6a6dc6 No.608392
>The scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical,[8] although a "Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C."[32] Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure.[33] The story of his discovery picks up a familiar motif in ancient Near Eastern mythological accounts of the ruler who rises from humble origins
09e9d2 No.608394
Wasn't there some evidence that the Jews were never in Egypt and that Egypt probably took the place of some less significant nation in the story, as the years went by?
6cf70d No.608402
>>608392
You have to understand we're a people of faith, and that we've our foundation in which we view the universe. It's the same for everyone, but for those who don't have an overarching sense of perception, will be blind towards certain knowledge and few will be quick to abandon qualities just to spite on the fact that they're blind.
You can witness this in the quote you just posted.
>a "Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C."[32] Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy
All the evidence suggest that if the exodus did occured, it had during the the 15th century. Then it's no wonder why these "archaeologist" are unable to produce anything that resemble the exodus.
158b80 No.608406
6ab517 No.608410
>>608392
>humble origins
Moses was raised in Pharaohs household. Seems like just more academics making names for themselves by making claims.
FYI Wikipedia is not an unbiased source. Wookieepedia is better in that aspect
3a781b No.608488
>>608392
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2eda02 No.608505
>>608461
I wish this were true but a few quick checks shows this image is a fake from fake news sites. Any real discovery like this would've been picked up by legitimate Christian academics
da6978 No.608511
>>608392
>ID: 6a6dc6
Begone, satan! Bible is the ultimate life manual and any doubt should be considered as heresy!
0f24bd No.608513
>>608392
Hoffmeier's books are a good source on this subject. There isn't any direct, silver bullet proof of the kind >>608461 claims exist, but there is some indirect evidence, and the story isn't as impossible as it's often made to be.
0c3834 No.608520
>>608392
The names Moses and Aaron are Egyptian. There's also ancient hymns from the 10th century B.C. like the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 which mention that YHWH "went out from Seir", and "marched from Edom" and also being on Sinai. Also, explain the Levites. There has to be a historical core to the Exodus.
399425 No.608533
>Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy
>Get absolutely dabed on epic style by your own slaves
>No mention in their written history
Gee i wonder why
73ab0a No.608534
>>608392
>Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy
True, but you have to remember that Egyptian chroniclers had a tendency sweep any events that painted Egypt in a less than favorable light under the rug. Like when they actively tried to destroy any mention of that village that was flooded by the Nile because they wanted their people to think the Nile was a gift from the gods. Or when they had a battle with the Hittites and claimed they won even though the Hittites were the actual victors.
>nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure.
Not necessarily. There have been discoveries of work rosters with Hebrew names on them so there is proof that the Israelites were Egypt around that time. As for the Sinai wilderness, what kind of evidence would a nomadic group leave in an area they only occupied for 40 years? All of their settlements would have been made of tents and they would have only carried things like water in sacks of animal skin.
>he story of his discovery picks up a familiar motif in ancient Near Eastern mythological accounts of the ruler who rises from humble origins
Like >>608410 said, Moses did not come from humble origins.
d6763e No.608561
8f43e8 No.608614
>>608392
I don't doubt that there is little evidence of Moses. Moses lived long ago, much of history around his time is lost. Quick: name a contemporary of Moses not named in Exodus. As >>608534 pointed out, it's not out of place, given the story, for there to be little evidence of it. Egyptian government changed history all the time. There were carvings on the sphinx saying a certain dynasty created it. Modern archeologists looked at those carvings, and found that dynasty didn't create the sphinx, and a later king had actually carved over the original inscription in order to boost his own credibility. However, if Moses didn't exist, the story of David wouldn't exist as it is in the Bible, nor would the story of Jesus, or the story of Paul. There is plenty of historical evidence for David, there is plenty of historical evidence for Jesus, and there is plenty of historical evidence for Paul; therefore Moses must have existed, as these men both pointed to him. Unless you deny the God of the Bible, but that makes no sense in light of the resurrection.
bf3297 No.608632
>>608392
>Nah bro moses wasnt real
>That imhotep guy wasn't real either
>Oh hey we found ONE thing thousands of years later
>Imhotep was so real you idiot
>We never said he wasn't
6e0da6 No.608642
>>608533
The death of a pharaohs son would definitely be big news even if it were a supernatural slave revolt. ESPECIALLY, even.
a80037 No.608889
>>608392
>(((scholarly consensus)))
>historical records of the time can be very sparse, but we'll use the lack of non biblical evidence to say that he didn't exist. After all the bible is just fairy tales, right?
According to wikipedia, the tribes of israel were established right about the time of the bronze age collapse. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
ff9f0e No.608899
>>608392
>The (((scholarly))) consensus
820699 No.608924
>the authorship of every single book of the Bible is misattributed and they are all pseudepigrapha derived from composites of multiple other works
>every line of the Bible and every Christian doctrine is plagiarized from a pagan source
>every figure mentioned in the Bible is a fabrication, either plagiarized directly from pagan sources or a composite of multiple such sources
>every word in the Bible is corrupted or mistranslated
>Jesus didn't exist but he certainly taught my own modern political views despite what the Bible says
>by the way these Talmudic claims against Christ are valid
You'd think the Bible and Christianity would get at least ONE thing right, just by the law of averages!
Wew, so this is the power of the "Higher Criticism"!
657421 No.609039
>Wikipedia
Theres your problem. Wikipedia is abhorrently dishonest when it comes to Christianity. They like to quote scholars with an obvious agenda or who hold a minority view or who are not actually legitimate scholars.
924c4c No.609046
I made the point in the QTDDTOTT that since there are disagreements in the gospels about the exact circumstances of events in Jesus' life, the Bible must be flawed. It cannot be held as perfect, infallible scripture.
712996 No.609932
I thought the OT was considered noncanon anyway
2827b3 No.609934
>>609932
NT is placed above OT but OT is in no way non-canon.
712996 No.609939
>>609934
Than why are things like Leviticus retconned as far as rules for us to live?
Just because they were meant for the Jews?
409f9a No.609948
>>609939
Correct. The ritual mandates of the old testament were just to distinguish the Hebrews from their godless neighbors, only the moral statements apply to Christians.
32c89d No.609952
>>609934
>NT is placed above OT
BEGONE HERETIC
Any Christian who says that couldn't be more wrong in that assertion. In order to understand God, His will, His prophesies and His character you ought to read the Old Testament, and I mean the whole Old Testament, so preferably the Apocrypha or a Catholic/Orthodox Bible based on the Latin Vulgate or Textus Receptus and Septuagint. The New Testament is based on the law, teachings and prophesies of the Old Testament, to never read it but only the New Testament is utterly foolish. For some people the New Testament is enough to accept Jesus Christ and ultimately God and live by His word, but anyone who genuinely wants to understand Christianity and our one true God then it is one's utmost imperative to read the whole Bible accordingly.
0115dc No.609991
>>609952
I think he meant the law of the NT supersedes the law in the OT.
99039b No.620142
>>608394
I'm not sure if you're arguing against the Book of Exodus, but either way I believe the account of the story, the plagues God unleashed upon Egypt, which gave God a reason to be so angry at the Israelites in the wilderness for their complaining, whining, and unfaithfulness.
99039b No.620144
>>608392
>citing Wikipedia
I've been to a religious school in a conservative state within the Bible belt, and the stuff they have you read about the Bible is very concerning and shatters any faith a baby Christian would have. I was pretty shocked myself and can understand why many pastors of churches today are very weak and powerless (not to demean the church or pastors in any way, we should all be praying for them regardless).
You first need to believe and understand that there is a spiritual realm before you even proceed with the Bible in my opinion. Else, you're going to interpret the Bible through some faulty lens and you might as well not read the Bible in the first place because the reason why you should read it is lost on you in the first place. I believe in the Bible, I take it as the book of the supernatural, I believe in the story, I believe in the death, burial, and most importantly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's not important if you believe in literal creation or not, or this or that, what is important is that you believe in Jesus Christ and His Word. God bless.
c9eb8d No.620145
Tell you what, if it's not true, that's a massive relief, because it'll unhook conservatives from worshiping the Jews that put Christ on a cross and killed many prophets. They can finally start taking the spiritual lessons the stories intone, rather than taking them literally.
99039b No.620147
>>609939
Because that was the Old Covenant, and we live in the New Covenant.
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back at things is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62)
God mandates these things called covenants throughout certain times within the history of Mankind. For example, it's clear that Adam and Eve after they were kicked out of the Garden were not Jews in a sense. Although they did practice sacrifice (most likely taught by God Himself to Adam and Eve), the Mosaic Law did not come to the Israelites until after they had left Egypt. There is also the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, etc. When Jesus came, He was the fulfillment of the Law and as Gentiles we do not have to abide by the Law. The important Law to follow is loving God and loving thy neighbour.
99039b No.620149
>>620145
No, the Bible is real and true, all of it. The problem is the way people interpret the Bible which causes many problems. The important thing is to Seek God and have the Holy Spirit guide you. God may not answer all your questions immediately, but He will answer them in this life or the next.
3bd1e0 No.620153
wikipedia is shit and truth doesn't depend on "majority of scholars", this isn't islam
d80ba5 No.620168
>>609948
How do we tell the difference between moral statements and ritual mandates? Honest question
3ff630 No.620211
>>620145
Stop being a Marcionite. Christ came to create the New Covenant in order to replace the Old Covenant. Judaism is bad because it rejects the New Covenant in favour of the Talmud, while Marcionism is bad because it rejects the reasons for which the New Covenant was created and instead accepts Gnostic ravings. Also keep in mind that it’s literally the Jews (the sneaky ones at least) who are promoting the modernist critical attitude to the Bible, and the product of this scepticism (atheists, agnostics, liberal “Christians”) are puppets, not enemies of the Jews. The fact that dispensationalists/zionists misunderstand the Old Testament and fail to differentiate between the Israelites of the Old Covenant and the infidels of today is no excuse for YOU to reject the validity of the Old Testament.
aabbc4 No.620359
>>620211
>The fact that dispensationalists/zionists misunderstand the Old Testament and fail to differentiate between the Israelites of the Old Covenant and the infidels of today is no excuse for YOU to reject the validity of the Old Testament.
BTFO!
eb071c No.620445
>>609993
Link is not available in the states
4be738 No.620475
The Bible is real. The gods of Egypt were toppled by the Lord through Moses. There is actually more evidence suggesting that the Book of Exodus took place, rather than not. The vast majority of scholars that delve into this subject are atheist by nature, and seek to prove the 'invalidity of the Bible'. If you want to trust them over your Lord, then that is your failure and not His.
f04163 No.620577
>>608394
The version I recently heard was that the Hebrews in Egypt were mercenaries and that the Pharaoh only chased after them when they started pillaging his land on their way back.
Since "Israel was founded by thieving, plundering mercenaries" doesn't quite sound as nice, they portrayed themselves as the victim.
No idea if this is true. Just heard a guy say that recently.
80a441 No.620587
>>620577
> Hmmm, should I believe the Bible or some random guy?
fbfb15 No.620590
>(((Historical Criticism)))
2b5a69 No.620601
>>620475
>real
There is no such thing as a Pharoh. Its not an Egyptian word.