Did Moses Exist?

[POI]

I created the 'Exodus' thread here (viewtopic.php?t=40622), after being inspired to do so when Otseng made the (paraphrased) statement -- "if the Exodus did not happen, then we must question Biblical veracity".

From there, the topic of "Moses" ultimately came up; which is what I believe eventually prompted the follow-up topic, created here (viewtopic.php?t=42501).

However, since it seems to be imperative and crucial for Moses to be a real character, let us examine....?

For Debate:

1) As compared to other claimed figures from ancient antiquity, such as Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, and-the-like, how exactly does the claim(s) of "Moses" stack up as a real character? Meaning, if the (confidence-level) for Alexander and Pilate are fairly high, due to 'evidence(s)', how exactly does 'Moses' compare on the "confidence-meter"? (i.e.) Low, medium, high, or other?

2) If we have low-level confidence that a "Moses" really existed, as compared to other said characters from antiquity, does this jeopardize Biblical veracity claims in any way(s)?

3) Can one even logically remain a believer without accepting "Moses" as being a real dude from history?

4) Outside the Bible's say-so, what evidence suggests a "Moses" actually existed?

[POI]

Considering the question did Moses exist it must be recognized there is a difference between the commandments at Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 ,the paramount cornerstone of Moses' teachings ,in that this difference should not exist between the two except for a legit reason to create the difference.Moses is credited for making the change.

Okay? Can you please answer some or all of the debate questions so we may have a productive exchange?

[1213]

..."the Exodus" is a very large claim which would leave tons of evidence.

Please give an example, what evidence you think there should be and why? I don't think there would be much evidence, on the contrary, I think for example Egyptians would have tried to erase all evidence about people who they hated. Also, if the story is true and they lost lot of people, there would not be many to write how they were humiliated by the God of Israel, especially when people don't usually write negative things about their history very truthfully.

In this case, the reign of Hatshepsutm verses the events surrounding "Moses", as described in the Bible, do not directly align. Even if you want to begin trying to directly link Senenmut with a 'Moses', then how much leeway do we grant the Biblical account, being most believers view the Pentateuch as being an accurate historical account of events? I mean, do we 1) just call it 'close enough', when claims differ a bit, or do we 2) assume the Bible is right, and the other accounts are wrong, or 3) other? Please plant your flag before I address your position.

1) I think it depends on how the claims differ. Can you give an example?
2) I assume they all could be correct until otherwise proven.

Here is my current planted flag... My current hypothesis is that the authors of the Bible borrowed, enhanced, added, and augmented existing events from antiquity to taste, in order to unify their own people; especially since it seems to be quite clear that the Pentateuch expresses their believed upon Gpd to be a very tribal one at that towards their own people.

Your thoughts?

I don't believe people unite under claims that they could also see as obvious lies. If for example they were not in Egypt, I don't think the people would just accept and say, ok, we were there, even when we were not really. Although I have to admit, when looking modern people, maybe it could be that they could have accepted even the most ridiculous claims and think everything the leaders say must be true, even if it changes everyday and even when their own eyes show the opposite is true.

But, do I understand correctly, now you admit that the same things happened as the Bible tells, but not really for Jews? Jews only copied what happened to some other people?

Maybe the biggest problem with the idea of them making up stuff by copying things is that, if they can make up imaginary history for themselves, why not make it greater and more believable? If truth is not the limit, they could have made a better story to elevate themselves. Not a story that shows all their flaws.

[POI]

Please give an example, what evidence you think there should be and why?

Is this a serious question? You want to know why millions of folks, who were claimed to have inhabited a region for centuries, actually left behind evidence of their inhabitance?

I think for example Egyptians would have tried to erase all evidence about people who they hated.

The Egyptians tried this and failed. And this is when they were trying to 'erase' evidence of single individuals, not millions.

Also, if the story is true and they lost lot of people, there would not be many to write how they were humiliated by the God of Israel, especially when people don't usually write negative things about their history very truthfully.

All the events claimed by the Bible's account were attributed to their believed upon God. Egyptians, and other historians, would still write about 'plagues', for instance, which killed and harmed many Egyptians, and just not associate these "plagues" to a Hebrew 'god'. Further, if the Egyptians only spoke of events which favored them, documentation would still exist somewhere regarding how they enslaved millions of 'Israelites', for quite some time, and merely omitted the 'bad' parts. It's not like enslavement was frowned upon by the Egyptian Pharaoh(s).

1) I think it depends on how the claims differ. Can you give an example?
2) I assume they all could be correct until otherwise proven.

No, seriously. I need you to plant your flag before I respond here. Do you accept that the Bible may be in error about anything at all?

I don't believe people unite under claims that they could also see as obvious lies.

I don't think so either. This is because most who follow their holy book(s) do not believe the author was lying. However, there is still billions who follow 'holy books' for which you reject as being untrue.

Maybe the biggest problem with the idea of them making up stuff by copying things is that, if they can make up imaginary history for themselves, why not make it greater and more believable? If truth is not the limit, they could have made a better story to elevate themselves. Not a story that shows all their flaws.

If the 'Israelites' were deemed perfect, they would not need 'God's" intervention to correct anything.

[1213]

Please give an example, what evidence you think there should be and why?

Is this a serious question?...

Yes.

... Egyptians, and other historians, would still write about 'plagues', ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus looks much like that.

...documentation would still exist somewhere regarding how they enslaved millions of 'Israelites'...

Yes, the document is the Bible.

Do you accept that the Bible may be in error about anything at all?

If you can prove it.

[POI]

Yes.

Okay then...

The Exodus story, if true, should have left behind evidence of a large-scale movement of people out of Egypt, including the presence of a large Israelite population in Egypt, traces of their slavery, and evidence of their crossing of the Red Sea and subsequent settlement in Canaan. However, there is a lack of conclusive archaeological or historical evidence to corroborate the biblical account of the Exodus, particularly regarding the scale and specific events described.

Here's a breakdown of what evidence should be expected and why:

Evidence of an Israelite Presence in Egypt:

Large-scale settlement: The Bible describes a significant Israelite population in Egypt, particularly in the region of Goshen. This should have left traces in the form of settlements, burial sites, and possibly even evidence of their unique cultural practices or religious beliefs.

Slavery and forced labor: The Israelites are depicted as slaves forced to build cities like Pithom and Rameses. This should be reflected in archaeological records of construction projects during the period, potentially with evidence of the specific building techniques and materials used by the Israelites.

Artifacts and inscriptions: One would expect to find artifacts with Hebrew names or inscriptions, as well as evidence of their material culture, such as pottery and tools.

No such evidence: However, archaeological excavations in the Nile Delta, where the Israelites are said to have settled, have not yielded evidence of a large Israelite population or their specific cultural or religious practices during the relevant time period.

Evidence of the Exodus Event:

Red Sea Crossing:The Bible describes a miraculous parting of the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, followed by the drowning of the pursuing Egyptian army. This should have left behind evidence of a large-scale crossing, possibly including chariot remains or other artifacts from the Egyptian army.

No evidence of a Red Sea crossing: Despite attempts to identify the specific body of water involved and search for evidence, no archaeological remains have been found to support the biblical account of the Red Sea crossing.

Wilderness Journey: The Israelites' journey through the wilderness should have left traces, such as temporary campsites, evidence of their diet and water sources, and possibly even evidence of their interactions with other peoples.

Lack of evidence in the Sinai: The Sinai Peninsula shows minimal evidence of occupation during the time of the Exodus, and there is no evidence to support the biblical narrative of the Israelites' wilderness journey.

Evidence of the Conquest of Canaan:

Destruction layers: The Bible describes the Israelites conquering and destroying cities like Jericho and Hazor. This should be reflected in archaeological records with evidence of destruction layers and significant cultural changes in the archaeological record.

Archaeological evidence of destruction: Archaeological evidence at Jericho and Hazor does show destruction layers from the Late Bronze Age, but the dates of these destructions and their association with the Israelites are debated.

Cultural and architectural changes: The arrival of the Israelites should have brought about some cultural and architectural changes in Canaan, such as the introduction of new pottery styles or building techniques.

Cultural continuity: Instead, archaeologists have found a seamless cultural continuity between the Canaanites and the early Israelites, suggesting that the Israelites evolved from within Canaanite culture rather than arriving as a separate, distinct population.

In conclusion: While the Exodus story is a central part of Jewish and Christian tradition, there is a lack of conclusive archaeological and historical evidence to support its core claims. The lack of evidence for a large-scale Israelite presence in Egypt, the Red Sea crossing, the wilderness journey, and the conquest of Canaan suggests that the Exodus story may be a later theological or nationalistic narrative rather than a literal historical account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus looks much like that.

Such "plagues" were mentioned/documented by other contemporary 'sources', besides the Bible?

Yes, the document is the Bible.

Yes, this is the entire reason this forum exists. Skeptics are questioning some of the claims presented from the Bible. Aside from the Bible's say-so, does any other contemporary source(s) corroborate the claimed centuries-long enslavement for millions of "Israelites" by the Egyptians? If so, inquiring minds want to know?

If you can prove it.

You are still not planting your flag. I already planted mine. Please plant your flag. Why is this so hard? State your current position. You state that Senenmut and "Moses" have similarities. This means you already concede that there may be some wiggle room.

Repeat from post #10:

The reign of Hatshepsutm verses the events surrounding "Moses", as described in the Bible, do not directly align. Even if you want to begin trying to directly link Senenmut with a 'Moses', then how much leeway do we grant the Biblical account, being most believers view the Pentateuch as being an accurate historical account of events? I mean, do we 1) just call it 'close enough', when claims differ a bit, or do we 2) assume the Bible is right, and the other accounts are wrong, or 3) other? Please plant your flag before I address your position.

[bluegreenearth]

Do you accept that the Bible may be in error about anything at all?

If you can prove it.

Does the following meet your standard of evidence?

Deuteronomy 22: 13-21
"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

In the context of this chapter in Deuteronomy and the book as a whole, the author claims these verses are direct quotes from the God to Moses and transcribes the God's spoken laws and legal procedures that are to be followed without exception. (Note: Don't take my word for it but be encouraged to conduct your own analysis of the text.) In this specific case, the God declares that a virgin woman who is falsely accused by her husband of not having been a virgin prior to the act of consummating their marriage may be defended by having her parents present to the authorities the bed sheet upon which they will observe the evidence of the blood she had discharged during the act of sexual intercourse. The direct and inescapable implication is that the virgin woman's in-tact hymen was torn and subsequently bled on the bed sheet as a consequence of having been penetrated for the first time by her husband. Given this evidence, the woman is to be judged as not guilty of premarital promiscuity. Conversely, if no blood is found on the bed sheet, then the accused woman is to be stoned to death in front of her parent's home.

The irrefutable error on exhibit here is entailed in the Biblical expectation that all virgin women should bleed when engaging in sexual intercourse for the first time. However, it is a demonstrable medical fact fact that nearly half of all virgin women do not bleed when their hymen is initially penetrated (See the peer reviewed journal article: "Hymen and Virginity: What Every Paediatrician Should Know". Therefore, the absence of blood on a bed sheet should never function as conclusive evidence for proving when a woman has been sexually promiscuous. As a consequence of this reasoning error, if the Hebrew people had faithfully obeyed this divinely commanded law and legal procedure, a disproportionate number of women who did not bleed on the bedsheet when consummating their marriage would have been unnecessarily and unjustifiably stoned to death. Unfortunately, this ignorant and barbaric practice continues to this day in some areas of the world, though it has been outlawed in most modern and civil societies.

[1213]

...Large-scale settlement: The Bible describes a significant Israelite population in Egypt, particularly in the region of Goshen. This should have left traces in the form of settlements, burial sites, and possibly even evidence of their unique cultural practices or religious beliefs.

I think the Bible indicates they were not allowed to follow their own cultural practises. Also, the Bible indicates that they took with them what they owned. So, if they had something of their own culture, they took that with them, which is why it is not reasonable to assume to find any of that in Egypt, if we believe the story is true. And lastly, slaves commonly leave no own traces in history, or can you show what other slaves have left behind?

But, interesting thing is, if Moses was Senmut, he was the architect of Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut. And I think that is different from typical Egyptian architecture. And perhaps it can be seen as Israelite influence in the region.

Slavery and forced labor: The Israelites are depicted as slaves forced to build cities like Pithom and Rameses. This should be reflected in archaeological records of construction projects during the period, potentially with evidence of the specific building techniques and materials used by the Israelites.

Why do you think they were forced to built cities like Pithom and Rameses? I would assume they more likely were building for example the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut.

Artifacts and inscriptions: One would expect to find artifacts with Hebrew names or inscriptions, as well as evidence of their material culture, such as pottery and tools.

Again, by what the Bible tells, if they had such things, they likely took them with them. And one could assume, they didn't have very much own things, as slaves usually don't seem to own much. But, perhaps you think slaves were relatively free and had many things?

Red Sea Crossing:The Bible describes a miraculous parting of the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, followed by the drowning of the pursuing Egyptian army. This should have left behind evidence of a large-scale crossing, possibly including chariot remains or other artifacts from the Egyptian army.

No evidence of a Red Sea crossing: Despite attempts to identify the specific body of water involved and search for evidence, no archaeological remains have been found to support the biblical account of the Red Sea crossing.

Maybe, as Indiana Jones would say, "They're digging in the wrong place".

Wilderness Journey: The Israelites' journey through the wilderness should have left traces, such as temporary campsites, evidence of their diet and water sources, and possibly even evidence of their interactions with other peoples.

Lack of evidence in the Sinai: The Sinai Peninsula shows minimal evidence of occupation during the time of the Exodus, and there is no evidence to support the biblical narrative of the Israelites' wilderness journey.

Camping generally doesn't leave much traces, at least no traces that last thousands of years. I think also in this case people are looking into a wrong place. By what I know, the areas that have the sings are forbidden to be explored.

Destruction layers: The Bible describes the Israelites conquering and destroying cities like Jericho and Hazor. This should be reflected in archaeological records with evidence of destruction layers and significant cultural changes in the archaeological record.

Archaeological evidence of destruction: Archaeological evidence at Jericho and Hazor does show destruction layers from the Late Bronze Age, but the dates of these destructions and their association with the Israelites are debated.

Can the split rock of Moses be counted as evidence?
https://www.splitrockresearch.org/portf ... plit-rock/

Or the burned mountain top of mount Horeb?

Cultural and architectural changes: The arrival of the Israelites should have brought about some cultural and architectural changes in Canaan, such as the introduction of new pottery styles or building techniques.

They came to Egypt from the land of Canan? So, perhaps they would have continued with the traditional style?

I think the bigger problem is, they were attacked many times and their cities destroyed. I don't see how one could reasonable to expect to find things that were destroyed.

Cultural continuity: Instead, archaeologists have found a seamless cultural continuity between the Canaanites and the early Israelites, suggesting that the Israelites evolved from within Canaanite culture rather than arriving as a separate, distinct population.

By what the Bible tells, before Egypt, they were in the land of Canan, which is why it is quite natural to think they "evolved" there.

The reign of Hatshepsutm verses the events surrounding "Moses", as described in the Bible, do not directly align...

But are they contradictory?

[1213]

...
Deuteronomy 22: 13-21
"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town...
The irrefutable error on exhibit here is entailed in the Biblical expectation that all virgin women should bleed when engaging in sexual intercourse for the first time. However, it is a demonstrable medical fact fact that nearly half of all virgin women do not bleed ...

And how exactly do we know the non bleeding virgins were truly virgins?

[bluegreenearth]

And how exactly do we know the non bleeding virgins were truly virgins?

The answer to your question is in the peer reviewed journal article that was linked in my previous post. You would likely acquire the same answer from your family paediatrician or almost any reputable paediatrician. Nevertheless, for at least a small percentage of women, the hymen is not fully formed at birth and will not be damaged during intercourse. In other cases, the hymen naturally thins and become highly flexible over time to where it doesn't bleed when stretched or penetrated. Again, I'm not expecting you to take my word for it. Feel free to do your own research into the matter.

[POI]

I think this is why Otseng knows he must link another group to the 'Israelites, via the Hyksos. Otherwise, there is really nothing out there, yet, to nearly substantiate such a claimed mass amount of alleged people, who are claimed to have been enslaved for centuries.

I think the Bible indicates they were not allowed to follow their own cultural practises. Also, the Bible indicates that they took with them what they owned. So, if they had something of their own culture, they took that with them, which is why it is not reasonable to assume to find any of that in Egypt, if we believe the story is true. And lastly, slaves commonly leave no own traces in history, or can you show what other slaves have left behind?

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

Why do you think they were forced to built cities like Pithom and Rameses? I would assume they more likely were building for example the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut.

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

Again, by what the Bible tells, if they had such things, they likely took them with them. And one could assume, they didn't have very much own things, as slaves usually don't seem to own much. But, perhaps you think slaves were relatively free and had many things?

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

Maybe, as Indiana Jones would say, "They're digging in the wrong place".

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

Camping generally doesn't leave much traces, at least no traces that last thousands of years. I think also in this case people are looking into a wrong place. By what I know, the areas that have the sings are forbidden to be explored.

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

Can the split rock of Moses be counted as evidence?

Likely not. While Split Rock Research presents itself as a research organization, the scientific validity of its findings and conclusions is subject to considerable debate and criticism within archaeological and geological circles.

They came to Egypt from the land of Canan? So, perhaps they would have continued with the traditional style? I think the bigger problem is, they were attacked many times and their cities destroyed. I don't see how one could reasonable to expect to find things that were destroyed.

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

By what the Bible tells, before Egypt, they were in the land of Canan, which is why it is quite natural to think they "evolved" there.

More post hoc excuses for why millions of "Israelites", enslaved for centuries, left no evidence.

But are they contradictory?

This isn't even what I asked. Please re-read what I asked.