That's about halfway through so I'll leave it there
I'm not sure why you're doing this, but, you're welcome to finish it whenever you feel like.
If your purpose is to debunk Judaism (and perhaps Christianity)
I'm not trying to debunk anything. I'm just stating a fact; there is no direct archaeological or written evidence outside the Bible that confirms the existence of Abraham and Moses.
Abraham: No direct archaeological proof of his existence has been found, although some scholars suggest that an Abraham-like figure might have existed around 1800 B.C.E. If we are to hypothetically say Abraham existed, then Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a monotheist, a Muslim. So this is what Muhammad is saying. A Muslim is someone who believes in God as the only true God. And that includes Jews and Christians.
Moses: No texts or artifacts in Egypt or the Sinai have been found that directly connect to Moses.
I wanted to link Carol Meyer's interview, but looks like it has been scrubbed. Anything that people might find believable and that is contrary to the establishment's narrative is being pulled off in no time at all. Same goes for the program "Bible's Buried Secrets", no longer streamable: "(This program is no longer available for online streaming.)". However, the landmark two-hour special NOVA's scientific journey titled "The Bible's Buried Secrets. An archeological detective story traces the origins of the Hebrew Bible" is still available for viewing on YouTube.
Preston, you're on the Conspiracies forum and you're citing PBS and Nova as if they're "contrary to the establishment's narrative". That's self-unaware. You're also upholding Islam, which makes all your contributions suspect due to taqiyya. But I find that taqiyya is sufficiently countered by extra transparency because people learn that they can be free to share the truth without feeling pressured by policy to uphold a single narrative.
"Muslim" now applies to a man of peace but was not used as a personal title that far back. You don't get to say Abraham and Jews and Christians are Muslims unless you use all the titles the same way. "Jew" means man of praise, "Christian" means man of anointing, and Abraham was all of those metaphorically and none of those titularly. If you don't see the word "Abraham", you sure don't see the word "Muslim".
Plus, it's illogical to appeal to Muhammad, who believed in Abraham, and then to argue that Abraham was a mere hypothetical. Yes, we accept that monotheist nomads don't leave memorials. The evidence for Abraham is (1) the chain of tradition by which the Bible came to us, (2) the fact that the Bible is reliable on every point on which it is testable, (3) the fact that the Bible's testimony is consistent with the early period and not with a later. Now, despite the validity of the first two evidences, some people quibble on the third, ignoring the Bible's chronology (Abraham 2044-1869) and pushing him later than the Sesostris period in which rich Semites from Canaan regularly got rewards and negotiations from the Egyptian pharaoh. Do you believe in the existence of Abisha the Hyksos? He visited a pharaoh of this period, 20th century, 12th dynasty, in exactly the same way Abraham did. It's possible he was Abraham in a later visit than those recorded in Scripture; his name is cognate. Egyptologists grant the provisional existence of people on much less evidence than that, but certain people raise a red flag anytime it means admitting that the Bible is a good historical record, because they think it'll mean they have to come to grips with the Bible's moral demands. If you actually uphold Islam you shouldn't use secularism to rail against Judaism and Christianity when the same is opposed to Islam the same way.
I told you Manetho mentions the name Moses. I told you that his name is the same as the root of Kamose and Ahmose, with whom he was contemporary (also another Ahmose, the mathematician), and with Ramose, the name of the city he lived in. I linked you all kinds of contemporary evidence that came up in a search of just one or two days. And you come back with establishment denunciation as if there's no robust Biblical archaeology community debunking all of it.
If you're a Muslim, there's nothing to argue about the existence of Abraham and Moses; in that case you're either betraying Islam by questioning them as if the questioning tears down your opponents, or you're practicing taqiyya and hoping your duplicity isn't caught, which would also betray Islam. If you're not a Muslim, you are running so many contrary stories at once that your position doesn't have any logical weight. (Sources for no Abraham, sources for a robust Abraham but in Arabia only; citing the Bible when convenient and rejecting it when convenient; citing the Bible for the character of Abraham but rejecting its dating of Abraham; etc.) So I'm not sure what benefit there is in continuing. The point of my quoting your book source is to have a large number of salient quotes for analysis, because it's quite an intriguing etymological study; but, without my stating a conclusion on the evidence, it still belies you because it totally argues for the existence of Abraham and Moses in every detail except traditional geography.
So, here's my one conclusion. It appears you are not someone interested in pursuing the truth at all costs, but only in popularizing narratives that advance a reactionary agenda (denigration of Christianity, also Judaism) whether or not they are the truth. Only one reality happened, and we have sufficient evidence to know the broad strokes of that reality, such as that Jesus rose from the dead and had a message and gift for us. Do you want to know the truth at cost of everything else, or do you think there is something more valuable than truth (in which case that something may be untrue and be deceiving you all along)?
you're citing PBS and Nova as if they're "contrary to the establishment's narrative"
🤔.... I didn't think you would have any issues with PBS and Nova. Okay, feel free to take it apart.
You're also upholding Islam
I'm not sure what gave you that impression, but if I'd agree with you then we'd both be wrong.
I told you Manetho mentions the name Moses
I'm sure you're aware none of Manetho’s original texts have survived; they are lost literary works, known only from fragments transmitted by later authors. What I said, the historical context of Moses in the Bible is that he is considered a legendary figure, although some scholars believe that a Moses-like person may have existed in the southern Transjordan in the mid-to-late 13th century BCE.
you are running so many contrary stories at once
What? I'm not running any stories. I'm just stating the facts, no contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of the Exodus, and no archaeological evidence has been found in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure. The institution of the law in ancient Israel has turned up nothing. The assumption that Moses is the founder of a nation is sorely lacking in evidence. Ancient records are silent about Moses inscriptions. Seals and other texts from ancient Israel and Judah never mention Moses or any of the other Israelite patriarchs. Records from the Babylonian and Persian periods say nothing, the ancient coinage from the province of Judah/Judaea says nothing. The Elephantine Papyri from the Persian era Judeans and Israelites in Egypt show zero awareness of Moses and the Torah. The same goes for the Hermopolis Aramaic letters, Papyrus Amherst 63, the Padua Aramaic papyri and so on.
It appears you are not someone interested in pursuing the truth at all costs, but only in popularizing narratives that advance a reactionary agenda (denigration of Christianity, also Judaism)
Why? because I'm daring to suggest that Moses was not a historical individual? I realize that today it is daring to suggest that our stories about Moses developed as late as the Hellenistic period. The dating of the Hebrew Bible is a topic that remains unresolved. Many traditions and myths found among its pages are old indeed, but the text itself did not reach its final form until the Hellenistic period. If this claim is false it should not be hard to disprove. A single manuscript find could change everything, but I'm not holding my breath. Dr. Gad Barnea a historian at the University of Haifa, after examining every surviving Jewish document from the Persian period, recently stated that there is literally zero evidence for any knowledge of, and any familiarity with the Bible at that time. We may not know how far back the stories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Esther, Daniel and other Bible heroes go. All we can say is that no one seems to have written anything down about them until after Alexander the Great and his Empire introduced Greek literature philosophy and culture to the near East. So what about Moses? we mainly know of Moses from the books of the Pentateuch. The book of Deuteronomy is thought to tell the oldest version of his story with Exodus Leviticus and Numbers being later accretions. The story they tell is filled with improbable and fantastic elements not to mention historical anachronisms and internal contradictions that indicate a work of creative literature.
I'm not sure why you're doing this, but, you're welcome to finish it whenever you feel like.
I'm not trying to debunk anything. I'm just stating a fact; there is no direct archaeological or written evidence outside the Bible that confirms the existence of Abraham and Moses.
I wanted to link Carol Meyer's interview, but looks like it has been scrubbed. Anything that people might find believable and that is contrary to the establishment's narrative is being pulled off in no time at all. Same goes for the program "Bible's Buried Secrets", no longer streamable: "(This program is no longer available for online streaming.)". However, the landmark two-hour special NOVA's scientific journey titled "The Bible's Buried Secrets. An archeological detective story traces the origins of the Hebrew Bible" is still available for viewing on YouTube.
Preston, you're on the Conspiracies forum and you're citing PBS and Nova as if they're "contrary to the establishment's narrative". That's self-unaware. You're also upholding Islam, which makes all your contributions suspect due to taqiyya. But I find that taqiyya is sufficiently countered by extra transparency because people learn that they can be free to share the truth without feeling pressured by policy to uphold a single narrative.
"Muslim" now applies to a man of peace but was not used as a personal title that far back. You don't get to say Abraham and Jews and Christians are Muslims unless you use all the titles the same way. "Jew" means man of praise, "Christian" means man of anointing, and Abraham was all of those metaphorically and none of those titularly. If you don't see the word "Abraham", you sure don't see the word "Muslim".
Plus, it's illogical to appeal to Muhammad, who believed in Abraham, and then to argue that Abraham was a mere hypothetical. Yes, we accept that monotheist nomads don't leave memorials. The evidence for Abraham is (1) the chain of tradition by which the Bible came to us, (2) the fact that the Bible is reliable on every point on which it is testable, (3) the fact that the Bible's testimony is consistent with the early period and not with a later. Now, despite the validity of the first two evidences, some people quibble on the third, ignoring the Bible's chronology (Abraham 2044-1869) and pushing him later than the Sesostris period in which rich Semites from Canaan regularly got rewards and negotiations from the Egyptian pharaoh. Do you believe in the existence of Abisha the Hyksos? He visited a pharaoh of this period, 20th century, 12th dynasty, in exactly the same way Abraham did. It's possible he was Abraham in a later visit than those recorded in Scripture; his name is cognate. Egyptologists grant the provisional existence of people on much less evidence than that, but certain people raise a red flag anytime it means admitting that the Bible is a good historical record, because they think it'll mean they have to come to grips with the Bible's moral demands. If you actually uphold Islam you shouldn't use secularism to rail against Judaism and Christianity when the same is opposed to Islam the same way.
I told you Manetho mentions the name Moses. I told you that his name is the same as the root of Kamose and Ahmose, with whom he was contemporary (also another Ahmose, the mathematician), and with Ramose, the name of the city he lived in. I linked you all kinds of contemporary evidence that came up in a search of just one or two days. And you come back with establishment denunciation as if there's no robust Biblical archaeology community debunking all of it.
If you're a Muslim, there's nothing to argue about the existence of Abraham and Moses; in that case you're either betraying Islam by questioning them as if the questioning tears down your opponents, or you're practicing taqiyya and hoping your duplicity isn't caught, which would also betray Islam. If you're not a Muslim, you are running so many contrary stories at once that your position doesn't have any logical weight. (Sources for no Abraham, sources for a robust Abraham but in Arabia only; citing the Bible when convenient and rejecting it when convenient; citing the Bible for the character of Abraham but rejecting its dating of Abraham; etc.) So I'm not sure what benefit there is in continuing. The point of my quoting your book source is to have a large number of salient quotes for analysis, because it's quite an intriguing etymological study; but, without my stating a conclusion on the evidence, it still belies you because it totally argues for the existence of Abraham and Moses in every detail except traditional geography.
So, here's my one conclusion. It appears you are not someone interested in pursuing the truth at all costs, but only in popularizing narratives that advance a reactionary agenda (denigration of Christianity, also Judaism) whether or not they are the truth. Only one reality happened, and we have sufficient evidence to know the broad strokes of that reality, such as that Jesus rose from the dead and had a message and gift for us. Do you want to know the truth at cost of everything else, or do you think there is something more valuable than truth (in which case that something may be untrue and be deceiving you all along)?
🤔.... I didn't think you would have any issues with PBS and Nova. Okay, feel free to take it apart.
I'm not sure what gave you that impression, but if I'd agree with you then we'd both be wrong.
I'm sure you're aware none of Manetho’s original texts have survived; they are lost literary works, known only from fragments transmitted by later authors. What I said, the historical context of Moses in the Bible is that he is considered a legendary figure, although some scholars believe that a Moses-like person may have existed in the southern Transjordan in the mid-to-late 13th century BCE.
What? I'm not running any stories. I'm just stating the facts, no contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of the Exodus, and no archaeological evidence has been found in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure. The institution of the law in ancient Israel has turned up nothing. The assumption that Moses is the founder of a nation is sorely lacking in evidence. Ancient records are silent about Moses inscriptions. Seals and other texts from ancient Israel and Judah never mention Moses or any of the other Israelite patriarchs. Records from the Babylonian and Persian periods say nothing, the ancient coinage from the province of Judah/Judaea says nothing. The Elephantine Papyri from the Persian era Judeans and Israelites in Egypt show zero awareness of Moses and the Torah. The same goes for the Hermopolis Aramaic letters, Papyrus Amherst 63, the Padua Aramaic papyri and so on.
Why? because I'm daring to suggest that Moses was not a historical individual? I realize that today it is daring to suggest that our stories about Moses developed as late as the Hellenistic period. The dating of the Hebrew Bible is a topic that remains unresolved. Many traditions and myths found among its pages are old indeed, but the text itself did not reach its final form until the Hellenistic period. If this claim is false it should not be hard to disprove. A single manuscript find could change everything, but I'm not holding my breath. Dr. Gad Barnea a historian at the University of Haifa, after examining every surviving Jewish document from the Persian period, recently stated that there is literally zero evidence for any knowledge of, and any familiarity with the Bible at that time. We may not know how far back the stories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Esther, Daniel and other Bible heroes go. All we can say is that no one seems to have written anything down about them until after Alexander the Great and his Empire introduced Greek literature philosophy and culture to the near East. So what about Moses? we mainly know of Moses from the books of the Pentateuch. The book of Deuteronomy is thought to tell the oldest version of his story with Exodus Leviticus and Numbers being later accretions. The story they tell is filled with improbable and fantastic elements not to mention historical anachronisms and internal contradictions that indicate a work of creative literature.