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]

Negative. The Bible is the claim in question. You cannot use the claim as the evidence. Again, the entire point of this arena is to try and prove the Bible.

Was this not about proving the Exodus happened? If it happened, one evidence of it would be the story. Obviously it may be a weak evidence, but still, it is something that we would have, if the story is true.

Why not?

Because other history books are as trustworthy.

Even if you want to begin trying to directly link Senenmut with a 'Moses', then how much leeway do we grant the Biblical account, being most believers view the Pentateuch as being an accurate historical account of events? I mean, do we 1) just call it 'close enough', when claims differ a bit, or do we 2) assume the Bible is right, and the other accounts are wrong, or 3) other? Please plant your flag before I address your position.

You don't have to address my position. I don't think you could offer anything that would be useful in this Senenmut = Moses case.

[bluegreenearth]

I don't think that is true. And I think more likely it is the menstrual blood. If the person is not virgin, she would be pregnant and not have periods. So, to prove she is virgin, it would be enough to show the menstrual blood.

If the consummation of the marriage occurred after the woman had ovulated, it is possible for the egg to become fertilized and temporarily pause the menstrual cycle. Therefore, no menstrual blood would appear on the "garment" or within the vaginal canal of the woman. Also, the presence of menstrual blood does not conclusively demonstrate a woman's virginity because her cycle would still continue after having intercourse if she had not been impregnated as a consequence. Furthermore, if the consummation of the marriage happens to occur after the woman had completed her "period" of bleeding for that cycle and before the next menstruation cycle begins, there would be no such "tokens of virginity" available for display. Accordingly, a lack of menstrual blood does not serve to conclusively demonstrate that the woman was sexually promiscuous. Again, the Biblical reasoning of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is necessarily in error.

[POI]

Negative. The Bible is the claim in question. You cannot use the claim as the evidence. Again, the entire point of this arena is to try and prove the Bible.

Was this not about proving the Exodus happened?

Yes. The claim comes from the Bible. What evidence(s) supports the claim(s) from the Bible?

If it happened, one evidence of it would be the story.

I already explained in the last response. (Repeat from post 36) -- The Bible is the claim in question. You cannot use the claim as the evidence. Again, the entire point of this arena is to try and prove the Bible. It would be no different if we were in an arena where believers were trying to prove the Holy Quran. You cannot use the Quran as evidence. The Quran merely produces the claims.

Obviously it may be a weak evidence, but still, it is something that we would have, if the story is true.

It's a little more than weak evidence, as claims aren't evidence. But it is clear you do not have any evidence. Which means you instead apply faith. And faith can equally be applied to just about any baseless claim.

Because other history books are as trustworthy.

The climate in this region allows for much better circumstances for survival. This is why archeologists have found a plethora of evidence(s) about the ancient Egyptians. And yet, nothing about a claimed 'Israelite" populous, (of millions for centuries), during the said timeframe. Which is why another interlocutor tried to link another clan, via the Hyksos, to the 'Israelites.' And also just like you are now trying to link another dude to a 'Moses' character.

You don't have to address my position. I don't think you could offer anything that would be useful in this Senenmut = Moses case.

I've been exchanging with you for years now. Even when you are cornered, you merely hand-wave the rebuttal. Case/point, your current exchange with bluegreenearth is a classic example of this. You will never actually admit any error from the Bible, no matter what. You have failed to address my challenge, originating from post #10. I admire your devotion, but you are clearly too emotionally invested into an ancient book -- which clearly makes unsupported claims.

Regardless, it looks like your given list of apparent similarities between Senenmut and Moses, from post #4, was mysteriously deleted anyways? So, even if you did plant your flag, I have nothing to address.

[Denise3434]

Lets forget the faith, in those century, in the area we see another civilization which is Sumerian, also we know natural separation about seas. What we gonna say, no its not correct just a belief!.? Because all holly books contains geography, and social life knowledge. For example, https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%B1zkumu_Plaj%C4%B1 when you go to here you can say hey I walked on sea like Jesus, or Moses or you can say I pass to the sea with walking.

Also slavery is very common, that normal some people try to escape in this life. That means open jail. Even we know the some people escape from jail. There lots of movie , story.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... RIS_TURKEY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

[1213]

This is why archeologists have found a plethora of evidence(s) about the ancient Egyptians. And yet, nothing about a claimed 'Israelite" populous, (of millions for centuries), during the said timeframe.

And the evidence about Egyptians are the stone structures and tombs of some high ranking Egyptians. Why expect that Israelite would have left the same things, when they supposedly were slaves there?

You will never actually admit any error from the Bible, no matter what.

I don't admit things without good reasons.

Regardless, it looks like your given list of apparent similarities between Senenmut and Moses, from post #4, was mysteriously deleted anyways? So, even if you did plant your flag, I have nothing to address.

Thanks for the note. Would be nice to know why someone removed it. Apparently someone didn't want it here, so I will not repeat it. But, for those who don't want to accept your claims automatically, I recommend to search what is said about Senenmut.

[1213]

I don't think that is true. And I think more likely it is the menstrual blood. If the person is not virgin, she would be pregnant and not have periods. So, to prove she is virgin, it would be enough to show the menstrual blood.

If the consummation of the marriage occurred after the woman had ovulated, it is possible for the egg to become fertilized and temporarily pause the menstrual cycle. Therefore, no menstrual blood would appear on the "garment" or within the vaginal canal of the woman. Also, the presence of menstrual blood does not conclusively demonstrate a woman's virginity because her cycle would still continue after having intercourse if she had not been impregnated as a consequence. Furthermore, if the consummation of the marriage happens to occur after the woman had completed her "period" of bleeding for that cycle and before the next menstruation cycle begins, there would be no such "tokens of virginity" available for display. Accordingly, a lack of menstrual blood does not serve to conclusively demonstrate that the woman was sexually promiscuous. Again, the Biblical reasoning of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is necessarily in error.

And what is the error in Bible, in this case?

In ancient time, if I would wanted to have a proof that a woman is a virgin, I think best would have been to wait couple of months and see that the periods are normal. Obviously it could be that the woman had sex with infertile man before that, but the chance for that would have been so small that I would not think it is probable. And I assume it was good enough accuracy back then.

[POI]

This is why archeologists have found a plethora of evidence(s) about the ancient Egyptians. And yet, nothing about a claimed 'Israelite" populous, (of millions for centuries), during the said timeframe.

And the evidence about Egyptians are the stone structures and tombs of some high ranking Egyptians. Why expect that Israelite would have left the same things, when they supposedly were slaves there?

Who said the evidence would have been the exact same kind or type of evidence? All I'm saying is that millions of claimed folks, claiming to be enslaved for centuries, would leave a mark. The climate would preserve this mark. Further, the Egyptians would not be able to hide such a mark.

I don't admit things without good reasons.

You do not admit things, regarding the Bible, due to the protective measure of applying post hoc rationalization(s). You invent reasons that weren't actually the primary drivers of the claims or statements in order to protect your beloved ancient book.

[bluegreenearth]

In ancient time, if I would wanted to have a proof that a woman is a virgin, I think best would have been to wait couple of months and see that the periods are normal. Obviously it could be that the woman had sex with infertile man before that, but the chance for that would have been so small that I would not think it is probable. And I assume it was good enough accuracy back then.

First of all, if what you are proposing was common practice in ancient Hebrew culture, then the scenario described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 would not occur at all. The wedding would simply not take place if the woman was discovered to be pregnant a month or two earlier. Second of all, a regular menstrual cycle is not a conclusive test of virginity because not every woman is impregnated during sexual intercourse. It is not uncommon for most fertile couples to try for many months before succeeding in becoming pregnant.

Are there any other intellectually dishonest excuses we can explore for this error in Biblical reasoning?

[1213]

This is why archeologists have found a plethora of evidence(s) about the ancient Egyptians. And yet, nothing about a claimed 'Israelite" populous, (of millions for centuries), during the said timeframe.

And the evidence about Egyptians are the stone structures and tombs of some high ranking Egyptians. Why expect that Israelite would have left the same things, when they supposedly were slaves there?

Who said the evidence would have been the exact same kind or type of evidence? All I'm saying is that millions of claimed folks, claiming to be enslaved for centuries, would leave a mark. The climate would preserve this mark.

I think there has been millions of people on earth that left no mark. Most people don't leave mark that would remain thousands of years. But, please tell, what mark climate would have preserved? And please tell also, what mark do you think is left of you, after few thousands of years?

[1213]

...Second of all, a regular menstrual cycle is not a conclusive test of virginity because not every woman is impregnated during sexual intercourse....

But maybe it was good enough.