Creation

[Derek]

The Egyptian source IS NOT going to refer to it as an exodus. If anything they would have played it up as a victory for the sake of propaganda. It's not like they had 24/7 cable news and the internet to get their information. They knew what they were told by the rulers and that's it. Turning an embarrassing loss by the most powerful army at that time into a victory where Israel lays waste would have been the typical reaction for a ruler in such a situation.

Seriously, how retarded do you have to be not to understand this basic fact - the statue refers to a nation of Israel which was already established in Palestine. If the account of Exodus is even remotely true, then Israel wouldn't have even existed at the time, and thusly this statue could clearly not be referring to the events of Exodus. Rather it would have to be referring to it sometime afterward. Whether the Egyptians would have referred to it as an Exodus or not isn't even remotely relevant to that.

How can I make it more clear? If the Biblical account is to even be remotely believed, then the founding of Israel comes after Exodus, not before. You are essentially insisting that the Egyptians claimed to have gone to war against a nation that didn't even exist at the time!


And don't think I didn't notice you not answering about the other Egyptian records. You're still on the hook for that - you claim they exist so put up or shut up.

Yes it can because the exodus occurred over several years and possibly even a century. I'm not saying the 40 years, 1 generation is precise. What I'm saying is that one event led to another. It sounds like Pharaoh would have sent troops to bring back the Hebrews who escaped under his father's reign and was defeated by the Hebrews. Instead of coming home in defeat they made the statue as propaganda. As for the founding of Israel, yes it was created in name but the establishment took centuries until King David just before 1000 BCE. Even after that it went from being King oriented to priestly oriented to prophetic oriented to messianic oriented and so forth but that's a whole different can of worms. IF there was only one exodus it would have occurred under Merneptah's father Ramesses II. While there are discrepancies in the Bible, Exodus does refer to Pi Ramesses as the Pharaoh and that matches the theory that such a revolt took place in the mid 13th century BCE. And again NO I'm not arguing that the exodus included 2 million people or anything like that. A few tribes would have been all it took to start such beliefs and cause such a reaction by the Pharaoh.

[John Dibble]

Ok, you seem to be not understanding this - where exactly is the evidence for these Exodus events? It wouldn't be unusual for a pharaoh to just go to war with some neighboring tribes considering pharaohs did that throughout Egyptian history, so you claiming he went to war for reasons related to Exodus is mere speculation unless you have independent corroboration that something like Exodus occurred, whether over a long period or a short one. Where is the evidence of that?

[Derek]

Ok, you seem to be not understanding this - where exactly is the evidence for these Exodus events? It wouldn't be unusual for a pharaoh to just go to war with some neighboring tribes considering pharaohs did that throughout Egyptian history, so you claiming he went to war for reasons related to Exodus is mere speculation unless you have independent corroboration that something like Exodus occurred, whether over a long period or a short one. Where is the evidence of that?

There is plenty of archeological evidence between Egypt and Israel of weapons being found.

[John Dibble]

Ok, you seem to be not understanding this - where exactly is the evidence for these Exodus events? It wouldn't be unusual for a pharaoh to just go to war with some neighboring tribes considering pharaohs did that throughout Egyptian history, so you claiming he went to war for reasons related to Exodus is mere speculation unless you have independent corroboration that something like Exodus occurred, whether over a long period or a short one. Where is the evidence of that?

There is plenty of archeological evidence between Egypt and Israel of weapons being found.

Again, so what? That's not surprising at all. As I already stated, pharaohs would often go to war with nearby tribes. All that shows is that in that space battles were likely fought in those areas, which is again not something that's in contention. I'm asking for evidence of the Exodus events, not for evidence of war between Israel and Egypt.

[afleitch]

Since Derek, you accept that any exodus was not the movement of up to 2 million people at once, but far less over the period of 'several years, even a century' then it's not an exodus is it? It's not a lot of movement and it's not over a short period of time. For the record that pales in significance to the genuine movement of millions of Jews in Europe during the Second World War which ended in the mass slaughter of six million of them.

As Dibble has said repeatedly and you have not answered, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were in Egypt in any great number and certainly not exclusively. Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that the Jews, alongside other semetic tribes were in what we now call Israel long before the period the exodus was supposed to have taken place (even if we allow the exodus a very large window in which to happen)

You keep making the assumption that this one statue commemorating (as Dibble has stated) a simple military victory against a pre-existing state of Israel is 'propaganda'; how do you know this? We know that propaganda has been a staple of society for millenia but it does not mean that this statue is, or indeed is not. You have to take a balanced view. Even if it was propaganda, it still suggests that the Egyptians fought the state of Israel. The archaelogical evidence suggests that Jews were in or around Israel long before all of this at any rate. (Indeed it's even now arguable that refuse, discarded bones etc found on-site indicate they developed certain dietry habits long before biblical scholars state that they were 'commanded' to)

The Jewish people were a semetic tribe in the Palestine area and were settled there long before the period in which an exodus is assumed to have occured. It is entirely possible that groups, clans whatever were enslaved by the Egyptians either through force or as war spoils; that's what the Egyptians tended to do to their neighbours. They also, as Dibble pointed out went to war with them quite a lot. There is no evidence to suggest that they originated from Egypt, or that if some were enslaved and carted off to Egypt, that none of their kin remained in Palestine. If there was slavery it cannot have been 2 million; it would be higher than the Nile Delta and Valley could sustain. 2 million could not have moved to Israel because it could not sustain that population either. Even a half or quarter of that figure is too much.

If this is the story of a small group of people having been enslaves escaping from Egypt over a number of years to re-join their families and kin in Palestine then it's not an exodus.

[Derek]

Since Derek, you accept that any exodus was not the movement of up to 2 million people at once, but far less over the period of 'several years, even a century' then it's not an exodus is it? It's not a lot of movement and it's not over a short period of time. For the record that pales in significance to the genuine movement of millions of Jews in Europe during the Second World War which ended in the mass slaughter of six million of them.

As Dibble has said repeatedly and you have not answered, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were in Egypt in any great number and certainly not exclusively. Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that the Jews, alongside other semetic tribes were in what we now call Israel long before the period the exodus was supposed to have taken place (even if we allow the exodus a very large window in which to happen)

You keep making the assumption that this one statue commemorating (as Dibble has stated) a simple military victory against a pre-existing state of Israel is 'propaganda'; how do you know this? We know that propaganda has been a staple of society for millenia but it does not mean that this statue is, or indeed is not. You have to take a balanced view. Even if it was propaganda, it still suggests that the Egyptians fought the state of Israel. The archaelogical evidence suggests that Jews were in or around Israel long before all of this at any rate. (Indeed it's even now arguable that refuse, discarded bones etc found on-site indicate they developed certain dietry habits long before biblical scholars state that they were 'commanded' to)

The Jewish people were a semetic tribe in the Palestine area and were settled there long before the period in which an exodus is assumed to have occured. It is entirely possible that groups, clans whatever were enslaved by the Egyptians either through force or as war spoils; that's what the Egyptians tended to do to their neighbours. They also, as Dibble pointed out went to war with them quite a lot. There is no evidence to suggest that they originated from Egypt, or that if some were enslaved and carted off to Egypt, that none of their kin remained in Palestine. If there was slavery it cannot have been 2 million; it would be higher than the Nile Delta and Valley could sustain. 2 million could not have moved to Israel because it could not sustain that population either. Even a half or quarter of that figure is too much.

If this is the story of a small group of people having been enslaves escaping from Egypt over a number of years to re-join their families and kin in Palestine then it's not an exodus.

Yes no kidding it wasn't a large number of Jews in Egypt or Hebrews in this case. It was a small percentage but nonetheless influential due to the fact we are talking about it today. No kidding about the 2 million as I have been saying. The fact that we have records says something. You and your boyfriend seem to be arguing that somebody simply made it all up. That's deep, they just made it up, right. Look if you want to cling to his every word go ahead but what do you think happened? It also sounds like you're reading between my lines when you refer to a lack of evidence regarding an entire population being held as slaves in Egypt. The dietary laws were well in observance before the book of Leviticus was written. In fact Leviticus reflects an agrarian society that is already established and I don't dispute that. It's likely that the laws were written by the priests shortly after the first monarchy of Saul and were not canonized until well I date the P source to be just after the exile in the late 6th century BCE. I'm not sure what that has to do with creation or the issue of how many slaves were in Egypt. Stop thinking that I support the notion of 2 million travelers at any one time or even over a period of time. It was likely a small but influential group or groups. They may not have been escaping even but more like looking for water during a drought which would have been common during Egyptian summers. Again as for the statue it would be typical propaganda for that time. It's not like they had a 24/7 media (as I stated) to report on things. They only knew what the rulers told them and when they told them. It speaks of Israel being laid waste. That was obviously false for the fact that Israel remained. What other purpose would it have? In order to PROVE anything you'd have to be there at the time. How do you know that you were here yesterday and that someone didn't suck your brains out while you were sleeping and program you to think what you're thinking now? Exactly so stop wasting your time. This discussion is for people who want to come to a conclusion not exclude all conclusions. Tell your boyfriend that too.

[afleitch]

Since Derek, you accept that any exodus was not the movement of up to 2 million people at once, but far less over the period of 'several years, even a century' then it's not an exodus is it? It's not a lot of movement and it's not over a short period of time. For the record that pales in significance to the genuine movement of millions of Jews in Europe during the Second World War which ended in the mass slaughter of six million of them.

As Dibble has said repeatedly and you have not answered, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were in Egypt in any great number and certainly not exclusively. Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that the Jews, alongside other semetic tribes were in what we now call Israel long before the period the exodus was supposed to have taken place (even if we allow the exodus a very large window in which to happen)

You keep making the assumption that this one statue commemorating (as Dibble has stated) a simple military victory against a pre-existing state of Israel is 'propaganda'; how do you know this? We know that propaganda has been a staple of society for millenia but it does not mean that this statue is, or indeed is not. You have to take a balanced view. Even if it was propaganda, it still suggests that the Egyptians fought the state of Israel. The archaelogical evidence suggests that Jews were in or around Israel long before all of this at any rate. (Indeed it's even now arguable that refuse, discarded bones etc found on-site indicate they developed certain dietry habits long before biblical scholars state that they were 'commanded' to)

The Jewish people were a semetic tribe in the Palestine area and were settled there long before the period in which an exodus is assumed to have occured. It is entirely possible that groups, clans whatever were enslaved by the Egyptians either through force or as war spoils; that's what the Egyptians tended to do to their neighbours. They also, as Dibble pointed out went to war with them quite a lot. There is no evidence to suggest that they originated from Egypt, or that if some were enslaved and carted off to Egypt, that none of their kin remained in Palestine. If there was slavery it cannot have been 2 million; it would be higher than the Nile Delta and Valley could sustain. 2 million could not have moved to Israel because it could not sustain that population either. Even a half or quarter of that figure is too much.

If this is the story of a small group of people having been enslaves escaping from Egypt over a number of years to re-join their families and kin in Palestine then it's not an exodus.

Yes no kidding it wasn't a large number of Jews in Egypt or Hebrews in this case. It was a small percentage but nonetheless influential due to the fact we are talking about it today. No kidding about the 2 million as I have been saying. The fact that we have records says something. You and your boyfriend seem to be arguing that somebody simply made it all up. That's deep, they just made it up, right. Look if you want to cling to his every word go ahead but what do you think happened? It also sounds like you're reading between my lines when you refer to a lack of evidence regarding an entire population being held as slaves in Egypt. The dietary laws were well in observance before the book of Leviticus was written. In fact Leviticus reflects an agrarian society that is already established and I don't dispute that. It's likely that the laws were written by the priests shortly after the first monarchy of Saul and were not canonized until well I date the P source to be just after the exile in the late 6th century BCE. I'm not sure what that has to do with creation or the issue of how many slaves were in Egypt. Stop thinking that I support the notion of 2 million travelers at any one time or even over a period of time. It was likely a small but influential group or groups. They may not have been escaping even but more like looking for water during a drought which would have been common during Egyptian summers. Again as for the statue it would be typical propaganda for that time. It's not like they had a 24/7 media (as I stated) to report on things. They only knew what the rulers told them and when they told them. It speaks of Israel being laid waste. That was obviously false for the fact that Israel remained. What other purpose would it have? In order to PROVE anything you'd have to be there at the time. How do you know that you were here yesterday and that someone didn't suck your brains out while you were sleeping and program you to think what you're thinking now? Exactly so stop wasting your time. This discussion is for people who want to come to a conclusion not exclude all conclusions. Tell your boyfriend that too.

That's priceless : I'll respond to the rest later.

[President Mitt]

Derek, i am seriously thinking of hiring someone to kill you

I'll do it for free. How many infraction points would I get for murder, Afleitch?

[John Dibble]

You and your boyfriend seem to be arguing that somebody simply made it all up.

That's priceless : I'll respond to the rest later.

so, Dibble double dips....why am i not surprised? 

No, I'm always the top.

[Derek]

hahaha I said alot of profound things there though. As far as how things were created or came to be that hasn't been discussed yet. I believe in evolution for the most part and that it is the answer to how rather than why. Plus if you look at how evolution occurs; adaptation to new conditions, then it's really bound to happen. As for Genesis 1 it's not far off from evolution. Let's take a look at the Priestly source and what the biblical scenario is.

Day 1- Light                                          Day 4- Luminaries
Day 2- sea and heaven                        Day 5- sea creatures and birds
Day 3- dry land                                     Day 6- land animals and humankind

Now do I need to explain the parallels and poetry or is it self explanatory? Notice how in Genesis 1 everything is perfect and in harmony. The earlier account of Genesis 2 places things at odds and has a much more primitive view of Yahweh whereas Genesis 1 seems to have a more sophisticated view of the divine as outside of our world. Genesis 2 seems to view Yahweh as a deity who has anthropomorphic tendencies. Notice the progression.

[afleitch]

hahaha I said alot of profound things there though. As far as how things were created or came to be that hasn't been discussed yet. I believe in evolution for the most part and that it is the answer to how rather than why. Plus if you look at how evolution occurs; adaptation to new conditions, then it's really bound to happen. As for Genesis 1 it's not far off from evolution. Let's take a look at the Priestly source and what the biblical scenario is.

Day 1- Light                                          Day 4- Luminaries
Day 2- sea and heaven                        Day 5- sea creatures and birds
Day 3- dry land                                     Day 6- land animals and humankind

Now do I need to explain the parallels and poetry or is it self explanatory? Notice how in Genesis 1 everything is perfect and in harmony. The earlier account of Genesis 2 places things at odds and has a much more primitive view of Yahweh whereas Genesis 1 seems to have a more sophisticated view of the divine as outside of our world. Genesis 2 seems to view Yahweh as a deity who has anthropomorphic tendencies. Notice the progression.

Oh it's poetry no doubt; but it doesn't mean that the Hebrews had a handle on 'creation' and the got the order wrong; sea (pools of water) came after the formation of land. The 'luminaries' or to be precise the sun came before 'light' if we are being literal. It certainly came before land and sea. Likewise for most of the stars. Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable Birds came after land animals on so on. When I wonder did they think bacteria and viruses (who have domain over us in a way...) sit in all this (which of course they did not know anything about)

The traditional account of creation demonstrates how little they actually knew...if they firmly 'knew' anything at all.

[Derek]

hahaha I said alot of profound things there though. As far as how things were created or came to be that hasn't been discussed yet. I believe in evolution for the most part and that it is the answer to how rather than why. Plus if you look at how evolution occurs; adaptation to new conditions, then it's really bound to happen. As for Genesis 1 it's not far off from evolution. Let's take a look at the Priestly source and what the biblical scenario is.

Day 1- Light                                          Day 4- Luminaries
Day 2- sea and heaven                        Day 5- sea creatures and birds
Day 3- dry land                                     Day 6- land animals and humankind

Now do I need to explain the parallels and poetry or is it self explanatory? Notice how in Genesis 1 everything is perfect and in harmony. The earlier account of Genesis 2 places things at odds and has a much more primitive view of Yahweh whereas Genesis 1 seems to have a more sophisticated view of the divine as outside of our world. Genesis 2 seems to view Yahweh as a deity who has anthropomorphic tendencies. Notice the progression.

Oh it's poetry no doubt; but it doesn't mean that the Hebrews had a handle on 'creation' and the got the order wrong; sea (pools of water) came after the formation of land. The 'luminaries' or to be precise the sun came before 'light' if we are being literal. It certainly came before land and sea. Likewise for most of the stars. Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable Birds came after land animals on so on. When I wonder did they think bacteria and viruses (who have domain over us in a way...) sit in all this (which of course they did not know anything about)

The traditional account of creation demonstrates how little they actually knew...if they firmly 'knew' anything at all.

Right I believe it's in Exodus and I don't want to cite the chapter but "the sun stand still over Gibeon." We now know that the earth revolves around the sun. I'm not saying the priests who wrote Genesis 1 in the 6th-9th centuries BCE were scientific experts. However, they were trying to clear things up so that they could be untied behind something. Many Jews from northern Israel would have rejected Genesis 2 because it is a highly southern point of view that would have been canonized while the country was split between 922-722 BCE. If any of you grew up in church you'd know that the church today still teaches the P version to stories. For example, the flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights whereas the J source states a year, The 6 day creation story as opposed to the Garden of Eden; although those are intertwined, Moses instead of Aaron.

[John Dibble]

Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable

Before the sea and "land" as we would know it. It came about 30-50 million years after the solar system formed when Earth was still forming according to the leading theory - a big object hit the Earth at the right angle and knocked a significant amount of it off. The colliding object and the chunks ripped off formed into the moon. This also tilted Earth's axis and sped up it's rotation.

[Derek]

Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable

Before the sea and "land" as we would know it. It came about 30-50 million years after the solar system formed when Earth was still forming according to the leading theory - a big object hit the Earth at the right angle and knocked a significant amount of it off. The colliding object and the chunks ripped off formed into the moon. This also tilted Earth's axis and sped up it's rotation.

Oh yea prove it. Where's your proof? How do you know that happened?

[afleitch]

Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable

Before the sea and "land" as we would know it. It came about 30-50 million years after the solar system formed when Earth was still forming according to the leading theory - a big object hit the Earth at the right angle and knocked a significant amount of it off. The colliding object and the chunks ripped off formed into the moon. This also tilted Earth's axis and sped up it's rotation.

Oh yea prove it. Where's your proof? How do you know that happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Read the theories surrounding the formation of the Moon. If you don't agree outline with evidence to back your claim an alternate theory.

[Derek]

Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable

Before the sea and "land" as we would know it. It came about 30-50 million years after the solar system formed when Earth was still forming according to the leading theory - a big object hit the Earth at the right angle and knocked a significant amount of it off. The colliding object and the chunks ripped off formed into the moon. This also tilted Earth's axis and sped up it's rotation.

Oh yea prove it. Where's your proof? How do you know that happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Read the theories surrounding the formation of the Moon. If you don't agree outline with evidence to back your claim an alternate theory.

I already agreed with you. I'm being difficult like you guys are just for the sake of being difficult. And wikipedia is not a credible source of information. You know that too I'm sure. Junior High students aren't even allowed to use it for a reference.

[John Dibble]

Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable

Before the sea and "land" as we would know it. It came about 30-50 million years after the solar system formed when Earth was still forming according to the leading theory - a big object hit the Earth at the right angle and knocked a significant amount of it off. The colliding object and the chunks ripped off formed into the moon. This also tilted Earth's axis and sped up it's rotation.

Oh yea prove it. Where's your proof? How do you know that happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Read the theories surrounding the formation of the Moon. If you don't agree outline with evidence to back your claim an alternate theory.

I already agreed with you. I'm being difficult like you guys are just for the sake of being difficult. And wikipedia is not a credible source of information. You know that too I'm sure. Junior High students aren't even allowed to use it for a reference.

For opinion based things or controversial issues Wikipedia is not itself reliable, but when all you want is some basic information on something scientific it's a good place to start, especially because it does have links to other sources.

[Derek]

And yes I knew the theory about how the moon was formed. Again this is more to debate who wrote the creation stories and where their ideas came from.