In Ancient Egypt, Canaan Revisited Without Israel

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
ashraf62.wordpress.com...

Go ahead and flame me if this has been covered before but I checked the search engine multiple ways and got nothing on this.

This is an excellent blog entry from Dr. Ashraf Ezzat. In short, it discusses the lack of evidence connecting the Israelites to Egypt in any meaningful way congruent to the stories we are told today.

1. Egypt or Egyptians are mentioned in the Bible 700 times. Israel mentioned in Egyptian records? Once, maybe.

2. Canaan was an Egyptian territory at the estimated times of the Exodus. Why would the Israelites flee from one part of Egypt...to another?

3. When the Israelites are mentioned it is as a nomadic people, not a nation or country.

4. The seed of the Exodus story has probably been expanded and stretched to what we read today.

Disclaimer: I am no expert but the reasoning seems pretty sound. Your thoughts ATS?




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I read a very interesting book called "The Hiram Key" A few months ago. Now yes it is a masonic book, but that isn't really the point. The authors of the book suggested that the Israelis were the Hittites. The Hittites were a "Foreign" People who ruled Egypt for a period of about three hundred years, then were driven out/left Egypt. It's an interesting concept, I'm not sure how valid it is, but something to consider none-the-less.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBeardRay
I read a very interesting book called "The Hiram Key" A few months ago. Now yes it is a masonic book, but that isn't really the point. The authors of the book suggested that the Israelis were the Hittites. The Hittites were a "Foreign" People who ruled Egypt for a period of about three hundred years, then were driven out/left Egypt. It's an interesting concept, I'm not sure how valid it is, but something to consider none-the-less.


Howdy RedbeardRay

I think you mean the Hyksos instead of the Hittites!



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
ashraf62.wordpress.com...

Go ahead and flame me if this has been covered before but I checked the search engine multiple ways and got nothing on this.

This is an excellent blog entry from Dr. Ashraf Ezzat. In short, it discusses the lack of evidence connecting the Israelites to Egypt in any meaningful way congruent to the stories we are told today.

1. Egypt or Egyptians are mentioned in the Bible 700 times. Israel mentioned in Egyptian records? Once, maybe.

2. Canaan was an Egyptian territory at the estimated times of the Exodus. Why would the Israelites flee from one part of Egypt...to another?

3. When the Israelites are mentioned it is as a nomadic people, not a nation or country.

4. The seed of the Exodus story has probably been expanded and stretched to what we read today.

Disclaimer: I am no expert but the reasoning seems pretty sound. Your thoughts ATS?



Uhh... this isn't exactly rocket science. Prior to the exodus, they were "Hebrews", not "Israel". The Nation of Israel was only founded AFTER the conquest of Caanan, not before... there was no nation of Israel prior to that... and certainly not prior to the arrival of Hebrews in Egypt. Prior to their arrival in Egypt, the "Hebrews" were barely even a blip on the anthropological radar... not to mention the fact that it was just 70 people that headed to Egypt anyway (Joseph's 11 brothers, his father, and their families).

It's also important to remember that the Hebrews spent just 400 years in Egypt... living as sheep-herders in Goshen. Not only were they not notable citizens to begin with, but when they did leave, they left in tumultuous and most likely horrific circumstances - and it is not unheard of for Egyptian pharaohs to erase certain events and/or people from their histories, to paint themselves in a kinder light.

...put simply? There's a lot going on here, but the article you've linked is very, very poor scholarship. In fact, his date for the Exodus completely disagrees with the majority of scholarship on the issue... and neglects the fact that Egyptian history and chronology itself is an issue of great contention.

Essentially, this isn't an issue that is unresolvable - but searching for evidence of a bunch of sheep farmers in a land like Egypt is searching like searching for a 3500 year old piece of dirt in a haystack composed entirely of dirt, which is covered in sand.

...so I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it.


For further reading, I'd recommend 'The Search for the real Mount Sinai'. This book heads back into the history provided in Exodus to re-examine what we THINK we know about the exodus itself. Turns out that even the traditional location of Mount Sinai doesn't seem accurate, either biblically or historically. A rethink is definitely in order.

The Search for the Real Mount Sinai (video)

note: I have NOT watched this video (yet), so I can't vouch for its veracity, but if it's based on the book then it will be worth a watch. I'll check it out when I get home tonight and add to this post.


Additional Links:

Passover Proof lies in Egyptian Heirogloyphics

Biblical Archaology: Evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt

Digging out the Truth: New Find Reignites Exodus Debate

Egyptian History and the Biblical Record: A perfect match?
edit on 3-10-2012 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
the apparent first time isreal are mentioned in historical record:






The Merneptah Stele—also known as the Israel Stele or Victory Stele of Merneptah—is an inscription by the Ancient Egyptian king Merneptah (reign:1213 to 1203 BC) discovered by Flinders Petrie in 1896 at Thebes, and now housed in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.[1][2] The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the Libyans and their allies, but the last few lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions, and include the first probable instance of the name "Israel" in the historical record

en.wikipedia.org...


reply to post by ABNARTY
 


the hykosis and egyptians in turn controlled that area from about 4000 yrs ago.....then you have a gap where the local tribes controlled the area untill the persian empire.

isreal as we know it didnt, exist...but the people did!

to the ancient egyptians, king herod and the tribes of isreal, in theory, actually returned to where they came from.


actually dunno...anyone else!



edit on 3-10-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 


Really Dude???

Not rocket science - You are implying what? A great deal of knowledge on that which, by your own authority, there seems to be little agreement? Then that knowledge is about as valuable as what?

Most of the scholarship mentioned is assumption or belief based on yet further assumption of belief. Unless someone has a time machine how are we going to define the accuracy of said scholarship?

Linking history to the Bible? So the Bible is a history book? On what planet? And an agreed timeline? Of events which were handed down to provide inspiration not factual data? Good stuff...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


Just bookmarked the hell right of that link. Thanks for posting SnF.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Awen24
 


Really Dude???

Not rocket science - You are implying what? A great deal of knowledge on that which, by your own authority, there seems to be little agreement? Then that knowledge is about as valuable as what?


...actually, my bad - I'm not referring to the entire topic "not being rocket science", but specifically to the fact that "Israel" isn't mentioned. It wouldn't be, because Israel didn't exist yet.




Linking history to the Bible? So the Bible is a history book? On what planet? And an agreed timeline? Of events which were handed down to provide inspiration not factual data? Good stuff...


Obviously I'm a Christian, and my perspective on this is:

1) The Bible was inspired by God, and was, as originally written down, without flaw or error;

therefore:

2) The Bible must be correct on all things historical; otherwise (1) cannot likewise be correct.

So... is the Bible a history book? No. But it does contain history; the history of God's relationship with His chosen people. If the historical foundation of the Bible is flawed, then the book is useless in its entirety... because it cannot be both God's divine inspired word, and incorrect.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Awen24
 

Most of the scholarship mentioned is assumption or belief based on yet further assumption of belief. Unless someone has a time machine how are we going to define the accuracy of said scholarship?


My point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... particularly when it comes to archaeology. So much depends on things like the condition of soil, where you dig, what type of history and literature could conceivably be preserved, and on and on...

The fact remains, however, that there *is* evidence of Hebrew influence in Egypt (as presented in some of the links I mentioned previously, and other resources). Even though that evidence isn't exactly piled neck-deep in the sand, it would be erroneous to suggest that ancient Hebrews were not in Egypt, or that the story of the exodus is a fabrication, based on what we currently know. Insufficient data is available to prove such a contention - and to prove a negative, the amount of data required would be... massive.

On the flipside, however, there IS evidence to support the veracity of the Biblical account - which suggests that the exodus account in Scripture is at least plausible.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 


Then accept that it was written by hebrew gentlemen trying their best to tell a story as they saw it (and in some cases repeating earlier stories common in their culture).



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Please limit the conversation to the topic.

Thanks,
Blaine91555
Forum Moderator



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Woah... I'm kind of afraid to post now. Could you elaborate a little? Because I feel like you're insinuating something here, namely that someone had made an off-topic post. I don't know which post was off topic so I don't want to reply to the wrong post and get in trouble. So which post or posts were you referring to in your insinuation?

I'm being serious. As a member, I'm scared. I believe the topic to be the existance, or possible lack thereof, of evidence linking the Hebrews to Egypt. But as I look over these posts, and then to your expression of displeasure as a moderator on the best staff on the internet, I get a little concerned, you see, and I start to think maybe I could be wrong...

Hmm... Now that you mention it, the only off topic post I see, is yours. And then mine, which only came as a direct result of yours, so... yeah. That doesn't really count, now, does it? No, but seriously, I'm really dense sometimes, and I don't always get things the first time around... So, which topic am i supposed to avoid?

You know, I'm such a chucklehead... chances are, you didn't see any off topic posts! You probably just put it as a friendly reminder! And here I am taking it the total complete wrong way! Just like when you see a sign that says "Please do not litter." That doesn't mean you're being accused of littering, right? I'm so sorry... I just feel like such a buffoon. You know what, just nevermind this whole post... Just act like its not even here, ok?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
there is evidence that the Israelites were slaves of Ramses the Great (Ramses the 2nd)
the bible even mentions Ramses as the Pharoe at the time of the Exodus
at Abu Simbel there is evidence his first born son Amun-her-khepeshef was alive and well when he built the first monument dedicated to Ra-Harakhty (also Re-harakhty), Ptah and Amun
at the second building dedicated to Hathor and his main wife Nefertari there is evidence his first born was dead.
So inbetween the 2 monuments at Abu Simbel is the time his first born died and the time of the Exodus.

at KV5 we have the tomb of the children of Ramses II KV5

Also just East of the Ramesseium is what was called the Sea of Reeds ( now part of the suez canal ), which could of been where the Israelites crossed on foot, and chariots couldnt cross so they got stuck (instead of the parting of the sea)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
ashraf62.wordpress.com...



2. Canaan was an Egyptian territory at the estimated times of the Exodus. Why would the Israelites flee from one part of Egypt...to another?


Canaan was their homeland even though the Israelites hadnt been there for a good while. Thier patriarchs and matirarch were buried there. Even after they came into egypt, when their father Israel died they took his body back into Canaan for burial.

As the hebrews became part of the Egyptian landscape there may have been no reason to denote then as a separate people seeing that even at Josephs time, before the rest of his people came into Egypt that he had become so Egyptian, visor of Egypt in fact, that his brothers couldnt recognize him in all that fancy egyptian fasion. The Israelites were probably culturally "absorbed" if you will very soon after getting there. Like within a generation. Thier personal tribal history may have been of no consequence to the Egyptian culture at large seeing the culture was rather multicultural anyway. Even the Egyptian royal lines had been and were a large part at that time Mesopotamian royal bloodline transplants that unified Egypt under Narmer. The Scorpion moniker was an established moniker of one of the royal houses out of Mesopotamia.

Anyway after just a short time in Egypt there may have been no reason to make note of their tribal heritage in offical documents ect. We dont even do that here in this country for the very large part. That is, make public note of a person being from say India in conjunction with their public or professional life even if in private they are still very "Indian" in custom and religion.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
What eventually became what we currently refer to as the nation of Israel, was referred to in ancient accounts of that time period as the Hyksos.

The Egyptians referred to them as The Shepherd People, which translates to "Hyksos" in Greek.


For many centuries, Egyptians had a fluent trade and peaceful relationships with the Asiatic. In this time the Biblical accounts of Avraham and Yoseph took place. After this period Egypt was ruled successively by Semitic kings. These Semitic kings were referred to by the Egyptians as the "Hekau-Khasut", the "Shepherd kings", or also "Hyk-Khase", the "Rulers from a foreign hill country". These terms are commonly transformed into "Hyksos," a word which is not confined to the chieftains but is mistakenly applied to the Semitic people (termed the Aamu by the Egyptians) from which they stemmed. Although the hegemony of these "Asiatic" included all Egypt, Canaan and extended into a major portion of Mesopotamia, they established no dynasties. They were elected by the village chieftains (the Hyk-Khase) of the Aamu villages, and therefore can be properly designated as the chief-of-chiefs.

Hyksos and Hebrews

But people will still continue to search for ways to invalidate Biblical accounts of history. What has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 


Nothing against your religious beliefs. I am a person of faith too. For me, the bible is an inspiration. I am to learn from it in my faith. For me, I have no issue accepting God is perfect, the inspiration for the word is divine, but written and re-written multiple times by flawed humans.

michaelsheiser.com...

While I believe there may be some events portrayed in the bible, in this case the Exodus, which may be historically accurate to a degree, I hesitate to try and bend what's found on the ground today to it. With regards to his 'chosen people', it's their book. So I accept the idea with trepidation. It seems very self serving if not borderline blasphemous.

I totally agree trying to find rock solid proof of a specific nomadic peoples and their story from X thousands of years ago at a cross roads of many peoples is a long shot to the extreme. All evidence appears to be derived second hand in records of others. In this case, the Egyptians. The Egyptians seem to be good record keepers. You would think if the something like the ten plagues happened as described, it would be recorded at least someplace. There are plenty of records of famines, disease, drought, etc. Why skip this one?

I completely agree the story is plausible. I agree even further with the article that it may have been a much different set of events than what the tale recounts today. What I am concerned about it is what I may be missing in my relationship with my God if the events are portrayed to self serve rather than inspire.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Good points all and very reasonable. But then why does the story portrayed in Exodus portray a much different set of circumstances? What supported the claim to Canaan from an absorbed nomadic people? As nomads, their dead would have been buried all over the region. Many nomadics in the region today still bury their dead as they go.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 


The term 'invalidate' is off target IMO. The circumstances and interpretations are far from the realm of mathematical proofs or court room evidence where the idea of something being invalid is more accurate.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


Alrighty then.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
So does the temple of the mount not exist?

Does Masada not exist?

Does the wailing wall not exist?

I think that there is plenty of evidence to put the Jewish people in and about the state now called Israel.




new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join