The parting of the Red Sea
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2016, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 08:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
(27-07-2016 12:54 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 09:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. Josephus had no way of knowing what really happened. He accepted the Biblical narrative of everything. The Hyksos were not the Jews.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...he-hyksos/


No. It's because there is no evidence for that.


Mythology is not nihilism. Your "presentist" view of mythology is warped. Mythology is how ancient cultures transmitted, what they considered, "truth".

I get to make fun of anyone I like. Tongue
I wanted to teach epithomology ... but God gave me a lithp. Weeping


You say thingth which are not conthithtent.

You say that mythology is how ancient cultures tranmitted what they considered to be the truth. I agree. So one has to look at "myths" as being at least possibly, partly born of a "truth". Then you go on to say that what Jothephus thinks is history, and not myth, isn't true because there is no "evidence" of it. In that ancient cultures passed down myths orally or by other means, then they also passed down "history". So, you take what is handed down as history to Jothephus, in a manner which he recognizes as indicating it is "true" history and not myth, and you hop skip and jump over "myths" to "untruth" because you say that today, we say that there is no evidence of it. Whatever Josephus and his contemporaries considered to be evidence was evidence even if you can't understand that. There is evidence of Sea Peoples invading Egypt as far as I am aware but I'm no expert.

You then say that the OT is a myth, so it is a means of the "Jewish" people conveying truth. There is also, again, a historical view, of Josephus, that these people, the Jews, were the Hyksos, and they left Egypt and built Jerusalem. Again, you say, the ancients could convey "truth" through mythology, but they couldn't convey "historical truth" through "history".

Odd way of looking at things.

Here's the problem.

The NT is aimed at an audience, no matter whether it is wholly, partly true or a myth. It's a message either of the protagonist, Jesus, through intermediaries, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to an audience or a story/myth directed at an audience. Either way, it is being preached at people who understand the concepts and myths in the story. There is no point, if it is just a mythical pedagogical book, to wrapping Jesus up in the myths of the Romans or Greeks. They were not the audience. It is wrapped up in the myth of Horus, out of Egypt. Whether these people, in Syria, came from Egypt or were already in Syria, where the Hyksos originated, the fact remains the same, that the religion which Jesus says he is "fulfilling" is a religion which has concepts in it such as virgin birth, Joseph and Mary, a trinity, a cross, resurrection after three days.

I accept that this is not Judaism as I know it to be today so when you say these people were not the "Jews", I accept they are not the same people (they are dead) as the people in the NT, in Syria, who are being told by Paul to accept the Jesus story.

Either way, however, you have a religious group in Syria and Judea who understand and relate to the mythology of the Egyptian cult of Horus.

Bucky, Hamlet is the myth of Horus reworked, so is the TV series, "Revenge". Its an age old concept and it goes back to Egypt, and beyond.

You have this notion that the "Jews" of the NT cannot be followers of this cult. Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe the people I am referring to are the "gentiles", the "men" and the "Jews" are an element of that society, who didn't follow the same "religion", as such, or had refined their beliefs but it is inescapable that there is a religion in place in Syria which is Abrahamic and has Horus myths.

The New Tethtament is aimed at many audientheth.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 08:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
(26-07-2016 03:50 PM)blambore Wrote:  I explain in The Covenant how biblical chronologies were originally based on the sexagesimal system, but that they were poorly converted at the time of Nabonidus. Fifty years ago, George Sarton wrote:

The Greeks inherited the sexagesimal system from the Sumerians but mixed it up with the decimal system, using the former only for submultiples of the unit and the latter for multiples, and thus they spoiled both systems and started a disgraceful confusion of which we are still the victims. They abandoned the principle of position, which had to be reintroduced from India a thousand years later. In short, their understanding of Babylonian arithmetic must have been very poor, since they managed to keep the worst features of it and to overlook the best. This must have been due to deficient tradition rather than lack of intelligence, or else, to the fact that, as we should remember, intelligence is always relative.(2)

Sarton stresses that such mistakes were common among the Greeks, and that they were probably derived from a deficient tradition.

I believe that these "mistakes" can be corrected using the 6/10 multiplier (see demonstration in the book). Applying this factor, we find that Hammurabi would not have lived 700 years before Burnaburiash, but rather 700 * 6/10 = 420 years before him, or (1359-1333) - 420 = c. 1779-1753. Indeed, we know that he reigned from 1792 to 1750.

Oh great. Another Bible code nut who think he alone discovered the code that every one else missed. How many of these crazies are there ?
The Bible is myth. Period. there is no way to make what didn't happen into history. They made up the Exodus. There is no evidence for it. Period.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-07-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
@Bucky Ball,

Thank you for a heartfelt welcome. I take it with a chuckle as I do understand the frustration you must be experiencing with all the crazy claims some people can come up with. I just can’t remember ever been "welcomed" like this before!

This said, I’m afraid you might have missed the point of my post. I’m not suggesting the Exodus took place as described in the Bible, I only suggested that the events referred to as "Exodus" in the Bible could eventually be linked to the events surrounding the Battle of Kadesh.

Our good friend Israel Finkelstein did quite a bit to contribute to the scientific debate. As such, there is no doubt in my mind that the texts of the Torah were established in the wake of the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE). This is not being disputed here. There is also no doubt in my mind that Finkelstein has done a very fine survey of the land of Israel, confirming that the Israelites and the Canaanites were one and the same people. That is also fundamental for our understanding and discussion.

However, anyone taking an earnest look at the available data can easily get lost in conjecture when trying to understand the history of the writing as well as the literary project that gave birth to the Pentateuch. There are those who claim the Bible “is history” and those who claim "it never happened" and that “the Bible is a myth”. What if the truth lied somewhere between these two affirmations? Isn’t this what Finkelstein eludes to when he acknowledges some historicity to the Bible; just that it wasn't anything like it was written?

One can’t ignore the fact that there are a number of references to Yahweh going back to the Iron Age. When looking a little closer, we also find that there was, initially, little or no difference between the worship of Baal and that of Yahweh. Both worships were conducted in parallel for some time. We also find that Baal and Yahweh had a consort, Asherah and that both deities shared the same temple at Shechem.

The amalgam/confusion that has existed between Yahweh and Baal is a fact that is too often overlooked by biblical scholars and historians. If Finkelstein had understood all the ramifications that his own observations entailed, he might have investigated this a little further. When thinking of Baal and Yahweh as opposing figures (a religious view!), we easily forget that they had a common origin.

I believe that this origin can be traced back to the Bronze Age. I believe that the key lies in the worship of Baal Berith (literally "Lord of the Covenant"), the pagan deity of Shechem, which shares the same epithet as Yahweh... I also believe that it can be shown that Yahweh is in fact a compounded deity, a kind of "super deity" integrating the attributes of the local deities of the time: Baal Berith, Baal and Asherah.

Such syncretism, which was common practice among the Egyptians, would explain the origin of the super deity Yahweh in a historical context that matches what is observed by the excavations and allows us to better understand why Yahweh was being worshiped alongside the other Baals until politics got involved... It is only later that the Baals were repudiated and that Yahweh became the exclusive deity of Israel.

Unless one adopts a closed and dogmatic view, I can’t see what is “nuts” or “crazy” about such a perspective... especially when it can be backed up with hard evidence.

Instead of claiming that the Bible is just a myth, I think it is wiser to understand where it comes from and how it evolved so we can better educate those who still believe in its "God". And this is the type of discussion I thought an atheist forum, such as this one, would welcome.

Cheers,

Bernard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 11:29 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2016 11:33 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
(28-07-2016 11:06 AM)blambore Wrote:  @Bucky Ball,

Thank you for a heartfelt welcome. I take it with a chuckle as I do understand the frustration you must be experiencing with all the crazy claims some people can come up with. I just can’t remember ever been "welcomed" like this before!

This said, I’m afraid you might have missed the point of my post. I’m not suggesting the Exodus took place as described in the Bible, I only suggested that the events referred to as "Exodus" in the Bible could eventually be linked to the events surrounding the Battle of Kadesh.

Our good friend Israel Finkelstein did quite a bit to contribute to the scientific debate. As such, there is no doubt in my mind that the texts of the Torah were established in the wake of the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE). This is not being disputed here. There is also no doubt in my mind that Finkelstein has done a very fine survey of the land of Israel, confirming that the Israelites and the Canaanites were one and the same people. That is also fundamental for our understanding and discussion.

However, anyone taking an earnest look at the available data can easily get lost in conjecture when trying to understand the history of the writing as well as the literary project that gave birth to the Pentateuch. There are those who claim the Bible “is history” and those who claim "it never happened" and that “the Bible is a myth”. What if the truth lied somewhere between these two affirmations? Isn’t this what Finkelstein eludes to when he acknowledges some historicity to the Bible; just that it wasn't anything like it was written?

One can’t ignore the fact that there are a number of references to Yahweh going back to the Iron Age. When looking a little closer, we also find that there was, initially, little or no difference between the worship of Baal and that of Yahweh. Both worships were conducted in parallel for some time. We also find that Baal and Yahweh had a consort, Asherah and that both deities shared the same temple at Shechem.

The amalgam/confusion that has existed between Yahweh and Baal is a fact that is too often overlooked by biblical scholars and historians. If Finkelstein had understood all the ramifications that his own observations entailed, he might have investigated this a little further. When thinking of Baal and Yahweh as opposing figures (a religious view!), we easily forget that they had a common origin.

I believe that this origin can be traced back to the Bronze Age. I believe that the key lies in the worship of Baal Berith (literally "Lord of the Covenant"), the pagan deity of Shechem, which shares the same epithet as Yahweh... I also believe that it can be shown that Yahweh is in fact a compounded deity, a kind of "super deity" integrating the attributes of the local deities of the time: Baal Berith, Baal and Asherah.

Such syncretism, which was common practice among the Egyptians, would explain the origin of the super deity Yahweh in a historical context that matches what is observed by the excavations and allows us to better understand why Yahweh was being worshiped alongside the other Baals until politics got involved... It is only later that the Baals were repudiated and that Yahweh became the exclusive deity of Israel.

Unless one adopts a closed and dogmatic view, I can’t see what is “nuts” or “crazy” about such a perspective... especially when it can be backed up with hard evidence.

Instead of claiming that the Bible is just a myth, I think it is wiser to understand where it comes from and how it evolved so we can better educate those who still believe in its "God". And this is the type of discussion I thought an atheist forum, such as this one, would welcome.

Cheers,

Bernard

We know where Yahweh came from. He was the 40th son of El Elyon, from Babylon. The entire Patriarchal period IS mythology. Baal indeed was worshipped as a "Yahweh substitute" in the Northern Kingdom, after they split, and it was a Canaanite deity.

BTW, scholars (other than Fundamentalists) no longer talk about "pagan" anything. It implies that one deity is more valid than another.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid159006

Your reply was far more nuanced than I had expected. We may have common ground for a discussion, and I may have been mistaken.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-07-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
Hi again Bucky Ball,

It definitely sounds like there is room for an interesting discussion. I reviewed with interest the two links you provided and I agree with virtually all you wrote. There are three statements that I would like to comment on, because they are directly related to my work:

Quote:“There are some very specific archaeological dating and geographical findings which relate some of the patriarchs, (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) to specific locations. From those findings and locations we know they are not actually related by kinship bonds, and that the stories from this period are certainly mythical.”

Given your taste for rational explanations, I believe you shouldn't be disappointed by my book. In it, I offer substantial evidence supporting the idea that it was with King Hammurabi that Abraham made his covenant, and that the descendants of Abraham (Jacob, Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim) can be associated with the Hyksos kings of the Second Intermediate Period (Yakub-Her, Khyan-Seth, Yanassi and Apophis). Once corrected with the 6/10 multipliers, all the dates, from the migration of Sem, to the birth of Abraham c. 1810, to his covenant with Hammurabi (c. 1764), to the reign of the Hyksos kings (for the little we can tell) all the way down to Exodus and Solomon's Temple construction offer a remarkable and consistent match. Of course, Hammurabi is not a random pick... It fits into the story in a way one cannot possibly imagine without looking at the evidence.


Quote:“So we have the Documentary Hypothesis. There has never been another hypothesis put forward, which so fully accounts for, and explains all the evidence above. During the period of the Exile, when the priests were in Babylon, they had with them the E scroll and the J scroll. The "Redactor" cut them up, and reassembled them. They added the P material, and the first four books of the Pentateuch were born.”

The Documentary Hypothesis is indeed the best tool we have to date… However, it suffers significant limitations: First, it is highly subjective (it relies on individual exegetes to identify the purported J, E, D, and P sources). Second, nobody has ever found a single document proving the existence of such sources. Third, Wellhausen *assumed* that Yahweh and Elohim referred to one and the same entity (this is why he came to view the combination of Yahweh/Elohim as the result of textual assembly). If the Documentary Hypothesis helps to understand lots of things, it doesn’t help understand why the Covenant is such a fundamental and pervasive element of the monotheistic faiths.

I submit a new perspective in my book (referred to as the “dissociative exegesis”) that sheds new lights the Abrahamic narrative by presenting it as an early form of treaty. The idea is to dissociate the anthropomorphic figure (i.e. Yahweh) from the immaterial one (i.e. Elohim) and to view the anthropomorphic figure as a mortal lord and the immaterial one as a pagan deity. When considering the Abrahamic narrative under this perspective, one quickly comes to realize that the Covenant was made to maintain Canaan (an important trade corridor between Mesopotamia and Egypt) under control of Mesopotamia. The exercise is surprisingly powerful and revealing. Given the cult of the ancestors was common practice in Ancient Israel; it is easy to see all the pieces of the puzzle coming together. Hammurabi would have first been revered as Baal Berith (“Lord of the Covenant”), then as El Berith (“God of the Covenant” through deification process), and then as Yhwh (Yahweh)– the name that shall not be pronounced!

Quote:“When the Moses stories where written, they had Moses ask the name of the god, and he self-identifies himself as Yahweh. Thus the authors created, a heretofore non connected myth, with the new one, by use of the name.”

The Tetragrammaton Yhwh could refer to yhw, a geographical location in Judea, but I would like to submit the idea that the Hebrew-speaking descendants of Abraham would have understood the Akkadian expression beliya, which means “my Bel”, as “Baal Yah” instead of “my Baal”. Possibly influenced by Akhenaten, the Pharaoh ruling at Amarna, the priests of Canaan would have developed a new “super deity” by compounding the attributes of Baal, Baalah (Asherah) and Baal Berith. The name Yhwh would then be the result of the contraction of the expression Baal Yah we Baalah (“Lord Yah and mistress”) of which the term Baal was dropped, either for sake of concision or as part of the repudiation process. I don’t know if you tackle biblical Hebrew, but this proposal offers a perfect linguistic solution (there was no vowels back then). This suggestion also helps understand why we would be referring to Him as “Elohim” (plural gods) instead of “Eloah” (singular god). BTW This is a very bastardized summary of the 10 pages demonstration offered in the book.

I do realize that my claims are significant. I wish it wasn't the case because I have no much ego to defend, I only want to share my findings. I have been working on challenging my own hypothesis for the past twelve years, and all along, the evidence has consistently sided by me. This is why I hope that a few people will be interested in downloading my work (http://www.earthlycovenant.com) and get acquainted with it as it would allow for a much more interesting discussion.

All I can say is that I trust you won't be disappointed. In fact, if you don't think it is worth reading past the introduction, please let everyone know!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
The Hyksos expulsion does not rely solely on Josephus.

http://www.sjsu.edu/people/cynthia.rosta...eading.pdf

Quote:Ahmose, son of Ebana, was an officer in the Egyptian army during the end of the 17th Dynasty to the beginning of the 18 th Dynasty (16 th century BCE). Originally from Elkab in Upper Egypt, he decided to become a soldier, like his father, Baba, who served under Seqenenre Tao II in the early campaigns against the Hyksos/

The inscription which follows is from his tomb.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 02:51 AM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
It just seems odd to me that we all read this story and no one points out that yo don't cross the Red Sea to get from Egypt to Jerusalem
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 03:39 PM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
(03-08-2016 02:51 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It just seems odd to me that we all read this story and no one points out that yo don't cross the Red Sea to get from Egypt to Jerusalem

I agree with you and believe that a case can be made that the Yam Suph "sea of reeds" corresponds to the Orontes near Kadesh and that the 40 years in wilderness where "honey and milk" flows would have been spent in the hittite land... The journey is actually the same as the one described in the bible, but shifted north. This is easy to understand when you realize that Egypt's border ran up to Kadesh when Israel was vassal of Egypt.

Bernard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 06:20 PM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
You know, no one asks why "god" was afraid of the Philistines?

This is especially odd as the Philistines did not arrive in the region until the mid-12th century BC some 200 years after the jesus freaks claim their bullshit happened.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 07:01 PM
RE: The parting of the Red Sea
(12-08-2016 03:39 PM)blambore Wrote:  
(03-08-2016 02:51 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It just seems odd to me that we all read this story and no one points out that yo don't cross the Red Sea to get from Egypt to Jerusalem

I agree with you and believe that a case can be made that the Yam Suph "sea of reeds" corresponds to the Orontes near Kadesh and that the 40 years in wilderness where "honey and milk" flows would have been spent in the hittite land... The journey is actually the same as the one described in the bible, but shifted north. This is easy to understand when you realize that Egypt's border ran up to Kadesh when Israel was vassal of Egypt.

Bernard


I donno. I just can't picture Charlton Heston parting a bunch of reeds and I gotta say........it's not all that impressive.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: