How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20792
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20792
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #841

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:14 am The point I'm making is Egypt from the earliest dynasty being 'two lands' means that an extension was made into Nubia and that was annexed as a third 'Land'.There was no reorganisation of Egypt itself.
Yes, Senusret III gained power over the entire region, including the Nubians as well.

"Senusret III was the first Egyptian king to make Egypt into a true empire by colonizing Nubia, which provided incredible economic benefits that he was then able to use for his many ambitious building projects."
https://dailyhistory.org/How_Did_Senusr ... an_History

He had also divided up his kingdom to be ruled by regional rulers that were under his authority.
And dividing the entire land into thirty-six parts which the Egyptian call nomes, he set over each a nomarch, who should superintend the collection of the royal revenues and administer all the affairs of his division.” [11]
https://dailyhistory.org/How_Did_Senusr ... an_History

Which also matches the Biblical account:

Gen 41:34
Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
If one doesn't believer the Bible already, then none of that adds up to a row of beans
Like I asked earlier, "If the Biblical account is false, then what is the alternative explanation that would account for all of these facts?"

Also, as I mentioned, I'm not claiming all of the archaeological evidence proves the Bible is correct, but they do all lend credence to the Biblical account since the pieces align with it. To counter my claim, you need to either present counter-evidence or describe a viable alternate explanation of all the facts. Simply claiming they don't add up to a hill of beans does not refute my arguments.
I accept that Canaanites stayed, even if the rule of the Hyksos ended, and if there was another leaving of Egypt, outside the Bible, there is no decent evidence for it that I can see.
Of course the Egyptians won't record the Exodus, so there will be no direct evidence for it. But, I think there exists some indirect evidence for it.
So it doesn't prove that they were Hebrew houses, in particular.
Never claimed they were "Hebrew" houses. But they are referred to as Israelite houses, which is good enough in my book.
And I don't recall that you answered why the Exodus happened after the land of the Philistines
We can perhaps get to that when I discuss the actual exodus out of Egypt.
or why the finding of Moses in the Bulrushes is so like the story of Sargon of Akkad?
The legend of Sargon was written between 1200-700 BC, which is centuries after the time of Moses.
My mother the high priestess conceived me, bore me in secret,
~~in a reed basket she placed me, sealed my lid with bitumen.
She set me down on the river, whence I could not ascend;
~~the river bore me up, brought me to the irrigator Aqqi.
The irrigator Aqqi lifted me up as he dipped his pail,
~~the irrigator Aqqi brought me up as his adopted son.

Date: 1200-700 BC
http://www.etana.org/node/578

"A Neo-Assyrian text from the 7th century BC purporting to be Sargon's autobiography asserts that the great king was the illegitimate son of a priestess. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of ... rth_legend

So, the main contention would then be when was the Torah written? Was it written before the legend of Sargon was written or after?
Rather like the Ark of Noah is like that old Mesopotamian tale of Ut- Napishtim.
As we discussed, there are global flood stories all over the world.
I'd suggest that this is evidence for an Exilic date for Exodus and Genesis (including the Ziggurat of Babel) and there are two major clues debunking the Exodus as reliable history, leaving an Exilic origin -story for the Hebrews (1) and the hypothesis with better evidential support.
If the Torah was written during/after the Babylonian exile (598 - 538 BC), why would they have constructed a story that does not match the prevailing view of the Hyksos at that time? Manetho, who recounted the history of the Hyksos, lived around 300 BC, and presented them as marauding invaders. It would've made more sense to invent a story that matches that prevailing view than invent something totally different.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #842

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:48 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:14 am The point I'm making is Egypt from the earliest dynasty being 'two lands' means that an extension was made into Nubia and that was annexed as a third 'Land'.There was no reorganisation of Egypt itself.
Yes, Senusret III gained power over the entire region, including the Nubians as well.

"Senusret III was the first Egyptian king to make Egypt into a true empire by colonizing Nubia, which provided incredible economic benefits that he was then able to use for his many ambitious building projects."
https://dailyhistory.org/How_Did_Senusr ... an_History

He had also divided up his kingdom to be ruled by regional rulers that were under his authority.
And dividing the entire land into thirty-six parts which the Egyptian call nomes, he set over each a nomarch, who should superintend the collection of the royal revenues and administer all the affairs of his division.” [11]
https://dailyhistory.org/How_Did_Senusr ... an_History

Which also matches the Biblical account:

Gen 41:34
Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
If one doesn't believer the Bible already, then none of that adds up to a row of beans
Like I asked earlier, "If the Biblical account is false, then what is the alternative explanation that would account for all of these facts?"

Also, as I mentioned, I'm not claiming all of the archaeological evidence proves the Bible is correct, but they do all lend credence to the Biblical account since the pieces align with it. To counter my claim, you need to either present counter-evidence or describe a viable alternate explanation of all the facts. Simply claiming they don't add up to a hill of beans does not refute my arguments.
I accept that Canaanites stayed, even if the rule of the Hyksos ended, and if there was another leaving of Egypt, outside the Bible, there is no decent evidence for it that I can see.
Of course the Egyptians won't record the Exodus, so there will be no direct evidence for it. But, I think there exists some indirect evidence for it.
So it doesn't prove that they were Hebrew houses, in particular.
Never claimed they were "Hebrew" houses. But they are referred to as Israelite houses, which is good enough in my book.
And I don't recall that you answered why the Exodus happened after the land of the Philistines
We can perhaps get to that when I discuss the actual exodus out of Egypt.
or why the finding of Moses in the Bulrushes is so like the story of Sargon of Akkad?
The legend of Sargon was written between 1200-700 BC, which is centuries after the time of Moses.
My mother the high priestess conceived me, bore me in secret,
~~in a reed basket she placed me, sealed my lid with bitumen.
She set me down on the river, whence I could not ascend;
~~the river bore me up, brought me to the irrigator Aqqi.
The irrigator Aqqi lifted me up as he dipped his pail,
~~the irrigator Aqqi brought me up as his adopted son.

Date: 1200-700 BC
http://www.etana.org/node/578

"A Neo-Assyrian text from the 7th century BC purporting to be Sargon's autobiography asserts that the great king was the illegitimate son of a priestess. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of ... rth_legend

So, the main contention would then be when was the Torah written? Was it written before the legend of Sargon was written or after?
Rather like the Ark of Noah is like that old Mesopotamian tale of Ut- Napishtim.
As we discussed, there are global flood stories all over the world.
I'd suggest that this is evidence for an Exilic date for Exodus and Genesis (including the Ziggurat of Babel) and there are two major clues debunking the Exodus as reliable history, leaving an Exilic origin -story for the Hebrews (1) and the hypothesis with better evidential support.
If the Torah was written during/after the Babylonian exile (598 - 538 BC), why would they have constructed a story that does not match the prevailing view of the Hyksos at that time? Manetho, who recounted the history of the Hyksos, lived around 300 BC, and presented them as marauding invaders. It would've made more sense to invent a story that matches that prevailing view than invent something totally different.
So, are you altering this re-organizing proposal (which you attribute to Joseph) as regarding Nomes rather than the expansion of the two lands into a third?

(Encyclopaedia Brittanicca) "nome, administrative division of ancient Egypt. The system of dividing the country into nomes was definitely in force by the time of the Old Kingdom (c. 2575–c. 2130 BC) and persisted with modifications until the Muslim conquest (AD 640)."

So is there really justification for making Senusret III the instigator of the system of nomes? I have to admit that when a cookies notice pops up I tend to log out so I can't study that line of argument in Daily History org) (1). Can you post here evidence that the Nomes was that Pharaoh's idea? And even then, that there is something outside the Bible to make us suppose that Nobody but his cup-bearer came up with any useful administrative proposals.

I'll have a look at the dates, but it does come down to whether we credit the book of Exodus (and indeed Genesis) as written before the Exile or after. Your suggestion is that Sargon of Akkad (or his biographer) heard the tale of Moses and thought that a better origin for the King of Akkad than being born in the palace. One can invent all manner of scenarios, but we have these likely links - Sargon and Moses, Noah and the Sumerian Flood, as well as Moses and Ahmose I and the expulsion of both Hyksos and Hebrews

The flood legends (as I recall I argued) may argue for a lot of actual floods and perhaps even a global (but not total) flood, but (as I think I pointed out) there is actually no Chinese or Egyptian Flood -legend, even though Genesis literalists try to invent them, and this means than the flood was not total (apart from what was on the Ark) and thus the Biblical story is just another, and (I argue) a borrowed one, nor is the Babylonian story the 'true' one as it which really describes a flood in Mesopotamia, not the whole globe. You asked whether the globe was ever (according to geology) covered entirely by water. It wasn't: the super -continent appears to break up and come together but was always there. Bottom line - the Flood legends do not validate the Bible, even if they validate one major Flood.

This is the problem we seem to have - You accept the Bible as (substantially) reliable and thus you ferret out links that look flimsy to me, if undisprovable. I can't prove that the Hyksos king in a robe of at least three colors has nothing to do with Joseph, but a ruler (not a cup -bearer to an Egyptian king) in a robe of at least three colours, which frankly anyone with a bit of political clout could have, is just too thin as evidence to valid Genesis. In fact the statue of a ruler (if not a god) would tend to argue against that statue having anything to do with Joseph.

Nor indeed is there a scrap of evidence for the Hyksos being Israelites or including them as a distinct tribe. Even if I accept that the Hyksos rule was driven out and Egypt took over but allowed the Canaanite taxi -d rivers and pizza - delivery boys to stay on in their 4 room houses in Avaris.

And one was found down down south wasn't it? And the other in the area of Gaza? Canaanite traditions of house - building don't prove Israelites in Egypt even if Hebrews adopted the same architecture (and never mind someone labelling it 'Israelite house (2). This is what I said was the problem, this is not evidence for Hebrews in Egypt but neither is it disproof. Even if the Hyksos connection is dropped, we have NO evidence for a (later) Exodus under the New kingdom Pharaohs. And while you can dismiss that as a cover up by Egypt, I can say it works as well as an invented story and the history does not refute that idea. Indeed Moses based on Sargon and the exodus based on the Egyptian 'spin' of the expulsion of the Hyksos works, because in Exodus they all leave, though rather than the Egyptian king driving them out, the Biblical spin is that he tries to prevent them from leaving. Manetho and the Egyptian version tend to refute the Biblical version.

I'll just see how a cupbearer to Senusret III and a ruler with a mushroom -hat in Hyksos times works without the need to appeal to a long life - span, but the status of Joseph would require some invention from you. Cup -bearer to having a statue made of him when the Canaanites took over the Delta never mind no mention of the 'Israelites' conquering all Egypt with their chariots doesn't at all fit the Bible, but an Exilic -date borrowing of the Egyptian history of the expulsion of the Hyksoss, given a Hebrew spin, would do very well and explain the Sargon - connection, the Moses - Ahmose I connection and why there is the anachronistic mention of Philistia. As well as explaining the orgin - stories of the Flood and Ark, the nations of Moab and Edom as servants of the Israeli 'birthright' and of course the ziggurat of Babylon as the origins of human languages.

I may be biased, but they seem to fit more neatly than your 'Israelites in the land of the Hyksos' - story.

(1) "We value your privacy - it's worth thousands to us, infecting your laptop with malware and selling your online ID to scammers". Ok, maybe I'm paranoid in my old age. But just last week I had to call in my computer - genius niece to wipe a scammer off my account.
"Virus protection won't stop me, Jon".

(2) someone fell over themselves to make a farmhouse half dug into a Nazareth hillside 'possibly Jesus' house', though there didn't seem to be a 1st c AD Nazareth to go along with it. But slapping 'Biblical evidence' labels on Israeli Archaeology is the very best clickbait for Believers thirsty for Bible - confirmation. Or anything that can be made to look like it. Never mind Torah - toting diggers swearing that buildings of Omri are actually Solomonic.

benkunz234
Student
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:22 pm

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #843

Post by benkunz234 »

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

if you took all the bibles. the quran , hindu and buddhist scriptures in the world locked them in a vault. you would only have a quran the next day exactly as the one in the vault ..memorized by 10 million people worldwide.

benkunz234
Student
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:22 pm

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #844

Post by benkunz234 »

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #3]

bart erman biblical scholar ' there are 50k biblical manuscripts. no two alike none of the gospels were even written by the 4 said authors and John 3 16 the backbone of christianity was added into John much later ' I left church for islam in 2002

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20792
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #845

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:02 pm So is there really justification for making Senusret III the instigator of the system of nomes?
Never claimed that. Yes, Egypt was subdivided into nomes since the Old Kingdom.

The point I made was, "The fact that the Pharaoh was able to gain absolute control while the local leaders willingly ceded authority is confirmed by secular historians."

The question remains, why would all local leaders willingly give their authority to the Pharaoh? There is no other viable explanation apart from the Biblical account.
This is the problem we seem to have - You accept the Bible as (substantially) reliable and thus you ferret out links that look flimsy to me, if undisprovable.
Not sure why you say my arguments are "undisprovable". Counter-evidence can disprove my arguments. If no valid counter-evidence are presented, then it shows my arguments are sound. An example is giving evidence to support an alternative explanation to why the local authorities all over Egypt voluntarily gave up military and political power to Senusret III.
Nor indeed is there a scrap of evidence for the Hyksos being Israelites or including them as a distinct tribe.
This is incorrect, I presented the palace in Avaris and the seal of Joseph. You might not accept the evidence, but evidence has been presented. I'll give some more evidence in my next post linking the Bible and Avaris.
And one was found down down south wasn't it? This is what I said was the problem, this is not evidence for Hebrews in Egypt but neither is it disproof.
How is it disproof?
we have NO evidence for a (later) Exodus under the New kingdom Pharaohs.
We'll get to this later.
Manetho and the Egyptian version tend to refute the Biblical version.
Please cite what they said.
I'll just see how a cupbearer to Senusret III and a ruler with a mushroom -hat in Hyksos times works without the need to appeal to a long life - span
What long life-span are you referring to?
I may be biased, but they seem to fit more neatly than your 'Israelites in the land of the Hyksos' - story.
The Biblical account presents a narrative that correlates surprisingly well to all the evidence I've presented. So far, you have not disproven any of the evidence I've presented. But, you do not agree that it supports the Biblical account. So, you must have in mind another account that all the evidence supports. What is that account?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20792
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #846

Post by otseng »

Some more comments about the palace and Avaris:

The statue in the palace has a throw stick on the shoulder.

Image

"The statue represents an official, seated and with a Throw stick held at the left shoulder."
https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/ar ... l-el-daba/

Though the throw stick most likely represents power and authority, in ancient Egypt, throw sticks also represented hunters or foreigners, which Joseph definitely could identify as a foreigner with authority and power.

"It is used on the palettes both as a throwing-stick weapon in the animal hunt being portrayed-(the Hunters Palette),[1] as well as on certain palettes, as a determinative referring to a "foreigner", or "foreign territory".
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_stick_(hieroglyph)

Image

As evidenced with his colorful tunic and extravagant hairdo, Joseph was most likely quite a fashionista. As a matter of fact, the Bible describes him as such an attractive man that women lusted to have sex with him.

Gen 39:6-7 (2001)
Well, JoSeph was extremely attractive... he had an excellent body and a very handsome face. And so, after he had been [put in charge of the house], his master's woman eyed JoSeph and said: '[Have sex] with me.'

The name "Avaris" could also be named after Joseph.
The word “Avaris” means nothing in Egyptian. But, in the Torah, Joseph is repeatedly called a “Hebrew”; “Ivri” in the Hebrew language. He is also repeatedly and curiously called “Ha Ish”; “The Man”. In other words, the word “Avaris” may very well be related to Joseph, the “Ish Ivri”, or the “Hebrew Man” (Genesis 39:14). All this is lost in translation when Joseph is simply called a “Hebrew”. Put differently, the so-called Hyksos capital seems to be named after Joseph the “Ish Ivri” i.e., Avar-Ish.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/statue- ... overed-up/

Gen 39:14 (KJV)
That she called unto the men of her house, and spoke unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in a Hebrew ("Ish Ivri") unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice

Even though tombs were in the palace, no skeletal remains are found in the tombs.
Inside the burial chamber excavators found fragments of an inscribed limestone sarcophagus and a few bone fragments, but no intact skeleton as in the other tombs in the cemetery (Bietak 1991a: 61). Sometime after the burial, a pit was dug at the end of the chapel and a tunnel dug into the burial chamber. The “coffin” (sarcophagus) was then broken and the remains of the deceased removed by these “tomb robbers” (Rohl 1995: 363). It was common for tombs to be broken into in antiquity and the valuables removed, but to have the body taken is highly unusual.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/p ... s-in-egypt

Either the bones were stolen or intentionally moved elsewhere. There's no good reason to steal bones, but there is a reason to take them away, as recorded in the Bible:

[Gen 50:25-26 KJV] 25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. 26 So Joseph died, [being] an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

[Exo 13:19 KJV] 19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

Near the palace, 16 severed hands were found buried.

Image

Severing enemy hands was not a practice of the Egyptians, but was a Canaanite custom that even David performed.

[2Sa 4:12 KJV] 12 And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged [them] up over the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried [it] in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #847

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:06 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:02 pm So is there really justification for making Senusret III the instigator of the system of nomes?
Never claimed that. Yes, Egypt was subdivided into nomes since the Old Kingdom.

The point I made was, "The fact that the Pharaoh was able to gain absolute control while the local leaders willingly ceded authority is confirmed by secular historians."

The question remains, why would all local leaders willingly give their authority to the Pharaoh? There is no other viable explanation apart from the Biblical account.
This is the problem we seem to have - You accept the Bible as (substantially) reliable and thus you ferret out links that look flimsy to me, if undisprovable.
Not sure why you say my arguments are "undisprovable". Counter-evidence can disprove my arguments. If no valid counter-evidence are presented, then it shows my arguments are sound. An example is giving evidence to support an alternative explanation to why the local authorities all over Egypt voluntarily gave up military and political power to Senusret III.
Nor indeed is there a scrap of evidence for the Hyksos being Israelites or including them as a distinct tribe.
This is incorrect, I presented the palace in Avaris and the seal of Joseph. You might not accept the evidence, but evidence has been presented. I'll give some more evidence in my next post linking the Bible and Avaris.
And one was found down down south wasn't it? This is what I said was the problem, this is not evidence for Hebrews in Egypt but neither is it disproof.
How is it disproof?
we have NO evidence for a (later) Exodus under the New kingdom Pharaohs.
We'll get to this later.
Manetho and the Egyptian version tend to refute the Biblical version.
Please cite what they said.
I'll just see how a cupbearer to Senusret III and a ruler with a mushroom -hat in Hyksos times works without the need to appeal to a long life - span
What long life-span are you referring to?
I may be biased, but they seem to fit more neatly than your 'Israelites in the land of the Hyksos' - story.
The Biblical account presents a narrative that correlates surprisingly well to all the evidence I've presented. So far, you have not disproven any of the evidence I've presented. But, you do not agree that it supports the Biblical account. So, you must have in mind another account that all the evidence supports. What is that account?
So, ok just what are you claiming for Senusret III (prompted by Joseph in his coat of a few colors) if not the institution of nomes or the re -organisation as three 'lands'? That he was able to 'gain control' over local governors. So how does that prove Joseph, Genesis and the Bible? Senusret was a strong king. That's pretty poor evidence that Joseph was the power behind the throne.

I did a king list and we have Senusret III 1875 -1840 BC up to the Hyksos dynasty 1675-1535 when Hyksos rule was ousted. So from Joseph as advisor to Senusret III to his statue in Avaris I make around 200 years of politic influence, let alone a lifetime.

And apart from absurd claims in the Bible, the historical evidence is that people did not live longer than they did later on. You see the point - Joseph can't be cupbearer to Senusret AND the mushroom -hatted ruler in Avaris. And the point of that is that finding apparent signs of Joseph's presence is just not enough to validate Genesis.

'Undisrovable'. I thought Id made that clear. Debunking the evidence for Joseph either in Senusret's time or during Hyksos rule doesn't mean that one of them isn't true, only that they can't both be true, and thus neither are valid evidence For. Disproving either of them requires more evidence, and the only hard clue I have is that the story of the Exodus mentions the Philistines and so that is evidence that it was written after the time of Ramesses III (1186 -1155) who defeated the Sea Peoples and settled some in Gaza as the Philistines.

I argue from textual clues for a Babylonian influence but that's not more than clues.

As to that four room house, while there is evidence that it is Mid -eastern style not found in Egyptian architecture, that doesn't make it Israelite nor prove that it isn't. It is just that it is not evidence for Israelites in Egypt before the Exodus (which you date to the Pharaohs Thutmose II or Amenhotep II (1458 - 1400, total) and so far no good evidence for israelites in Egypt before then has been presented.

You did indeed present 'evidence' that the cylinder seal from Avaris related to Israel. I argued that you had to fiddle the OT references to make them identify all the tribes. I've heard it before 'Bad evidence is still 'Evidence'. How does the snake relate? And the sailboat? And that Egyptian - style rule with a war mace? You really have only the Bull and the Lion and I recall you had to pull in the 'lion of Judah' as a general correspondence not part of the Genesis 'birthright' passage you referred to.

I already mentioned that Manetho and the Egyptian view of the Hyksos (they were invaders who were eventually kicked out) is quite unlike the Biblical story of the Hebrews, who were a distinct demographic within Egypt, were then enslaved and then had to force the Pharaoh to allow them to leave.

So finally, you can find 'bad evidence' (I call it very thin) in the power of Senuret II somehow proving Joseph as the power behind the throne, and 200 years later the three color statue in Avaris that you also link with Joseph. The 'long life'I referred to (cue - denial of dating), the cylinder seal which (with some rummaging around for correspondences- e.g the Lion of Judah) you can claim to relate to the tribes of Israel. I can't disprove it, but I can show that you have to struggle to get it to relate to all the tribes. The four room house may represent Canaanite architecture, but what justifies calling it 'the Israeli house'?

The scenario that I suggest is that Senusret was a strong king and did not reorganise the lands or nomes which were already there, but gained control over the governors. That doesn't prove Joseph. 200 years later the Canaanites in the Delta formed a dynasty which had Canaanite names but Egyptian throne -titles, pagan religion (Seth) and Temples and burials that were so unlike the Hebrew that you had to propose that they were in some formative religious state. I think it makes more sense to see them as Heathen Canaanites and not Israel which didn't appear until the mention in the stele of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC) 100-150 years after the time of Thutmose II/Amenhotep II (which suits your Exodus dating fairly well) but the bronze age collapse happened after that with setting up Philistia for the first time - which (according to Exodus) Moses went into Sinai to avoid. So that can't be true.

What is true (so archaeology suggests) is that Israel together with Moab, Ammon and Edom, expanded into the Canaanite plain and they set up their states which feature in the OT history.

I further suggest that Israel first devised the Laws and customs (reference the 'silver scroll of 600 BC) and the worship of their god alone to keep them distinct from the other heathen tribes and it was during the exile (Babylonian references) that they compiled the origin - stories of Genesis and Exodus.

That's my alternative explanation

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20792
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #848

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:44 am So, ok just what are you claiming for Senusret III (prompted by Joseph in his coat of a few colors) if not the institution of nomes or the re -organisation as three 'lands'?
As I mentioned:
This policy disenfranchised most of the nomarchs but, interestingly, there is no evidence of resistance to it, nor is there any indication that the king was resented for a move which should have significantly affected the standard of living of a number of formerly powerful families. Inscriptions on the tombs of these nomarchs at Beni Hassan repeatedly give evidence that these people continued to be employed by the state and took pride in their positions and their king. This policy resulted in a much stronger and more secure central government. The militias of the different nomes were disbanded and absorbed into the standing army of the king and the removal of the nomarchs facilitated greater wealth for the crown. Senusret III's redistricting also had the unforeseen effect of creating a segment of the population which had not existed previously: the middle class.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Senusret_III/

The nomarchs gave up their power throughout Egypt to the Pharaoh. The central government gained more control over the nomes. Like if all the states now gave up more control to the federal government. What would cause this and what is the evidence for it?
I did a king list and we have Senusret III 1875 -1840 BC up to the Hyksos dynasty 1675-1535 when Hyksos rule was ousted. So from Joseph as advisor to Senusret III to his statue in Avaris I make around 200 years of politic influence, let alone a lifetime.
I never claimed, nor has the Bible claimed, that Joseph was ever a Pharaoh. So, only you are claiming that Joseph was a ruler during the Hyksos dynasty. I have only claimed Joseph was contemporary with Senusret III. The Bible only makes a brief reference about the Hyksos dynasty that Israel grew in numbers and political power. And it implies Joseph had been dead a long time when "the king that knew not Joseph" was in power.

Exod 1:7-9 (KJV)
7And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we.
And apart from absurd claims in the Bible, the historical evidence is that people did not live longer than they did later on.
You made the claim, not me.
How does the snake relate? And the sailboat?
I already explained this.
Dan is associated with a serpent, which is at the 6 o'clock position.

Gen 49:17 (ESV)
Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider falls backward.

Issachar and Zebulun are associated with ships.

Gen 49:13 (ESV)
Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon.
viewtopic.php?p=1069718#p1069718
I already mentioned that Manetho and the Egyptian view of the Hyksos (they were invaders who were eventually kicked out) is quite unlike the Biblical story of the Hebrews, who were a distinct demographic within Egypt, were then enslaved and then had to force the Pharaoh to allow them to leave.
Again, what did Manetho exactly say? Also, archaeology has proved that Manetho basically lied about the Hyksos. Why do you believe Manetho over modern archaeologists about the Hyksos?
The 'long life'I referred to (cue - denial of dating).
It's not logical to disprove my position based on something I've never claimed, but only on something you have claimed.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #849

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:25 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:44 am So, ok just what are you claiming for Senusret III (prompted by Joseph in his coat of a few colors) if not the institution of nomes or the re -organisation as three 'lands'?
As I mentioned:
This policy disenfranchised most of the nomarchs but, interestingly, there is no evidence of resistance to it, nor is there any indication that the king was resented for a move which should have significantly affected the standard of living of a number of formerly powerful families. Inscriptions on the tombs of these nomarchs at Beni Hassan repeatedly give evidence that these people continued to be employed by the state and took pride in their positions and their king. This policy resulted in a much stronger and more secure central government. The militias of the different nomes were disbanded and absorbed into the standing army of the king and the removal of the nomarchs facilitated greater wealth for the crown. Senusret III's redistricting also had the unforeseen effect of creating a segment of the population which had not existed previously: the middle class.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Senusret_III/

The nomarchs gave up their power throughout Egypt to the Pharaoh. The central government gained more control over the nomes. Like if all the states now gave up more control to the federal government. What would cause this and what is the evidence for it?
I did a king list and we have Senusret III 1875 -1840 BC up to the Hyksos dynasty 1675-1535 when Hyksos rule was ousted. So from Joseph as advisor to Senusret III to his statue in Avaris I make around 200 years of politic influence, let alone a lifetime.
I never claimed, nor has the Bible claimed, that Joseph was ever a Pharaoh. So, only you are claiming that Joseph was a ruler during the Hyksos dynasty. I have only claimed Joseph was contemporary with Senusret III. The Bible only makes a brief reference about the Hyksos dynasty that Israel grew in numbers and political power. And it implies Joseph had been dead a long time when "the king that knew not Joseph" was in power.

Exod 1:7-9 (KJV)
7And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we.
And apart from absurd claims in the Bible, the historical evidence is that people did not live longer than they did later on.
You made the claim, not me.
How does the snake relate? And the sailboat?
I already explained this.
Dan is associated with a serpent, which is at the 6 o'clock position.

Gen 49:17 (ESV)
Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider falls backward.

Issachar and Zebulun are associated with ships.

Gen 49:13 (ESV)
Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon.
viewtopic.php?p=1069718#p1069718
I already mentioned that Manetho and the Egyptian view of the Hyksos (they were invaders who were eventually kicked out) is quite unlike the Biblical story of the Hebrews, who were a distinct demographic within Egypt, were then enslaved and then had to force the Pharaoh to allow them to leave.
Again, what did Manetho exactly say? Also, archaeology has proved that Manetho basically lied about the Hyksos. Why do you believe Manetho over modern archaeologists about the Hyksos?
The 'long life'I referred to (cue - denial of dating).
It's not logical to disprove my position based on something I've never claimed, but only on something you have claimed.
So the point with Senusret is that - as I said - a strong king can bring governors under his control. I'm not sure this isn't the general case and it is only weaker kings that allow local governors to stray. Senusret might just be re -asserting central authority. Further, why can't he do that himself? Why should we suppose some power behind the throne? And even if we do, why would we see that as Joseph? Well, we know why, The Bible has the Joseph story and you (or some apologetics source), look around for something that seems to fit. It is, as I said, very thin and more, it's the old business of 'it only looks like evidence for the Bible if you already believe the Bible'.

So let me remind you;:you pointed to the three colours of that Hyksos statue and saw that as evidence of Joseph's many colored coat, though I argued that three colours isn't really enough to make the connection (unless one Really wants to). You also associated Joseph with Senusret who about 200 years before. The browsers are smart enough to get the point and also that I am blocking any move to invoke the long lives claimed in the Bible, and they will see your protest that you didn't claim that as crafty and doing you no credit because they know, as do I, that you are smart enough to see that I wasn't doing that.

Ok. You make a fair fist of relating the cylinder seal to tribes of Israel. I shall have to consider that a bit more, like in the context, because the 'serpent' is used as a criticism of Dan, rather than a heraldic epithet. As well as the odd situation that the burial and religious customs are very un - Godly, so that you had to argue that they were Israelites in a formative stage, but yet you have the separate tribes. Also the use of the 'Israelite' cylinder seal implies (if found in that palace) rulership by Israel, which doesn't quite work as the Hebrews being part of the Hyksos. Because there are serious objections to making the Hyksos Israelites in themselves. I again point up the situaltion of not having evidence that supports the Bible, but coming up with excuses as to why it doesn't.

So can we agree that the statue of king Mushroomhat is not credibly to be interpreted as wearing a coat of many colours as related in the Bible, never mind relating it to Joseph?

I was also thinking that it might be as well to look at Manetho on the Hyksos and also Josephus, as I'm sure that Josephus tweaked Manetho to make the Hyksos the Israelites.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #850

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Manetho and Josephus on the Hyksos. (general Q on Internet)
Preserved in Josephus's Contra Apionem I, Manetho presented the Hyksos as a barbaric horde, “invaders of an obscure race” who conquered Egypt by force, causing destruction and murdering or enslaving Egyptians. This account continued in Egyptian texts from the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom.

The name Hyksos was used by the Egyptian historian Manetho (flourished 300 bce), who, according to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (flourished 1st century ce), translated the word as “king-shepherds” or “captive shepherds.” Josephus himself wished to demonstrate the great antiquity of the Jews and thus identified ..

This shows Josephus tweaking the account of Manetho to imply that the Hyksos were Hebrews. Josephus was well aware of the association of the Israelites with shepherding. I even recall an OT passage to the effect that Goat -herding was the right way to live and there was something rather disgraceful about settled farming, which fits well with a hill -dwelling tribe of herders who only later became farmers and city -dwellers.

Is the point made, or do you wish to did further into these two histories?

Post Reply