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.

 

Egyptian Account of Exodus.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I did some more research. I will say it seems most Egyptologist date this papyrus a good while before the exodus account was supposed to have taken place.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Based on the xtra research I have been doing, the papyrus I have presented has nothing to do with the exodus, and this is a much more likely candidate. Thanks for the post man.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: undo

Based on the xtra research I have been doing, the papyrus I have presented has nothing to do with the exodus, and this is a much more likely candidate. Thanks for the post man.


no problem. i was pretty stoked when i saw the pharaoh and realized moses must've been named after him.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
double post again
edit on 9-3-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Tangerine

Paul lived at the same time as Jesus. We have his epistles. Scholars date his conversion 3-6 years after the cross. No, he didn't meet Jesus before the cross, but he did live in his time frame. he also would have been able to check the tomb on his own. Jesus was buried in a well known tomb not just some random hole.


You can't be serious. PAUL NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE WITNESSED JESUS LIVING. PERIOD. I can show you a hole in the ground and say, "See, that proves hobbits are real." It proves absolutely nothing except that there's a hole in the ground.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Tangerine

"
 Not a word was written about Jesus until two generations after he allegedly lived. "

False. Acts was written as a history for the church and it ends with Paul in jail. It doesn't mention his death (~64AD), the Jewish rebellions against The Romans or the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70AD), so Acts was written around 62 AD. Luke was written before Acts, Matthew was written before Luke, and Mark was written before Matthew; so this was all within the generation of the first followers of Jesus (since he died around 30AD when Pilate was the Roman ruler).

Even more interesting is Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple. Some say the prophecy was written in after the fact to give credibility so the gospels were written around 70 AD and on...

However even after the first 3 gospels were written with the prediction , later when Acts was written, it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple , if the author of Acts wanted to convince people of Jesus then what better way than to memtion "years before Jesus predicted it would happen in the first 3 gospels and now as I write Acts, it recently came true!" but he couldn't take the opportunity to do that since the prediction still didn't come true yet until 70AD.

So yes, the first 3 gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) as well as Acts, was written before 70AD all within the same generation as the life and death of Jesus.


Oh, you poor thing. A book written in 62 AD was written two generations after Jesus allegedly lived. Simple math. But that's immaterial because Acts is dated to 80-90 AD. The earliest of the Gospels is dated to 70 AD. The rest were much later. The Book of John dates to 110 AD. Legitimate biblical scholars, most of them believers, have dated the books of the Bible.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Technically the dates are based on the earliest copies...

IF they were and are copies, the scribes must have copied them from somewhere

Which is why the actual material in said copies are dated to quite a bit earlier then what you're saying....

And in any case you're wrong... the earliest fragment we have is early second century...

Theres nothing that has been found that is dated to the first century as far as I know...




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

Technically the dates are based on the earliest copies...

IF they were and are copies, the scribes must have copied them from somewhere

Which is why the actual material in said copies are dated to quite a bit earlier then what you're saying....

And in any case you're wrong... the earliest fragment we have is early second century...

Theres nothing that has been found that is dated to the first century as far as I know...



No, they were dated by scholars based on a number of criteria. Wishful thinking is not a credible reason for scholars to select specific dates. You just argued against your own position with your comment that the earliest fragment we have is early second century.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

the text we're translated from original Hebrew into Ancient Greek.

with the matches between them word for word, so they are considered the definitive sources.

with the advent of the dead sea scrolls they became a 3rd recently undiscovered text for comparison.

---

brings the Rosetta Stone to mind...

we would have never known the two top texts if it wasn't for the ancient Greek text at the lower portion.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 9-3-2015 by AinElohim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Tangerine

"
 Not a word was written about Jesus until two generations after he allegedly lived


incorrect...


"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"

(63 BC-14 AD) en.wikipedia.org...

Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.


TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate


there appears to be a bit more...

www.thenazareneway.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



I did some more research. I will say it seems most Egyptologist date this papyrus a good while before the exodus account was supposed to have taken place.


I imagine it's pretty hard to come up with concrete dates for the "Exodus" as it is!

Thanks for presenting this papyrus. I hadn't seen it before. Fascinating stuff!



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Don't know if this was mentioned or not, but it's worth stating: The main difference between the two, according to that link, is that one account describes things that might have happened, and the other describes similar things, but attributes it all to the wrathful god of the author(s).

This paper comes, apparently, from the end of Egypt's Middle Kingdom (2030-ish through 1640-ish BCE), and the biblical account, well...I've seen dates from as early as the 15th century BCE and as late as, well, here:


Problem Two: Establishing the date "when" the Exodus account was written in the Holy Bible.

Certain locations mentioned in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, which also include the Exodus account, have been identified by archaeologists and excavated; the excavations revealed that these sites either were not in existence in Moses' days, or if they were in existence, they were abandoned and not occupied _contra_ the biblical portrayal of events. The archaeological excavations revealed that some of the sites were in existence only in the 7th century B.C. so this anomaly suggests the Exodus account is no earlier.


So, in either account, we're looking at a minimum of 200 years AFTER this papyrus was written. Like many things in the Pentateuch, this would appear to be a case of "borrowing" an account of something that happened in another culture's history/mythos and adding religious attributes to it in order to make it fit the biblical narrative. I see no proof of anything, and there are some pretty scientific ways of explaining these plagues, if in fact they really occurred.

Source



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

Technically the dates are based on the earliest copies...

IF they were and are copies, the scribes must have copied them from somewhere

Which is why the actual material in said copies are dated to quite a bit earlier then what you're saying....

And in any case you're wrong... the earliest fragment we have is early second century...

Theres nothing that has been found that is dated to the first century as far as I know...



No, they were dated by scholars based on a number of criteria. Wishful thinking is not a credible reason for scholars to select specific dates. You just argued against your own position with your comment that the earliest fragment we have is early second century.


Sigh... he was saying that the COPIES were first found to be dated around the 2nd century. The original accounts were done by the apostles during the time of Jesus, and then copied by scribes, of which we have only found copies, which is what are dated to the 2nd century. Regardless, estimating the dates of documents are exactly that; Estimates. The leaders at the time were also hell-bent on hiding evidence of his glory:

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day." (Matthew 28:11-15)

Stop your blind anti-Christian campaign, you are ignorant.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


I saw this awhile back, and it has just crossed my path again so I figured I'd share it with the ATS club. Very interesting Imo. Anyways enjoy the read.

Very good article. Thanks ServantOfTheLamb, will do more reading on Gardiner and Aaronson both.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim
You do realize the Letter of Lentulus is a fraud...

The Publius Lentulus letter was a fraudulent letter written sometime between the 11th and 15th centuries that claimed to come from a Roman proconsul during the time of Christ. It gave a vivid physical depiction of Jesus that described his hair as “the color of the ripe hazel-nut” that fell “straight down to his ears, but below the ears wavy and curled.” The letter described Christ’s brow as “smooth” and his face “without wrinkle or spot.” It also described his beard as “abundant, of the color of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin.”

The most fascinating thing about the letter is that before the Civil War, just about everyone knew that it was a fraud. Whenever Americans discussed it, such as the President of Yale University Ezra Stiles, they admitted that it was a fake and that the Bible said nothing of what Jesus looked like. But then between the Civil War and the Great Depression, white Americans transformed it into a believed truth. They started referencing it as a fact, started making visual imagery based upon its description, and began claiming that it proved that the white race was supreme because God made it that way.

Linky

As is the letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar...

Linky 2


edit on 3/9/2015 by Klassified because: ETA



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Thanks OP for the thread and the info. It's actually reassuring to see when a good thread on biblical stuff with truth in it that we see the birds flying in to rest within the branches .Mathew 13 and the kingdom cults :>) Undo added a good post as well . For years archaeologist and historians look in the wrong place for mount Sinai when the bible said it was in Saudi Arabia . So the evidence they were looking for was always there but they never looked . This parallel version is a good indication for doubters to strengthen their faith but will do nothing for those that will not believe .

I wanted to drop off a link to a good source for ancient documents you and others might like . www.4enoch.org...

and a couple vids ...peace



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I dont know if the jury is still out on this story so .."A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.

At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200)." Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel www.livescience.com...


edit on 9-3-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, in either account, we're looking at a minimum of 200 years AFTER this papyrus was written


the Jewish year currently is 5776

Moses led Israel out of Egypt around 1445 BC. We arrive at that answer based on two important verses of scripture, Judges 11:26 and 1 Kings 6:1. In the Old Testament book of Judges, Jephthah was a judge raised up by God to deliver the Israelites from the oppression they suffered when the Ammonites were persecuting Israel. Ammon was a small kingdom located east of the Jordan River.

Before starting his Jewish military campaign against Ammon, Jephthah attempted to resolve the conflict through negotiation, which failed. In the process of negotiation, Jephthah, justifying Israel's possession of lands east of the Jordan River, reminded the king of Ammon that Israel had dwelt in Heshbon for 300 years. Jephthah asked the king of Ammon:

"While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why did ye not recover them within that time?" -Judges 11:26, KJV


I always took it to be 1500BC


edit on 9-3-2015 by AinElohim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I have a very large, very thick version of The Kolbrin Bible. The abrahamic version of things is soo terribly boring.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Dude do you even read......look at what you quoted....you will find ..." No, he didn't meet Jesus before the cross, but he did live in his time frame."





I can show you a hole in the ground and say, "See, that proves hobbits are real." It proves absolutely nothing except that there's a hole in the ground


No, but as I said Paul lived in Jesus's timeframe. He was also very outspoken against the Christian faith until his conversion. Why would he have suddenly believed Jesus died on the cross if beforehand he could have easily found out that Jesus was not a real person. You just don't know history man.



Akragon,




Theres nothing that has been found that is dated to the first century as far as I know...



Clement of Rome sent a letter to the Church in Corinthian in 95 AD. In it he quotes the Gospels and some other parts of the NT.

List of quotes from Ignatius who wrote in the early second century, but was born 2-5 years after the cross and knew the apostle John:




Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians 2 – John 8:29 3 – John 17:11-12 5 – James 4:6 6 – names Onesimus, as in Philemon 6 – John 1:14 7 - 1 Tim 4:10 8 – 1 Pet 2:9 9 – Matt 5:2, 2 Tim 2:24-25, Luke 23:34 11 – Rom 2:4 12 – Matt 23:35, Acts 9:15 13 – Eph 6:16, 6:12 14 – Luke 10:27, Matt 12:33 15 – 1 Cor 4:20, Rom 10:10, 2 Cor 8:18 16 – 2 Cor 6:14-16 18 – 1 Cor 1:20

Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians 3 – 1 Tim 4:12 4 – Luke 6:46 8 – 2 Cor 5:17, mentions Judaizers 9 – 2 Thess 3:10, Phil 3:18-19, 2 Tim 3:4 10 – Acts 11:26 Letter of Ignatius to the Trallians 9 – Heb 10:12-13 11 – warns of "Nicolaitanes"

Letter of Ignatius to the Romans 2 – 2 Cor 4:18 7 – Gal 2:20

Letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians 2 – 2 Tim 3:6 6 – “dragon Nicolaitanes" Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 3 – Maybe Rev 1:7



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join