatrician or almost any reputable paediatrician. Nevertheless, for at least a small percentage of women, the hymen is not fully formed at birth and will not be damaged during intercourse. In other cases, the hymen naturally thins and become highly flexible over time to where it doesn't bleed when stretched or penetrated. Again, I'm not expecting you to take my word for it. Feel free to do your own research into the matter.

Sorry, i don't think it shows any way how to confirm non bleeding were truly virgins.

[POI]

I think you are expecting something that is not reasonable.

I disagree. What I'm asking for is quite reasonable. Why should anyone believe millions were enslaved for centuries, while leaving behind no trace of their stated existence? This is why Otseng deems it as mission-critical to directly link another known tribe to the expressed "Israelites" from the Bible. Accordingly, why you are likely trying to link another expressed dude to a 'Moses' character.

But it is the crucial thing. Of course the stories would not be identical, because written by different people, but if they are not contradictory, they could be about the same events.

Again, please plant your flag. How much leeway can we allow between the Biblical account <verse> written account(s) from the other(s)?

[bluegreenearth]

Sorry, i don't think it shows any way how to confirm non bleeding were truly virgins.

Incredulity is not a valid argument.

What evidence conclusively demonstrates the Biblical claim that every single woman who does not bleed under the circumstances described in Deuteronomy must have been sexually promiscuous?

Why would you expect a woman whose hymen was observed to be not fully formed at birth to bleed the first time she engages in sexual intercourse?

A wide variety of women from different ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds anonymously reported on medical surveys that they did not experience bleeding the first time their hymen was penetrated. What evidence demonstrates that all of them were just being dishonest or somehow mistaken?

What evidence falsifies the professional medical research that describes how it is not uncommon for the hymen to become sufficiently flexible and thin to where it does not bleed much or at all when penetrated for the first time?

[JehovahsWitness]

Another point to consider is that the Hebrews did not have a written language in the Moses era.This contributes to hardly any written records of him.

I'm confused by this comment, are you suggesting that the ancient Hebrews (Semites) did not have a written language?

[1213]

Sorry, i don't think it shows any way how to confirm non bleeding were truly virgins.

Incredulity is not a valid argument....

My point is only, I don't think there is any way to confirm it. Do you know any way to confirm it, or are you just insisting that people should believe you?

[1213]

I think you are expecting something that is not reasonable.

I disagree. What I'm asking for is quite reasonable. Why should anyone believe millions were enslaved for centuries, while leaving behind no trace of their stated existence?

Slaves generally don't leave traces that last long. It is not just Jewish slaves, there are also many other slaves who did't leave traces. And actually many common people have not left traces of their existence.

[POI]

Slaves generally don't leave traces that last long. It is not just Jewish slaves......

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

*************************

Also, fourth request... When attempting to link Senenmut with a 'Moses', exactly how much leeway is expectable between the claims written in the Bible, <verses> any other claim(s) made written from ancient antiquity?

[bluegreenearth]

My point is only, I don't think there is any way to confirm it. Do you know any way to confirm it, or are you just insisting that people should believe you?

Your point is an argument from incredulity. Furthermore, to be consistent, you would have to apply your objection to the Biblical claim as well. Do you know a way to confirm that a woman who fails to exhibit bleeding under the circumstances described in Deuteronomy 22 was sexually promiscuous, or are we to just believe the accusations?

[1213]

My point is only, I don't think there is any way to confirm it. Do you know any way to confirm it, or are you just insisting that people should believe you?

Your point is an argument from incredulity. Furthermore, to be consistent, you would have to apply your objection to the Biblical claim as well. Do you know a way to confirm that a woman who fails to exhibit bleeding under the circumstances described in Deuteronomy 22 was sexually promiscuous, or are we to just believe the accusations?

In this case I have no argument, I have a question. And it is interesting that you don't seem to be able to answer it.

Also, I don't think Bible even speaks about bleeding, it says "the tokens of virginity". Maybe that could mean something else than bleeding.

I don't have any way to confirm has a person been promiscuous. But, not bleeding could be also a result of woman's own actions that doesn't necessary mean she slept with some other man.