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

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How 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?

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

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[Diogenes]

Oliver, I agree we should not just automatically agree with 'authorities;' however, when it comes to very technical fields like linguistics, archeology, evolution, radiometric dating, I tend to accept the peer reviewed experts' opinions even if they conflict with my own prior views.

Note that there is no scholarly consensus on the late date of the Exodus. Neither is there scholarly consensus on the dating and authorship of the Torah. So, when you say you need to defer to the authorities, you are choosing which authority to base your belief on.

To a degree, we do need to accept what the authorities say. Obviously we can't dig at sites ourselves and be fluent in hieroglyphics. But, the entire principle of this forum is to base our arguments on evidence and sound arguments. And though none of us are experts in any of the fields we are debating in, we are free to challenge anything and to argue for anything, provided we present evidence to support our arguments.

Thank you. There is no scholarly consensus on the date of the exodus because the consensus is that there IS NO exodus as described in the Bible. It is a myth as has been previously recounted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
The components of the Torah were written at different times, but there is consensus about the date of compilation. "The final Torah is widely seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE).[57] This consensus echoes a traditional Jewish view which gives Ezra, the leader of the Jewish community on its return from Babylon, a pivotal role in its promulgation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Date_of_compilation

As to authorship, I suppose no one knows, but the consensus is that it was NOT written by Moses, despite the traditional belief.

[TRANSPONDER]

I noted that you cited a Biblical Archaeology and claimed that it said that Manetho had the Jews coming out of Egypt and founding Jerusalem. I couldn't see that in the article (maybe I missed it) but it is rather Josephus' take on Manetho

However this note is interesting in that it suggests that Manetho might have mentioned the Hebrew Exodus, though of course what the Hebrews claimed rather than what Egypt claimed

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753208

I don't know why you are ignoring or evading the point. Blocks or bricks, making or hauling either would not confirm the Bible because non Hebrews in Egypt also did it., I have seen your review of your evidence.I have already refuted all of it.

No, I have not evaded your point and you have not refuted any of it. Here was the point you made at first which I addressed.

That you talk of refutation shows that you miss the point. Which is that because Egyptians made bricks does not provide evidence that Hebrew slaves were doing it. I have pointed out that Hebrews borrowed from Canaan when they entered from the east (using the Phoenecian alphabet rather than Canaanite script). I alo couldn't see any mention of Donkey slaying meaning sighing a treaty. Perhaps you could post the claim.

If Exodus has accounts of them forced to haul stone blocks or make pots without...say, glazing, you could show models and pictures of Egyptians doing that (as they always did) and claim that supports the Bible.

A story of Hebrew slaves hauling stone blocks would not have made any sense as I've covered in post 953. So, your claim that the Bible can say anything it wants and it would all be plausible is false.

If you're going to present counter-arguments, you'll need to not just make up claims without any evidence to back up the claims. If you claim hauling stone blocks is just as plausible as making mud bricks, you'll need to justify it.

Again, all I'm showing is the Biblical account aligns with the archaeological evidence. I'm not claiming that from archaeological alone can you tell what specific people group made mud bricks.

I have heard similar claims about a number of Egyptian kings including Ramesses II who was succeeded by Merneptah rather than his first -born son. It was heavily hinted that made him the Pharaoh of the Exodus. You can do that with several Egyptian Pharaohs.

Sure, there are some arguments for the late date. But it is the cumulative evidence that should be considered. Again, if anyone wants to argue for the late date, we can compare the evidence against the early date.

And could you clarify whether it's Ahmose I or one of the successors that is the Phraroah of the Exodus? There seems to be three possible candidates.

I claim Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

I repeat that Hebrew sounding names in Egypt are better explained as Hebrew borrowing of Canaanit names - just as they borrowed Phoenecian litters rather than Canaanite script which suggests, doesn't it that they appeared next to Phoenecian culture rather than Hyksos.

Please present the evidence that non-Hebrew cultures had used Hebrew names that I had presented:

The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14).

viewtopic.php?p=1071590#p1071590

I had a quick check and bricks and stone were both used in Egypt from early times. Stone for Temples, and the like and bricks for less monumental buildings.

Yes, stone and brick have been used for construction in Egypt.

But, unlike popular belief, ancient Greek belief, and Cecil B. DeMille's portrayal of Hebrew slaves hauling stone blocks, it would not have aligned with archaeological data.

If they ate no pigs when they were not the Hebrews it cannot be used as evidence that Hebrews were even there.

I agree not finding much pig bones in Goshen is not conclusive evidence, but it is an interesting alignment.

I presume that you will drop Senusret as the Pharoah with Joseph the principal adviser and opted for Joseph as boss of the Hyksos when Ahmose ended Hyksos rule. But there again, while I can wangle it to fit myself, does three colours on a statue equate to 'many colours', other than technically (being more than two)? On top of this the end of Hyksos rule was Not the Exodus. Supposedly that was something that happened under one of the successors of Ahmose I, though I doubt that you can wangle Hatsheptsut into the story, unless you deny the accepted Chronology.

I already talked about all of these, so not sure exactly what you are claiming.

The lack of a trace of evidence of the Exodus (and I repeat that the Hebrews adopted the Phoenecian alphabet rather than Canaanite script as used in Egypt) is explained by you as being suppressed by the Egyptians and you cite the attempt to obliterate Hatshepsut.

I haven't yet gotten to the point of the exodus out of Egypt. We'll see if there's no evidence or not. As for Egyptians erasing the memory of Hatshepsut, if they could do that for a Pharaoh, why could they not as well do that for a bunch of slaves?

I already explained - despite the best efforts, we know about kings they tried to erase. If we are theorising about negative evidence, the spin would be positive about expelling the pesky Hebrews and never mind losing a squadron of chariots. The point being that it doesn't disprove the exodus but (to use your own argument) it fits the narrative of No Exodus just at the archaeology and history with Manetho NOT apparently equating the Hyksos with the Hebrews.

You did a good job of posting the (possibly) Hebrew names and that's your best case, really. Unless I can show that Non Hebrew semites had names that look (or can be made to look) Hebrew. But again, why wouldn't Hebrews adopt Canaanite names? The 'cumulative evidence' that you refer to rather points to Israel (Hebrews) not being in Canaan (let alone Egypt) before the 11th c BC and you evidence For amounts to the pig bones and Semitic names - nothing else, really, be it noted. There is no good reason to see that 3 colour statue as Joseph, that cylinder seal as Hebrew, Any Pharaoh as Exodus (other than Ahmose I as garbled and Spun history') or the general near -eastern houses as particularly Hebrew. You said yourself that the Hyksos were not all Hebrew, so why should any be Hebrew? It is not refutation so much as lack of any real evidence. For. It's trickier to prove an absence than a presence. And I have pointed to the evidence for post 11th c Israel and a Babylonian Genesis and Exodus. Sargon in the Bulrushes and the evading of the Philistines.And if Ahmose is the origin of 'Moses' it's a point that Jewish names could have an Egyptian origin, eh?

We know that Egyptian workers hauled stone blocks. There are paintings of them doing it. Their monumental buildings are made with them.You think they drove them on trucks? Also beer making and all manner or work. The point being that the one job the Hebrews are shown in the Bible doing does not mean it is true. It could say they did stone - hauling or pottery or any other job and it would still work - and not be evidence they were in Egypt at all. That's the point. I anticipate the evidence for the Exodus. I hope you won't cite Ron Wyatt and his chariot wheels in the sea.

Your argument does not align with the archaeological evidence. There is no evidence (apart from the similarity of names to Hebrew ones - I've already explained that) that supports Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Not the Near eastern house (which could as well be Canaanite) or the cylinder -seal (which looks more Hyksos than Hebrew) or that mushroom -headed statue. You have nothing. I however have the use of Phoenecian alphabet (Not Canaanite) which fits a post 11th century expansion of Israel, the archaeology that suggests a post 11th c expansion, Jericho not 'existing' at the time of the conquest, and the mention of Moses anachronistically avoiding the Philistines which also fit a post 1tth c BC expansion. And ok,we have dropped Senusret as part of the Joseph narrative and Ahmose I as anything to do with Exodus. Just to get that clear. I presume out three color statue is your Joseph candidate and a post - Hatshepsut Pharaoh as the pharaoh of Exodus. I've already suggested that Aknenaten and Tutankhamen might do well as 'weak' Pharaohs allowing the Conquest to happen. Note that the first mention of Israel doesn't happen till the next dynasty - for what that's worth.

Off the top of my head I recall that one of the Hyksos kings was called 'Yakub' I did look up a list of Canaanite names but many were names of Babylonian gods so that doesn't help. I recall that 'Asherah' is a Canaanite goddess. So that would suggest a borrowing. I will look up more evidence for semitic names amongst the Canaanites. I agree the pig bones (absence of, so far) is interesting especially as the Non -Hebrew Hyksos don't show signs of eating them either, plus you suggested Hebrews in a formative state when (according to the Bible) they hadn't been given the Law yet. So I wonder - were these people Hebrews yet or not? The thing is that the Tanakh rather depicts Genesis and Exodus as practising Jews before they were given the Law. Which again looks like anachronism.

[otseng]

There is no scholarly consensus on the date of the exodus because the consensus is that there IS NO exodus as described in the Bible. It is a myth as has been previously recounted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
The components of the Torah were written at different times, but there is consensus about the date of compilation. "The final Torah is widely seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE).[57] This consensus echoes a traditional Jewish view which gives Ezra, the leader of the Jewish community on its return from Babylon, a pivotal role in its promulgation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Date_of_compilation

As to authorship, I suppose no one knows, but the consensus is that it was NOT written by Moses, despite the traditional belief.

Again, evidence is more relevant in debates here than what any authority might state. So, on what basis do they believe the Torah was written post-exile and the Exodus was fictional?

I noted that you cited a Biblical Archaeology and claimed that it said that Manetho had the Jews coming out of Egypt and founding Jerusalem. I couldn't see that in the article (maybe I missed it) but it is rather Josephus' take on Manetho

However this note is interesting in that it suggests that Manetho might have mentioned the Hebrew Exodus, though of course what the Hebrews claimed rather than what Egypt claimed

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753208

It is hard to tell who is telling the truth, either Manetho or Josephus, esp since archaeology reveals a different story.

But again, why wouldn't Hebrews adopt Canaanite names?

You're the one suggesting Hebrews adopted Canaanite names, so why should they?

You said yourself that the Hyksos were not all Hebrew, so why should any be Hebrew?

Matching the time of the rise of the Hyksos with the chronology of the Bible shows it is plausible. There is also no scholarly consensus on who the Hyksos were or how they were able to conquer Goshen. Whereas the Bible explains these.

And I have pointed to the evidence for post 11th c Israel and a Babylonian Genesis and Exodus. Sargon in the Bulrushes and the evading of the Philistines.And if Ahmose is the origin of 'Moses' it's a point that Jewish names could have an Egyptian origin, eh?

Sargon doesn't show anything really unless you can demonstrate the Sargon account was written before the Torah.

Moses was an Egyptian name given to Moses by Egyptians. I can't recall anytime Jews picked a name for themselves that was a non-Israelite name.

As for the Philistines, there is no clear cut case for this. We actually know very little about them since they left practically no textual records.

"The Philistines themselves left no texts and, as such, much of what we know about them comes from the people they encountered."
https://www.livescience.com/55429-philistines.html

And we also know little about the origins of the Philistines.

"The origin of the Philistines is still debated."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Origin

We know that Egyptian workers hauled stone blocks. There are paintings of them doing it.

The question is not if people hauled stone blocks, but the question is did slaves ever haul stone blocks. Evidence suggests slaves were not involved in hauling stone blocks for constructing the pyramids.

I hope you won't cite Ron Wyatt and his chariot wheels in the sea.

It is actually an interesting claim. We can discuss this more when I get to the Red Sea crossing.

I however have the use of Phoenecian alphabet (Not Canaanite) which fits a post 11th century expansion of Israe

And I as well have argued the Phoenician alphabet was not the first alphabet, but originated from Proto-Sinaitic script, which fits with the Hyksos occupation of Goshen and allowed an alphabet that Moses could use to author the Torah.

Jericho not 'existing' at the time of the conquest,

We can discuss more about Jericho during the Canaan conquest.

and the mention of Moses anachronistically avoiding the Philistines which also fit a post 1tth c BC expansion

It could be possible it's an anachronistic reference, but that could be explained by future redaction.

And ok,we have dropped Senusret as part of the Joseph narrative and Ahmose I as anything to do with Exodus.

I claimed in post 836 that Senusret III was the Pharaoh of Joseph.

In post 912, I claimed Ahmose I was the one to reconquer the Hyksos and enslaved them.

get that clear. I presume out three color statue is your Joseph candidate and a post - Hatshepsut Pharaoh as the pharaoh of Exodus.

Amenhotep II would be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

I've already suggested that Aknenaten and Tutankhamen might do well as 'weak' Pharaohs allowing the Conquest to happen.

I don't feel the weight of evidence supports the late date.

Note that the first mention of Israel doesn't happen till the next dynasty - for what that's worth.

This appears to be one of the main evidence presented to support the late date, but it supports the early date as well.

The thing is that the Tanakh rather depicts Genesis and Exodus as practising Jews before they were given the Law.

There were some things they practiced that we have no idea where they got the idea originally from.

[otseng]

Oil painting by Gebhard Fugel (c 1900) depicting Moses receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mt. Sinai.
https://www.worldhistory.org/image/5741 ... mandments/

As far as I know, there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of Moses. However, there are other lines of evidence to support that he was a historical figure.

Extra-Biblical sources have attested to the existence of Moses.

Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56 AD - 120 AD):

To establish his influence over this people for all time, Moses introduced new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor. They dedicated, in a shrine, a statue of that creature whose guidance enabled them to put an end to their wandering and thirst,​9 sacrificing a ram, apparently in derision of Ammon

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... s/5A*.html

Roman historian Gnaeus Pompeius Trogu (first century BC):

Moses was his son: who was in great esteem, not only from the knowledge he inherited from his father, but from the beauty of his countenance also. 13 But as for the Egyptians, when they were afflicted with the scab and leprosy, they were admonished by an oracle to banish him, and those afflicted persons with him; lest that pestilential distemper should spread farther. 14 He therefore became the leader of these exiles; and stole away the Egyptian Gods:*** 15 which when the Egyp­tians went armed to recover, they were forced by tempests to return home again

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/justin_36.html

Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (90 BC - 30 BC):

"The Leader of this Colony was one Moses, a very wise and valiant Man, who after he had possess'd himself of the Country, amongst other Cities built that now most Famous City Jerusalem; and the Temple there, which is so greatly Reverenc'd among them. He then instituted the manner of GOD's Worship, and the Holy Rites and Ceremonies: and made Laws for the Government of the Common-wealth, and reduc'd them into a methodical Order."
https://sarata.com/history/diodorus-sic ... e.736.html

Islamic sources attest to the existence of Moses.

In Islam, Mūsā ibn ʿImrān (Arabic: موسی ابن عمران, lit. 'Moses, son of Amram'),[1] is an important prophet and messenger of God (Allah) and is the most frequently mentioned individual in the Quran, with his name being mentioned 136 times and his life being narrated and recounted more than that of any other prophet.[2][3]

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

"In the Quran he also plays an important role and, again, is the most often cited religious figure who is mentioned 115 times as opposed to Muhammed who is referred to by name only four times in the text."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Moses/

Moses has had a significant impact on human history.

Moses[note 1] (/ˈmoʊzɪz, -zɪs/)[2] is considered the most important prophet in Judaism[3][4] and one of the most important prophets in Christianity, Islam, the Druze faith,[5][6] the Baháʼí Faith and other Abrahamic religions. According to both the Bible and the Quran,[7] Moses was the leader of the Israelites and lawgiver to whom the authorship, or "acquisition from heaven", of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is attributed.[8]

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

Moses was a symbol used in the founding of the US.

"On July 4, 1776, immediately after the Declaration of Independence was officially passed, the Continental Congress asked John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin to design a seal that would clearly represent a symbol for the new United States. They chose the symbol of Moses leading the Israelites to freedom."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Leg ... cs_and_law

George Washington was compared to Moses.

"After the death of George Washington in 1799, two thirds of his eulogies referred to him as "America's Moses," with one orator saying that "Washington has been the same to us as Moses was to the Children of Israel."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Leg ... cs_and_law

US law was influenced by Moses.

"John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, stated why he relied on the laws of Moses over Greek philosophy for establishing the United States Constitution: "As much as I love, esteem, and admire the Greeks, I believe the Hebrews have done more to enlighten and civilize the world. Moses did more than all their legislators and philosophers."[164] Swedish historian Hugo Valentin credited Moses as the "first to proclaim the rights of man."[174]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Leg ... cs_and_law

Abraham Lincoln was compared to Moses by abolitionists.

"Therefore, when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 after the passage of the amendment to the Constitution outlawing slavery, Black Americans said they had lost "their Moses".[177] Lincoln biographer Charles Carleton Coffin writes, "The millions whom Abraham Lincoln delivered from slavery will ever liken him to Moses, the deliverer of Israel."[178] Similarly, Harriet Tubman, who rescued approximately seventy enslaved family and friends, was also described as the "Moses" of her people.[179]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Sla ... vil_rights

"In the 1960s, a leading figure in the civil rights movement was Martin Luther King Jr., who was called "a modern Moses," and often referred to Moses in his speeches: "The struggle of Moses, the struggle of his devoted followers as they sought to get out of Egypt. This is something of the story of every people struggling for freedom."[180]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Sla ... vil_rights

In the US Capital, 23 lawgivers are depicted in marble relief, including people such Hammurabi, Thomas Jefferson, Sir William Blackstone, Maimonides, etc. Only Moses is facing straight ahead while all the others are facing towards Moses.



https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-cam ... -lawgivers

In the middle of the top of the Supreme Court building is Moses holding the 10 commandments.



Presidents have refered to Moses.

"Among the Presidents of the United States known to have used the symbolism of Moses were Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who referred to his supporters as "the Moses generation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Leg ... cs_and_law

According to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's memoir, President Bill Clinton cited Moses and the Ten Commandments at a meeting with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in defense of a softened ban on gays in the military. "In a religious and literary sense, Moses is the most important human character in the Jewish scriptures and one of the most important characters in the Bible," says Michael Coogan, lecturer on the Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... ree-faiths

It would be extremely odd for such a vast group of people to refer to a fictional person. We have ancient Roman and Greek historians, Islamic writers, founders of the US, depictions on federal buildings, and presidents all treating Moses to have been an historical person to have led the Hebrews out of Egyptian slavery.

Though this doesn't show whether Moses was real or not, the rod of Asclepius is an interesting point of trivia. It is used as a medical symbol worldwide, but the earliest usage of the serpent/pole for healing was by Moses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_of_Asclepius


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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ssociation


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace ... ssociation


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

Biblical scholars look to the Book of Numbers, in which the Nehushtan (Hebrew: נחושתן or נחש הנחושת) was a brass serpent on a pole that God told Moses to erect, saying that anyone bitten [by a snake] would live if they looked at it.[17] This Biblical account is the earliest known record of the pole/serpent combination (though the exact configuration is not known).

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

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng mate. You should have twigged by now that a problem with old historians writing about even older times was simply repeating old stories as history, whether or not it was true or legend. Now it is true that Moses as well as Abraham are still regarded as historical by many, and it might be true. But there is a case for it all being fabrication. And the reason why is because there is no real evidence for any of it, and quite a few reasons (textual and historical) to consider it myth, or rather fabricated history, and I can even suggests why - the Jewish writers wanted to establish a separate and primary origin story for themselves where they were God's people (until the Greeks rewrote that story) and their tribal god was the only real one, and all the other tribes, nations and empires were their slaves, or ought to be; and if it was too often the other way around, it was because God wasn't pleased with them. We are familiar with the 'Heads we win, tails we don't lose' kind of reasoning.

I know that you fought impressively for the Flood, Ark and tower of Babel, and I can only ask others to judge whether a case has been made for a collapsing underground Atlantic reservoir flooding the world, all the cultures of the world before the 4th mill BC speaking the same language until a tower fell down in Sumer, and because monumental architecture tends to be broad at the base and get narrower for stability, that means they are all copying the Tower of Babel, presumed to be a sort of pyramid.

You must know that in a world where we used to take old symbols, real or Mythical as badges (Cherubs, dragons, Greek gods) as symbolic badges, taking Moses as a symbol means no more than taking the snake of Aesculepius as a symbol. If they thought Moses as real as Hippocrates, we now ask whether Moses could be mythical and the evidence needs to be looked at, and that means more than 'is there room in history to slip an invisible person in without contradiction?' Never mind ignoring contradiction.

You have tried to wangle Joseph in as Senusrets' advisor but had to drop that because of the gap to the Hyksos and I won't dwell on the way you pretended you didn't get the point even though you have now quietly dropped that king as 'evidence'.

I will repeat that you are still waggling around the 3 colour statue and that cylinder -seal as evidence of Joseph or Hebrews even though they are more likely representing pagan Canaanite rulers. Even the actual Exodus has vanished, as the Hebrews had to stay behind making bricks after Hyksos rule was ended, and it's an 18th dynasty ruler where you date the Exodus. And there is no evidence for it whiich you seem minded to claim as no evidence against it

I still say that the anachronism of the Philistines as the clues of Babylonian aspects in Genesis and Exodus indicates a Babylonian story -telling.

And they might have used bits of history, spun to suit themselves, just as Josephus spun Manetho to make the Hyksos the Exodus. And it rather underpins the idea that the Exodus - writers thought so, too and if they Made Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out into Moses leading the Hebrews out, who would know?

Nobody it seems other than just recently, when I started to see the idea popping up on Google.

P.s I have to mention the old legend of Troy (Ilium) and the plainly (or apparently) mythological elements. It now seems that Troy is becoming historical and Ilium (Wilusa) is fitting into Hittite history just before the bronze -age collapse that saw the end of Homeric Greece (Mycenae). So evidence will out and it so happens that what seemed like Biblical history is going the other way - historical figures like Moses becoming more like myth.

"Homer, did you know you were named for a writer who told the history of the ancient Greeks and their king?"

"Noooe..what did hewrite about him?"

"Well....his wife ran off with a young foreigner."

"Did you have a point in telling me this?"

[TRANSPONDER]

There is no scholarly consensus on the date of the exodus because the consensus is that there IS NO exodus as described in the Bible. It is a myth as has been previously recounted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
The components of the Torah were written at different times, but there is consensus about the date of compilation. "The final Torah is widely seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE).[57] This consensus echoes a traditional Jewish view which gives Ezra, the leader of the Jewish community on its return from Babylon, a pivotal role in its promulgation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Date_of_compilation

As to authorship, I suppose no one knows, but the consensus is that it was NOT written by Moses, despite the traditional belief.

Again, evidence is more relevant in debates here than what any authority might state. So, on what basis do they believe the Torah was written post-exile and the Exodus was fictional?

I noted that you cited a Biblical Archaeology and claimed that it said that Manetho had the Jews coming out of Egypt and founding Jerusalem. I couldn't see that in the article (maybe I missed it) but it is rather Josephus' take on Manetho

However this note is interesting in that it suggests that Manetho might have mentioned the Hebrew Exodus, though of course what the Hebrews claimed rather than what Egypt claimed

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753208

It is hard to tell who is telling the truth, either Manetho or Josephus, esp since archaeology reveals a different story.

But again, why wouldn't Hebrews adopt Canaanite names?

You're the one suggesting Hebrews adopted Canaanite names, so why should they?

You said yourself that the Hyksos were not all Hebrew, so why should any be Hebrew?

Matching the time of the rise of the Hyksos with the chronology of the Bible shows it is plausible. There is also no scholarly consensus on who the Hyksos were or how they were able to conquer Goshen. Whereas the Bible explains these.

And I have pointed to the evidence for post 11th c Israel and a Babylonian Genesis and Exodus. Sargon in the Bulrushes and the evading of the Philistines.And if Ahmose is the origin of 'Moses' it's a point that Jewish names could have an Egyptian origin, eh?

Sargon doesn't show anything really unless you can demonstrate the Sargon account was written before the Torah.

Moses was an Egyptian name given to Moses by Egyptians. I can't recall anytime Jews picked a name for themselves that was a non-Israelite name.

As for the Philistines, there is no clear cut case for this. We actually know very little about them since they left practically no textual records.

"The Philistines themselves left no texts and, as such, much of what we know about them comes from the people they encountered."
https://www.livescience.com/55429-philistines.html

And we also know little about the origins of the Philistines.

"The origin of the Philistines is still debated."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Origin

We know that Egyptian workers hauled stone blocks. There are paintings of them doing it.

The question is not if people hauled stone blocks, but the question is did slaves ever haul stone blocks. Evidence suggests slaves were not involved in hauling stone blocks for constructing the pyramids.

I hope you won't cite Ron Wyatt and his chariot wheels in the sea.

It is actually an interesting claim. We can discuss this more when I get to the Red Sea crossing.

I however have the use of Phoenecian alphabet (Not Canaanite) which fits a post 11th century expansion of Israe

And I as well have argued the Phoenician alphabet was not the first alphabet, but originated from Proto-Sinaitic script, which fits with the Hyksos occupation of Goshen and allowed an alphabet that Moses could use to author the Torah.

Jericho not 'existing' at the time of the conquest,

We can discuss more about Jericho during the Canaan conquest.

and the mention of Moses anachronistically avoiding the Philistines which also fit a post 1tth c BC expansion

It could be possible it's an anachronistic reference, but that could be explained by future redaction.

And ok,we have dropped Senusret as part of the Joseph narrative and Ahmose I as anything to do with Exodus.

I claimed in post 836 that Senusret III was the Pharaoh of Joseph.

In post 912, I claimed Ahmose I was the one to reconquer the Hyksos and enslaved them.

get that clear. I presume out three color statue is your Joseph candidate and a post - Hatshepsut Pharaoh as the pharaoh of Exodus.

Amenhotep II would be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

I've already suggested that Aknenaten and Tutankhamen might do well as 'weak' Pharaohs allowing the Conquest to happen.

I don't feel the weight of evidence supports the late date.

Note that the first mention of Israel doesn't happen till the next dynasty - for what that's worth.

This appears to be one of the main evidence presented to support the late date, but it supports the early date as well.

The thing is that the Tanakh rather depicts Genesis and Exodus as practising Jews before they were given the Law.

There were some things they practiced that we have no idea where they got the idea originally from.

I'll get back to you (I do have a life) but I'll mention 2 points -

appeal to no evidence. The evidence is there for the Mesopotamian versions of Creation, Flood and Ark and Sartgon in the Bulrushes. Where is your evidence of The Jewish version before that? The Book? You already explained the reference to the Philistines as a 'Readaction'. Which is no more than accepting a later (than 11th c) date and appealing to no evidence for it being earlier.

2 you keep missing the point of some discussions. It is irrelevant whether stone blocks were hauled by slaves or not. The point is that models of Egyptian brick makers does not prove the Bible story that Hebrew slaves did this as it could have claimed that Hebrew slaves did any job in Egypt and you could find 'evidence' that they did so. It is NO evidence at all.

I've been having a look at the origins of Phoenecian and it is is derived from proto -Canaanite supposed to be derived for Heiroglyphs. The Hebrew alphabet (I read) derived from Phoenecian. So as I said in the beginning, Canaanite is not Hebrew or even proto Hebrew but Hebrew borrowed it as indeed it later borrowed Aramaic. I agree that Hebrew - sounding names is a bit of an excuse on my part even though a few Hyksos kings had Hebrew sounding names. But you can say they were the Hebrew ones. It's 'arguable'.

[Difflugia]

The Brooklyn Papyrus is from the 13th Dynasty that contains a list of Canaanite servants, several of which are Hebraic names.

So as I said in the beginning, Canaanite is not Hebrew or even proto Hebrew but Hebrew borrowed it as indeed it later borrowed Aramaic. I agree that Hebrew - sounding names is a bit of an excuse on my part even though a few Hyksos kings had Hebrew sounding names. But you can say they were the Hebrew ones. It's 'arguable'.

If either of you is interested, the Internet Archive has a scan of a book-length monograph discussing the personal names found in the Amarna tablets. Nearly all scholars would consider these to predate the Hebrew culture as distinct from Canaanite culture, but there are a number of interesting parallels between Canaanite or Amorite names and names found in the Bible. One of the names mentioned as Hebrew in the linked article otseng linked, ‘Ayyabum, is also found in a very similar form, a-ia-ab in the Amarna tablets.

Another interesting correlation is a number of biblical names or name forms in the Amarna letters. The syllables li, ili, and ilu, for example, correspond to the biblical theophric element el meaning "god" or "El" (it's generally unclear which is meant. One that I happened to notice while looking through the list is mil-ki-li, which would correspond to the Hebrew Melchi-el. Compare that with both Melchi-zedek ("My king is Zadok") of Genesis 14 and Malchi-jah ("My king is Yah") which appears multiple times (1 Chronicles 6:40 is the first).

From this standpoint, one way to distinguish Semitic names that are specifically Hebrew would be to find names with a "iah" or "jah" theophoric element. Abi-el ("My father is God") could come from just about any Semitic culture. Abi-jah ("My father is Yah") is Hebrew.

[otseng]

You should have twigged by now that a problem with old historians writing about even older times was simply repeating old stories as history, whether or not it was true or legend. Now it is true that Moses as well as Abraham are still regarded as historical by many, and it might be true. But there is a case for it all being fabrication. And the reason why is because there is no real evidence for any of it,

My only goal in using archaeological evidence is showing alignment of the archaeological data with the Biblical account. Yes, I agree it is all circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence, but the cumulative alignment supports the plausibility of the Biblical account.

and quite a few reasons (textual and historical) to consider it myth, or rather fabricated history,

I'll post later about textual evidence.

You have tried to wangle Joseph in as Senusrets' advisor but had to drop that because of the gap to the Hyksos and I won't dwell on the way you pretended you didn't get the point even though you have now quietly dropped that king as 'evidence'.

Yes, I claim Senusret III was the Pharaoh of Joseph. But don't know what you are referring to of "dropping that because of the gap to the Hyksos". The only thing I said about dropping was the 3D artist's rendition of the palace at Avaris. But, the entire idea of the palace, the tombs, the statue of the dignitary (which matches the description of Joseph), and the seal still hold.

I will repeat that you are still waggling around the 3 colour statue

I don't see why you need to constantly repeat it. We've both made our cases and there's no need to constantly rehash things that we've already covered.

Even the actual Exodus has vanished, as the Hebrews had to stay behind making bricks after Hyksos rule was ended, and it's an 18th dynasty ruler where you date the Exodus.

I have not gotten to the point of the Exodus yet. The last major piece of evidence I produced was Moses. The Exodus will come later.

I still say that the anachronism of the Philistines as the clues of Babylonian aspects in Genesis and Exodus indicates a Babylonian story -telling.

I don't think the Philistines is clear to anybody. I'll elaborate more on that in a separate post.

And they might have used bits of history, spun to suit themselves, just as Josephus spun Manetho to make the Hyksos the Exodus.

You mean make the Hyksos the Jews?

The evidence is there for the Mesopotamian versions of Creation, Flood and Ark and Sartgon in the Bulrushes. Where is your evidence of The Jewish version before that? The Book?

If special creation and the flood were actual historical events, it doesn't really matter who wrote them first. Only if they were fictional events then it would matter. Since I believe creation and a global flood were historical events, your question would not be relevant. As for Sargon, if the account was written before 15th century BC, then you'd have a case, but it was written 8th century BC, which would be after my claim of when Moses wrote the Torah.

You already explained the reference to the Philistines as a 'Readaction'.

What I said was it could be explained by a future redaction. There are other possible explanations as well, which I will have to cover in a separate post about the Philistines.

The point is that models of Egyptian brick makers does not prove the Bible story that Hebrew slaves did this as it could have claimed that Hebrew slaves did any job in Egypt and you could find 'evidence' that they did so. It is NO evidence at all.

Again, all I'm pointing to is alignment. And my point is that Hebrew slaves hauling stone bricks would not have been alignment with archaeology.

I've been having a look at the origins of Phoenecian and it is is derived from proto -Canaanite supposed to be derived for Heiroglyphs. The Hebrew alphabet (I read) derived from Phoenecian. So as I said in the beginning, Canaanite is not Hebrew or even proto Hebrew but Hebrew borrowed it as indeed it later borrowed Aramaic. I agree that Hebrew - sounding names is a bit of an excuse on my part even though a few Hyksos kings had Hebrew sounding names. But you can say they were the Hebrew ones. It's 'arguable'.

Sure, everything is "arguable". And particularly since we are talking about things thousands of years ago, nobody really knows exactly how things went.

[otseng]

If either of you is interested, the Internet Archive has a scan of a book-length monograph discussing the personal names found in the Amarna tablets.

You always are able to dig up interesting resources...

Nearly all scholars would consider these to predate the Hebrew culture as distinct from Canaanite culture, but there are a number of interesting parallels between Canaanite or Amorite names and names found in the Bible. One of the names mentioned as Hebrew in the linked article otseng linked, ‘Ayyabum, is also found in a very similar form, a-ia-ab in the Amarna tablets.

One problem with interpreting who influenced who is which dating is used, either the early date or the late date of Exodus. With the early date, the Israelites would have already entered Canaan when the Amarna letters were written. With the late date, the Amarna letters would've been written before the Israelites entered Canaan.

From this standpoint, one way to distinguish Semitic names that are specifically Hebrew would be to find names with a "iah" or "jah" theophoric element. Abi-el ("My father is God") could come from just about any Semitic culture. Abi-jah ("My father is Yah") is Hebrew.

That makes sense, it's doubtful any non-Hebrews would have taken up a name after Yahweh.

[TRANSPONDER]

If either of you is interested, the Internet Archive has a scan of a book-length monograph discussing the personal names found in the Amarna tablets.

You always are able to dig up interesting resources...

Nearly all scholars would consider these to predate the Hebrew culture as distinct from Canaanite culture, but there are a number of interesting parallels between Canaanite or Amorite names and names found in the Bible. One of the names mentioned as Hebrew in the linked article otseng linked, ‘Ayyabum, is also found in a very similar form, a-ia-ab in the Amarna tablets.

One problem with interpreting who influenced who is which dating is used, either the early date or the late date of Exodus. With the early date, the Israelites would have already entered Canaan when the Amarna letters were written. With the late date, the Amarna letters would've been written before the Israelites entered Canaan.

From this standpoint, one way to distinguish Semitic names that are specifically Hebrew would be to find names with a "iah" or "jah" theophoric element. Abi-el ("My father is God") could come from just about any Semitic culture. Abi-jah ("My father is Yah") is Hebrew.

That makes sense, it's doubtful any non-Hebrews would have taken up a name after Yahweh.

Well yes, rather obviously. If you date the conquest after Akenaten it would be later, but if you date it before it would be earlier. The point about Israel existing in Merneptah's time (if that Israel mentioned on the stele about his Canaan campaign, they were there before the bronze age collapse and the Canaanite states (replaces by Israel, Ammon, Edom etc.) were still there. Which is why I said in your theory that Ahkenaten would work fine as the time of the Conquest and would fit the Pharaoh before as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

This is ok as it rules out Ramseses II as the Exodus Pharaoh. He is another candidate and the new capital of Pi-Ramesses has been proffered as "Evidence" that Hebrew slaves had to make bricks. It's as good as most of the evidence that you've proffered.

As to 'El'. I have a theory (and I suspect I may not be the only one) that 'El' (God) is derived fromthe Mesopotamian king of the gods. So you can go back a long way before Israel (whenever you date it) and find 'El' names existing that are Pagan, not Hebrew.