It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: undo
hyksos = israelites
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Erm, there's still no evidence that the Exodus ever took place.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Yes, it's possible that it might be tied to the destruction of the Kingdom of the Hyksos in Lower Egypt.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But there's no proof of a crossing of the Red Sea, no proof of an Egyptian army being destroyed
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
and certainly no proof of a Pharaoh dying.
Likley.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
However, it's possible that the old 'Pillar of Fire/Smoke' legend and the plagues might have been the result of the eruption of Thera, which might have happened at the same time. Maybe. It is thought. Kinda.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
It could have been 5 years .. it could have been hundreds of years .. or anything in between. The fact is that there is absolutely no archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands (more like 2 million by some estimates) of Hebrews were living in the desert. There are no pottery shards ... no bones of the dead ... no bones of the animals slaughtered for food ... no trinkets or clothing or anything (and the desert would have preserved these things). Not a single thing to show that large of a number of people lived in the desert for any significant length of time.
The part about the Egyptian Army being lost in the Red Sea is poppycock. Egyptian records show very conclusively that, right after the time that the wipe out was supposed to happen, the Egyptians won significant military battles. If the army and the weaponry and the chariots and horses were all wiped out like the Old Testament story claims, then Egypt couldn't have gone on to win battle after battle. They would have been invaded and overrun. But that didn't happen.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: FlyersFan
Remember that these stories were originally part of a vast oral tradition. Storytellers would add new stuff as time progressed and all experiments I know of tapping into orally transmitted storytelling, shows that the stories develop, sometimes into the absurd. The Exodus story may for all we know have been totally different in 1000 BC than when it was written down on paper a few hundred years later. The Midrash tradition does show good results in accuracy when it comes to transmitting stories though, so they had ways of securing story accuracy.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok
Well that is just another possible origin of the story. I didn't say that my account was the honest to god truth or anything. I was just saying that I would accept an explanation along those lines as a possible REAL version of events. What you just said could also be true. In either case, both examples are cases where a more logical story would be embellished to absurdity through oral tradition.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok
Well that is just another possible origin of the story. I didn't say that my account was the honest to god truth or anything. I was just saying that I would accept an explanation along those lines as a possible REAL version of events. What you just said could also be true. In either case, both examples are cases where a more logical story would be embellished to absurdity through oral tradition.
I was just of the opinion that its seems that a Nomadic people settled in Egypt, grew powerful and then were expelled seems to be a accepted theme.
And that the Egypt recorded history and Bible match up on that.
For the other facts and what account is more biased and what myth been injected is what up for debate and personal opinion.
But to say the bible book of Exodus is complete BS and cant be corroborated is a lie. Something did happen. It pretty certain they must be a the Hyskos. Its just who embellished the facts more the Egyptians or Jews? Or both?
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ok I respect you opinion on that.
But if you take the bible with a grain of salt or those reasons then logically you have to take almost all writings and history at the time in the same way as all the cultures embellished there history and inject myths in the exact same way.
It not until circa 300 BC you got some sort of standardized history and even then it could still be exaggerated or based on earlier mythical accounts.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I do. Any story from ANY ancient culture that injects gods or myths into their telling is wrong and or embellished. But luckily we have more than just the ancients' writings to get an idea of how they lived. We also have archeology. It also helps when written accounts from multiple sources corroborate the same story, something that is most definitely lacking in the bible accounts.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
All history is embellished or lies, even the stuff post-300 BC. Like I said, history is written by the victors. The losers don't get to tell their side of the story. That's why we view all nazi germany as this great big den of evil when in reality there was some particularly bad men at the top and a lot of people at the bottom just going with the flow out of fear or because they didn't know the larger picture.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Boston Massacre was really just propaganda from the rebels, the British soldiers were later acquitted of the charges.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But that is something you just have to accept as a historian, you have to be able to have a good BS detector and be able to separate the wild claims and embellishments from the actual truth and fact.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert.
Have you heard about the Beduins? There are literally millions of them and they have lived nomadic lives in the area for thousands of years. And they are but one of many such nomadic peoples living in that area of Asia and Africa. If we are to discuss validity and differ between what serves truth and what is makebelieve, the first thing to acknowledge is that nothing is purely black and white. There are levels of truth and there are things like esoteria and epic structures, mythical stories often serve truth better than reality. That's why we keep these myths. They don't have to have any historical value to have valuable wisdom and profound truth to serve.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert.
Have you heard about the Beduins? There are literally millions of them and they have lived nomadic lives in the area for thousands of years. And they are but one of many such nomadic peoples living in that area of Asia and Africa. If we are to discuss validity and differ between what serves truth and what is makebelieve, the first thing to acknowledge is that nothing is purely black and white. There are levels of truth and there are things like esoteria and epic structures, mythical stories often serve truth better than reality. That's why we keep these myths. They don't have to have any historical value to have valuable wisdom and profound truth to serve.
The Beduins are a good counterexample, but keep in mind they've had thousands of years to perfect their lifestyle. We are talking about a culture that was (according to the bible) enslaved and living under oppression. These people wouldn't have ANY training to survive for long periods of time in the desert, let alone be able to cooperate together to achieve this goal. Would you expect millions of suburbanites to be able to adequately survive in the desert for 40 years?