cubist
23rd March 2004, 16:11
Why dont we know anything about this mass exodus that that Bible talks about? And yet, we know about Ankenatum and Nefertiti. We know that Tutankamun was
originally named Tutankhatum. The Egyptians were positively neurotic about
getting stuff written down, and there are many, many instances where stuff
"stricken from all the books" survived. There were simply too many records, not
only official state records but more personal accounts written on papyri and
tomb walls.
Had there been a distinct ethnic group held as slaves in Egypt for some 400
years, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. There is no possible way that 400 years
of a basic slave caste could have been just erased with no trace, not when
records were literally carved in stone.
Had there been a string of disasters of the scope claimed in the Bible, THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. There are many instances in extant records of famine,
of infestations of locusts, of drought, of rampant disease. No where in any of
the records is there mention of any series of event even close to comparable to
"the Ten Plagues." Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood or a hail
of fire or a disease that struck only the first born would have been written
down *somewhere*.
Had tens of thousands of slaves all left at once, carrying with them most of
Egypt's wealth, pursued by the mighty army of Egypt which was lost as the "Reed
Sea" (the English translation of 'Yam Soof' as 'Red Sea' is in error) when the
tide came, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. Egyptian histories tell of many
defeats in battle. Why not this one which would have been so noteworthy?
Interestly enough, Egyptian records DO tell of a group of Semitic invaders, the
Hyksos. The Hyksos were (by Egyptian standards) a warlike people that had the
temerity to attack and actually *conquer* Egypt, due to the fact that the
Hyksos had horses and chariots; the Egyptians did not. The 15th Dynasty was
Hyksos, not Egyptian (the 16th Dynasty ran parallel and consisted of Egyptian
vassal kings.) Written examples of the Hyksos language show strong
similarities to early Hebrew and other Semitic tongues. The Hyksos were
defeated around 1570 and 1546 BCE by the founder of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose 1.
Curiously enough, the Hyksos are described in Egyptian records as fleeing the
land with much of Egypt's wealth, pursued by a vast army that turned back only
when the Hyksos fled in to the swamps of the Nile delta.
--
Gregory Gadow
originally named Tutankhatum. The Egyptians were positively neurotic about
getting stuff written down, and there are many, many instances where stuff
"stricken from all the books" survived. There were simply too many records, not
only official state records but more personal accounts written on papyri and
tomb walls.
Had there been a distinct ethnic group held as slaves in Egypt for some 400
years, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. There is no possible way that 400 years
of a basic slave caste could have been just erased with no trace, not when
records were literally carved in stone.
Had there been a string of disasters of the scope claimed in the Bible, THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. There are many instances in extant records of famine,
of infestations of locusts, of drought, of rampant disease. No where in any of
the records is there mention of any series of event even close to comparable to
"the Ten Plagues." Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood or a hail
of fire or a disease that struck only the first born would have been written
down *somewhere*.
Had tens of thousands of slaves all left at once, carrying with them most of
Egypt's wealth, pursued by the mighty army of Egypt which was lost as the "Reed
Sea" (the English translation of 'Yam Soof' as 'Red Sea' is in error) when the
tide came, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. Egyptian histories tell of many
defeats in battle. Why not this one which would have been so noteworthy?
Interestly enough, Egyptian records DO tell of a group of Semitic invaders, the
Hyksos. The Hyksos were (by Egyptian standards) a warlike people that had the
temerity to attack and actually *conquer* Egypt, due to the fact that the
Hyksos had horses and chariots; the Egyptians did not. The 15th Dynasty was
Hyksos, not Egyptian (the 16th Dynasty ran parallel and consisted of Egyptian
vassal kings.) Written examples of the Hyksos language show strong
similarities to early Hebrew and other Semitic tongues. The Hyksos were
defeated around 1570 and 1546 BCE by the founder of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose 1.
Curiously enough, the Hyksos are described in Egyptian records as fleeing the
land with much of Egypt's wealth, pursued by a vast army that turned back only
when the Hyksos fled in to the swamps of the Nile delta.
--
Gregory Gadow