The Exodus confirmed..

by Crazyguy 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Crazyguy
    Witness 007 The Hyksos were probably part of the invading Amorites that also invaded Babylon etc. These people came from the North near Turkey or so the experts think. They were probably related to the Phoenicians or Canaanites as their also called. I read somewhere that the Hyksos may have worshipped Baal as well as Set and if so that works well with the bible, because early writing show that the Canaanites worshiped El then switched or morphed worship of Baal Hadad as their main deity. Many cultures worshiped one deity then switched to another in their pantheons of deities and almost always combined attributes of the former deity into the newer.
  • Crazyguy
    Saintbertholdt The Hyksos may have not been the actual Israelites but they got the story from a retelling of this event. The Hyksos may of in fact been related to the Canaanites which archeology has shown were in fact one and the same as the Israelites. The Israelites may have just developed in to a subset of the Canaanites. The Merneptah Stele doesn't seem to show the Israelites as a nation but just a people. And it must be said that in the few expeditions by pharaohs in to the land of the Levant, not one has ever mention defeating or doing battle with a city named Jerusalem. it just was not an important notable city at the time.
  • Crazyguy
    Saintbertholdt, Its also important to bring out that the Merneptah Stele was writing about this Pharaoh going in to the Levant and defeating several groups, the sea peoples being one of them. The Israelites were mentioned almost as an after thought. This indicates to me that the defeat of the Israelites written about here was a battle that took place again in the Levant and not in Egypt proper. So this stele could not be talking about the exodus story not to mention there a whole host of problems with this Pharaoh being the one of the exodus story In the bible.
  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Just a thought; how could reed and red be confused in the original languages... surely it is only in English that there is a similarity?

    Second thought; the Egyptian "monotheism" of Akenaten was probably similar to Jewish henotheism which recognised other Gods but worshipped only one. Monotheism (belief and worship of an only god) arrived, or rather evolved,very much later... the Jews being henotheistic almost up to the first century. Anyone have evidence for a date on this?

  • Crazyguy
    Not sure aboutbthe translation issues, but as far as Jewish beliefs and monothiesm Akenatens ideas actually started with his father and was before any evidence of the Israelites, there's no evidence of them existing before 1200 bce. The Jewish beliefs again only seem to be down in writing at about the 6th century bce around the time of their captivity in Babylon.
  • Mephis

    We know the Hyksos worshipped Ba'al Zephon (who they conflated with Seth) from the big temple to Seth at Avaris and various finds relating to this form of Seth being 'Lord of Avaris'. The temple to Seth was actually maintained by the Egyptians even after they'd taken Avaris from the Hyksos.

    If Avaris is meant by the Exodus writer, then you'd kind of wonder why he forgot to mention that it was a major centre for trade in Egypt. That was it's defining feature - it's position on the Nile allowing for Mediterranean sea trade (lots of Minoan influences in buildings there, pottery from Cyprus) and access to the land trade routes into Canaan and beyond. There's some debate still whether old Avaris became the main military harbour for the later city of Ramesses. But regardless, there is the slight problem that Avaris was already a trade hub 200 years before the Hyksos 'invasion'... (settlement dating to Amenemhat II at least, who is recorded as heading into Syria and capturing Aamu (Asiatics - same term used for Hyksos) as slaves).

    I can buy the idea of a much later origin myth being built upon vague memories of historical events, even to the extent of the chronology becoming very confused.

  • Crazyguy
    I agree Memphis the Bible mentions all sorts of stuff that was not accurate. The name PiRamesses was not correct but a later name. The Bible says they built the cities with burnt bricks, not correct. It looks as though the Savior of the Israelites Moses was taken from the name of the Pharaoh Ahmoses. This list goes on and on. Even this idea of only worshipping one God may have come from the other recorded Exodus, when the followers of Akkentaten we're expelled. Its like a bunch of stories all thrown together to make this Bible story.
  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    So if we just ignore what is meant by "The Exodus" and redefine it to mean "any exodus" we can confirm it actually happened? Really?

    The writer of the OP seems to be confused about what "The Exodus" is. Namely, 2 million Israelites who left Egypt by walking across floor of the Red Sea and then went off to wander in the desert for forty years under the guidance of the patriarch Moses.

    Anything else is not "The Exodus". It may be the origins of the story of "The Exodus" or it may be completely unrelated. But either way it doesn't confirm the event. The linked article is a fascinating bit of speculation but - until such a time as we have good reasons to believe the Hyksos were the origins of story - the proposal is ". . . not only not right - it's not even wrong."

  • goingthruthemotions

    the problem here is that it is all pure speculation. I need hard facts to believe that the israelites were in egypt, the egyptians chronicalled everything.

    so why would they not chronical this? litterally they say that millions of people were exciled. thatS like saying 2 million people leave new york, right now. don't you think this would be big news? it would be written about right? once it is written, then is made a historical event.

    i call B.S.

  • freemindfade
    I watched a great documentary on all this.

Share this