The story of Moses was not borrowed from any one, because any thing similiar was written later.
Sargon. He lived considerably earlier than Moses.
At the most they would be competing histories, but for totally different nations. The Greeks were the invaders. Why would the Hebrews make up their Babylonian and Egyptian roots? It could also be said that the Greeks plagiarized their mythology from the Babylonians and Sumerians. And then changed the names of the "characters". They all fall under the same pattern. Hercules (Roman) and the Greek hero, told the same tale of a half god half human, Gilgamesh, who went on a journey to defeat a god. Even Zeus is the retailing of Marduk, and the fight against Gaia (Tiamat). Genesis avoids all the mythology and the sordid sexual and tyrannical exploits of the gods.
Never mind Genesis, in which there is a considerable number of sordid sexual and tyrannical exploits... what about the New Testament? If any supernatural being impregnated me without my permission, I'd be accusing him/her/it of rape.
Yes, you got confused... I said <snip>
Berzerker, I'm not interested in any more back-and-forth arguing with you. I wasn't confused. You've been talking about one thing, I was talking about another, and you have a habit of twisting my posts around. I'm done with this part of the conversation.
That life form only wrote the original ten Commandments. Moses just wrote what the life form told him.
What "life form"?
Why the value judgement?
J
You don't think that mass murder deserves some kind of value judgment?
I was not dismissing them, but comparing them to the accusation that seemingly only the Hebrews plagiarized, when it is not for sure they copied the novels of other nations, but the actual happenings were being expanded on by all the ancient nations.
You do understand that novels are fiction, right?
Some humans believed an image could actually grant powers.
Some humans still believe this. Funny how all those statues in the churches and cathedrals ignore the commandment against graven images, and some people actually bow and curtsey and kneel to them before or during praying to them.
If even the gods were said to be afraid of this deluge, then it must have been in a lot of different places, other wise, this one "godlike" family was wiped out and only humans were left to pass on this event.
Are you now claiming that Noah and his family were "godlike" and not human?
It is not even my so called belief system. My own experiences have past the belief phase into the assurance of knowing.
Based on what?
Why would humans figure living in fear is feasible? Being afraid hardly comes from knowing.
Please look up the definition of "feasible." Basically it can be defined as "possible" or, in current slang, "doable." So living in fear is, indeed, doable. That's how many people live now, and have lived in the past.
Being afraid comes either from the unknown (something is going on, I don't know what it is/why it's happening, so I'm scared), or the known (there's too much snow, and I'm afraid the weight of it will snap the wires linking the power poles and cut off the electricity to my home).
I've been in both the above situations, and lived through them.
As far as I can tell the book of Exodus wasn't written down in its current form until the 5th or 6th century BCE. Some parts were written earlier, but its unlikely the story happened exactly as written. The only arguments that Moses wrote the Book of Exodus seems to be tradition and a certain handful of Bible verses. Here are many sources pointing to a later authorship date.
http://thecenterforbiblicalstudies.org/resources/introductions-to-the-books-of-the-bible/exodus/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-exodus.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus
https://www.britannica.com/event/Exodus-Old-Testament
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html
Thank you for the interesting articles.
Thanks for the links. However there cannot be generations of scribes copying the books as they saw fit, and then the accounts were authored. Nothing in archeology points against 3 separate and even 4 sources of written sets of documents being passed from generation to generstion. It was Moses who set that process in motion. I have read the single so called source and it still contains the events including Moses. Nor does the Bible itself at face value put a single congruent history together. It is the process as a whole and the influence of several lines of text that give the Bible a fuller view of the history than if it was just read as authored by Moses and remained only his body of work. That is how tradition works, but does not rely on just one tradition. That there are even any so called contradictions, points to the fact that Moses did not leave it to just one group. It is not logical to say the Israelite tribes were one cohesive nation, even from the view of the Bible, and yet we have up to four different accounts agreeing on the same basic structure even though each one held their own unique point of view. That such a structure can be identified throughout a long span of time even through the changing ages from bronze to iron does not prove a single or even a combined agreement and authorship after the facts. It still had an author who gave instructions for it's survival throughout the multi generational and sometimes national points of view that were at great odds with each other.
Is it coincidental that even the New Testament had 4 books, and the Acts as 5 books that led off with the writings of those who interacted with the oral testimonials at the same time? It would be a logical move to generate as many and perhaps contradictory points of view to proliferate a written record instead of attempting one single source to pass on vital information that would be questioned for thousands of years in the future.
Whut?
If you want a particular story to be passed down, why would it be logical to have contradictory versions of it?
If one is rational, then fear should not exist.
At this point, I'm going to ask if you ever leave your house, or if anything negative has ever happened to you that might have caused injury or death if you didn't do something about it. There are times when it's irrational
not to feel fear.
It seems to be for some people. Just ask anyone who rides the fastest, most dangerous midway rides, or people who like horror movies or psychological thrillers. For me, there comes a breaking point when enough is enough. For example, there's a series of computer games called Ravenhearst. The first installment was slightly disturbing, but pretty tame. The next was more disturbing. Then the series was taken over by a different development company and the installments got more and more disturbing and graphic to the point that I refuse to even look past the preview of the last one. That one is
not going in my collection of BFG, because it's the sort of thing that is capable of making me lose my last meal.
But the games must appeal to enough people that they made so many installments.
I'm not trying to say Exodus wasn't based off a true story. I don't think we have enough external evidence to know either way. I'm saying I don't think Moses wrote the version we have today. I don't see why the story of Exodus should be seen as any more accurate than the writings of Homer. Both the Exodus and the Trojan War happened within a couple centuries of each other and were written down hundreds of years later. Both also have lots of supernatural/mythical embellishments.
Both Exodus and the Trojan War sites suffer from amateur archaeologists looting and trampling what should have been properly documented
in situ. There is a great deal of information that could have been useful but was lost.
So the theory is: it is ok to think there was a Moses, but like Jesus it really does not matter what he did, cause he could never have done the things mentioned in the account?
Think what you want. But even if either of them really existed, then you're correct: neither could have done the supernatural things they're credited with doing, or that they're credited with witnessing.
Seeing as how God is real, what God does is not necessarily a mythical embellishment. Now if one holds that God is not real, then they can believe anything could have happened, as conjucture is not proof.
Scientists aren't the ones believing just anything. Evidence, proof, etc... you know, the stuff you don't need other than "Moses did this because he said he did."
One would also have to remove from the account the point that Moses was capable of writing down the Law, and commanded that it be preserved in written form from the time it was given as long as there was a willing Hebrew to do so. We are to assume that this command was fabricated to only appear that there were written copies, and all mentions in later chronicles also mirrored this fabrication? That there was a record way before there was even a religion points to the fact that the supernatural was not a mystery but a natural occurence. Just because something may not happen more than once in a lifetime does not make it mythical nor supernatural.
Evidence... it's an annoying thing, but it's necessary.
It is more than likely a grammatical issue than a definition issue.
No, you are obviously having a problem with the definition.
More like a hundred thousand. What sort of evidence? How would they be differentiated from the other occupants of the less desirable land? Bear in mind this is a period we know very little of the ruling class, much less the general population.
J
This should be something that can be tested, if the various countries there would stop shooting each other long enough for an experiment to be performed. Gather the 2 million people, dress them as the Hebrews would have been dressed, give them the tools and supplies they would have had, and watch them make the trip without using any modern amenities or technology whatsoever, not even so much as a compass. No rescue teams if anyone has any medical emergencies. I'd be curious as to the results.
What we know is that a standard Pharoah would have covered up loosing more than several thousand part time employees. Even more so an army and several hundred thousand slaves. What evidence is going to be left that a huge group of people left after 400 years of populating an area? The next 400 years is going to cover any evidence. The Hebrews were shepherds and there is enough evidence to show that these tribes traveled back and forth between Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt during that time frame. Even Hammurabi was considered in this group, and was part of a parenthesis of rulers in Babylon not part of the native list of kings.
A "standard Pharaoh"? "Part-time employees"?
WHUT?
That there was a twelve tribe family group, they would have become unwelcome guest after 400 years. Probably after 200 to 300 years.
Some of my company has become unwelcome after 400 seconds.
That 40 years in a desert is not going to leave much.
I'm still wondering why it would take 40 years to travel the distance in one direction that it took less than 40 days to travel in the other direction. There's a joke that Moses, being a typical man, refused to ask for directions, so that's why it took so long.
How many offspring can 12 separate families generate in 400 years if each generation averaged 8 new families?
Doesn't it say in the Book of Numbers? Mind you, that does tend to leave out the women. Only sons counted. And since this was before strict monogamy was a thing... that adds up to quite a few offspring.
