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?

[POI]

what mark climate would have preserved? And please tell also, what mark do you think is left of you, after few thousands of years?

For some of the same reason(s) we know the ancient Egyptians enslaved the Nubians and Asiatics. Evidence was preserved for the enslavement of these groups.

[bluegreenearth]

...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.

Given that argument, at least some significant percentage women who were not virgins would pass as virgins. If a woman's virginity status was sufficiently important for the god to craft strict and draconian laws around it, then this demonstrably imprecise method for determining virginity is decidedly NOT good enough. Furthermore, the Biblical argument still fails to address the error in reasoning underlying the conclusion that a woman must have been sexually promiscuous if the expected evidence of blood is not observed under the conditions described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

Is there an apologetic argument for rationalizing the intellectual dishonesty many theists must exhibit when defending the Bible against these legitimate objections? It must be terribly difficult and emotionally exhausting for theists to have to constantly reconcile their intellectually dishonest behavior with their commitment to avoid sin.

[1213]

what mark climate would have preserved? And please tell also, what mark do you think is left of you, after few thousands of years?

For some of the same reason(s) we know the ancient Egyptians enslaved the Nubians and Asiatics. Evidence was preserved for the enslavement of these groups.

Please show the evidence.

[1213]

...at least some significant percentage women who were not virgins would pass as virgins...

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that would be true.

then this demonstrably imprecise method for determining virginity...

Actually you have demonstrated nothing. You have made claims and expect everyone to believe them blindly.

[POI]

Please show the evidence.

Archaeological findings and historical texts from ancient Egypt indicate a complex relationship between Egypt and Nubia, which at times included periods of enslavement or forced labor of Nubians by Egyptians.

Evidence for this includes:

Prisoners of War and Forced Labor: During the Old Kingdom, records show Egyptian military expeditions into Nubia, resulting in the capture of Nubian prisoners of war, who were then forced to labor on royal projects. Reliefs and inscriptions from the Old Kingdom depict captured Nubian war prisoners with their hands bound behind their backs. The Egyptian term sqr-n or "living prisoners" was used to describe war captives, including Nubians, who were subsequently forced to perform labor against their will. According to (http://www.egypttoursportal.com/en-us/b ... ent-egypt/), the Egyptian term "hm" could mean both "laborer" and "servant," potentially encompassing individuals forced into servitude.

Artistic Depictions: Ancient Egyptian art, particularly tomb reliefs, sometimes depicted Nubian prisoners submissively. Some statues and artworks show Nubians as attendants or in roles suggesting their presence within the Egyptian sphere of influence, though the precise nature of their status in every depiction is debatable.

Exploitation of Resources: Nubia was rich in resources such as gold, ivory, and exotic animals. Egyptian expansion into Nubia was often driven by the desire to control trade routes and access these valuable resources.

According to (http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/a ... troduction), during the New Kingdom, Egypt took possession of Nubian lands, intensively exploited their resources, and recruited native inhabitants into armies or as laborers on Egyptian estates.

However, it is important to note that the relationship between Egypt and Nubia was complex and multifaceted, with periods of both conflict and peaceful interaction, including trade, cultural exchange, and even instances where Nubian rulers governed Egypt. The evidence suggests that while enslavement and forced labor of Nubians did occur, it was part of a broader historical context and did not solely define the interactions between the two civilizations.

[bluegreenearth]

...at least some significant percentage women who were not virgins would pass as virgins...

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that would be true.

then this demonstrably imprecise method for determining virginity...

Actually you have demonstrated nothing. You have made claims and expect everyone to believe them blindly.

Incredulity is not a valid argument. Your incredulity directly implies the claim that every woman who menstruates under the conditions described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 must have been a virgin. What is the argument for that claim? Additionally, what is the argument for the necessarily adjacent claim that every woman who does not menstruate under the conditions described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 must have been sexually promiscuous?

[1213]

Please show the evidence.

Archaeological findings and historical texts from ancient Egypt indicate a complex relationship between Egypt and Nubia, which at times included periods of enslavement or forced labor of Nubians by Egyptians. ...

Ok, thank you.

Now, I believe Moses was Senmut (Senenmut) and Joseph was known as Imhotep in Egypt. Apparently they lived between ~2630-1458 BC. Could for example this image be of the Jews who I believe built the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut? I assume you say no, and then the problem is, how would I know are you correct. Which leads to the problem that even if there is evidence of the Jews, one can always say it is something else and no one can check what is really true in this case. It would be nice, if I could go to investigate Egypt, because then it would be possible to see all the images in right context.

[POI]

Again, you never planted your flag - (asked from post 10). Yet again, exactly how much leeway will be granted? Without planting your flag, you will likely be given carte blanche to move the goalposts accordingly, as you see fit. Is the Bible just another ancient document from antiquity, or it is considered a little more? As one example, can we extrapolate any hard dating from it or not? If not, then I suspect you can then make all sorts of wild speculative claims unfalsifiably.

I believe Moses was Senmut (Senenmut)

At the risk of perpetually firing at a moving target, we need to move this conversation along. So, without further ado, here we go...

Moses was likely not Senenmut because their lives, roles, and the historical contexts in which they lived are distinct, despite some speculation that they might be the same person. While Senenmut was a prominent architect and official during Hatshepsut's reign in ancient Egypt, Moses is a central figure in the Abrahamic religions, leading "the Israelites out of Egypt". Below are some reasons why these two individuals differ...

* Senenmut lived during the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, while the Biblical narrative of Moses places him during a period of "Israelite enslavement in Egypt."

* Senenmut was an architect and official, known for his work on Hatshepsut's mortuary temple and other constructions. Moses, on the other hand, is depicted as a prophet, leader, and lawgiver who delivered the "Israelites from slavery."

* Senenmut's name, meaning "brother of Moot," reflects his association with the Egyptian goddess Moot, while Moses' name, meaning "born of," is linked to his rescue from the Nile.

* There's no mention of Moses or the events of "the Exodus" in surviving Egyptian records, despite the detailed accounts of Senenmut's life.

* While some have speculated that Senenmut might be the Moses of the Bible, there is no concrete historical evidence to support this claim. The Bible's account of Moses is likely a religious narrative alone, rather than a an actual historical one.

Apparently they lived between ~2630-1458 BC.

Alot can happen in the span of almost 1200 years! Please plant your flag. According to the Bible, what year(s) did Moses live and die?

Could for example this image be of the Jews who I believe built the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut?

Wishful thinking can certainly prompt such a question -- to force a particular narrative. It is clear you have read the Bible and are trying to make things fit.

I assume you say no, and then the problem is, how would I know are you correct. Which leads to the problem that even if there is evidence of the Jews, one can always say it is something else and no one can check what is really true in this case. It would be nice, if I could go to investigate Egypt, because then it would be possible to see all the images in right context.

The problem is, you never planted your flag, in spite of me asking several times. We know Egypt had slaves. As I stated prior, we also know of at least two groups/tribes in which the ancient Egyptians enslaved. And neither of these two tribes were the expressed "Biblical tribe". The Egyptians kept no secrets regarding the enslavement of these folks.

Also, unanswered from post 10: Speaking of similarities, isn't this just more evidence of Biblical authorship committing verisimilitude?

[1213]

despite some speculation that they might be the same person. While Senenmut was a prominent architect and official during Hatshepsut's reign in ancient Egypt, Moses is a central figure in the Abrahamic religions, leading "the Israelites out of Egypt". Below are some reasons why these two individuals differ...

By what the Bible tells, the early life of Moses was in Egypt as an Egyptian, so I think it should be obvious that there is a change in his life. If he would have continued as an Egyptian, the Exodus would not have happened. To expect something else is not reasonable.

* Senenmut lived during the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, while the Biblical narrative of Moses places him during a period of "Israelite enslavement in Egypt.... There's no mention of Moses or the events of "the Exodus" in surviving Egyptian records, despite the detailed accounts of Senenmut's life.

I believe Senmut lived c.15th century BC, because the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut was build at that time and Senmut is said to be its architect.

Wikipedia says:
"Although it is not known where he is buried, Senenmut had a tomb constructed for himself and a cenotaph-hypogeum. The unfinished tomb is at (TT71) in the Tombs of the Nobles and his cenotaph-hypogeum (numbered as TT353), near Hatshepsut's mortuary temple, and contains a famous star ceiling. They were both heavily vandalized during the reign of Thutmose III"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senenmut

That the unused tomb was vandalized, suggests that Egypt wanted to remove Senenmut from their record, which would be understandable, if he was Moses. That is why it is not reasonable to expect records in Egypt of Senenmut, after he went with Jews.

[POI]

[Replying to 1213 in post #59]

Though I appreciate the response, you keep dodging a very key point. Please plant your flag. See the bottom of post 10 and the top of post 58 for details. I keep asking, but you keep avoiding. Exactly how much leeway will you grant between the Bible's claims <verses> other source(s) for which you want to compare - in an attempt to link these two folks? Failure to plant a distinct flag will likely result in me aiming at a perpetual moving target. I need specifics? Assuming you deem the Bible authoritative, just for starters, exactly when was Moses born, and when did he die?

You also skipped my question from the same posts, in post 10 and post 58:

How possible is it that the Bible is guilty of verisimilitude?