Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
sinewave

Archaeological Evidence For Moses

297 posts in this topic

kmt, you keep saying Hebrew was not a Egyptian name.

Hebrew- belonging to Eber-desendants of Abraham

In the hebrew language, hebrew aw-bar means a man from beyond, on the writings of Moses, would`nt they have also labeled him as a man from beyond, a hebrew, it would`n be in the Egyptain language.So hebrews are people from the men of beyond,Abraham and Moses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt, you keep saying Hebrew was not a Egyptian name.

Hebrew- belonging to Eber-desendants of Abraham

In the hebrew language, hebrew aw-bar means a man from beyond, on the writings of Moses, would`nt they have also labeled him as a man from beyond, a hebrew, it would`n be in the Egyptain language.So hebrews are people from the men of beyond,Abraham and Moses.

Ok, before we muddy the waters here, most of what we consider the Pentateuch was "accidentally" discovered during the reign of Hezekiah while performing repairs in the temple. There are many references in there that Moses surely could not have known because at his supposed time they did not yet exist. (See Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 2002 ISBN 0684869136). Where one tends to suspect that it is like so many other artifacts found both in the Jewish and Christian traditions when they were politically adequate. And the adequate policy at the time was to join both the Samaritan and Judean traditions.

So the Men from Beyond is most probably a generic term for places for which the Egyptians had no name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt, you keep saying Hebrew was not a Egyptian name.

Hebrew- belonging to Eber-desendants of Abraham

In the hebrew language, hebrew aw-bar means a man from beyond, on the writings of Moses, would`nt they have also labeled him as a man from beyond, a hebrew, it would`n be in the Egyptain language.So hebrews are people from the men of beyond,Abraham and Moses.

I'm not completely sure what you're saying. I don't recall stating that the word "Hebrew" was not from the Egyptian language, but if that happens to be what you're saying, I would of course agree that "Hebrew" does not derive from ancient Egyptian.

The precise etymology of "Hebrew" is still debated to this day, as one of numerous designations by which ancient Jewish people referred to themselves. It probably comes from a Hebrew verb translating as "cross over," which as I understand it refers to the act of the Hebrews entering the Promised Land (Canaan) after their escape from Egypt. According to biblical lore this is when Joshua led the Hebrews in a conquest of Canaan to take it as their own.

The problem with this act of conquest is, there is no evidence for it. Many of the cities that Joshua and his Hebrews were supposed to have conquered, such as Jericho, are revealed in the archaeological record not to have even been occupied at that time (or, if occupied, they were actually little more than backwater settlements with small populations).

Alternatively, to "cross over" could also be a reference to Abraham's journey from Mesopotamia to Canaan. The problem here is, outside the pages of the Old Testament, there is no evidence that a real Abraham ever existed. The stories of Abraham having been written a great many centuries after he was supposed to have lived, he is probably a literary character with no real historicity or, just possibly, a literary device representing any number of separate men who together founded proto-Hebrew settlements in the highlands of Judah.

In any case, the Egyptians didn't usually refer to a foreigner as "men from beyond," unless this is supposed to be a very loose and figurative translation of the ancient Egyptian word xAswt ("khasut"), "foreign land." The Egyptians employed any number of terms to refer to Canaanites in general (including the word "Canaan," which derives from ancient Egyptian) or in more specific terms according to Levantine regions and ethnicities.

The underlying problem with Moses is that the Egyptian historical record is completely silent on him. There is no mention of such a figure in Egyptian annals or folklore. As with Abraham, there is no evidence for the existence of a real Moses outside the pages of the Old Testament, and the same is true for the entire saga of the Hebrew Exodus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...See Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 2002 ISBN 0684869136)...

A terrific book and one I highly recommend. If more people read the work of Finkelstein and other prominent archaeologists working in the Holy Land, we would probably have far fewer people trying to argue that Moses and Akhenaten were one and the same and that the Exodus happened in Ahmose I's time or Hatshepsut's time or Amunhotep III's time or Akhenaten's time or Tutankhamun's time or any of the other historically untenable "theories" fringies have thrown out there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt or anyone- question

Why would King Merneptah add a victory over Isreal on stone that Amenhoteop III Akhenaten`s father`s had erected? Like a cover up of some kind.

The Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele or Victory Stele of Merneptah) is the reverse of a large granite stele originally erected by the Ancient Egyptian king Amenhotep III, Akhenaten`s father but later inscribed by Merneptah who ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 BC. The black granite stela primarily commemorates a victory in a campaign against the Libu and Meshwesh Libyans and their Sea People allies, but its final two lines refer to a prior military campaign in Canaan in which Merneptah states that he defeated Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam and Israel among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt or anyone- question

Why would King Merneptah add a victory over Isreal on stone that Amenhoteop III Akhenaten`s father`s had erected? Like a cover up of some kind.

The Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele or Victory Stele of Merneptah) is the reverse of a large granite stele originally erected by the Ancient Egyptian king Amenhotep III, Akhenaten`s father but later inscribed by Merneptah who ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 BC. The black granite stela primarily commemorates a victory in a campaign against the Libu and Meshwesh Libyans and their Sea People allies, but its final two lines refer to a prior military campaign in Canaan in which Merneptah states that he defeated Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam and Israel among others.

I don't think I even knew Merneptah's victory stela came from a reused monument, but that's not unusual. It was common for royals and nobles to reuse stelae and other monuments for the sake of expediency. The victory stela on which Merneptah commemorated his campaigns is enormous (most photos don't do its size any justice), and the cutting and dressing of such a stela would've been very time consuming. So all Merneptah had to to was turn it over and use the blank side, done deal.

Also consider the fact that Merneptah was already an old man when he came to the throne. He would've known that he was most likely not going to reign for a long time (and he didn't). Cutting corners, per se, was a logical course of action for him, when it came to monument building. Many kings did this sort of thing before and after Merneptah, and rarely was it for the sake of hiding some former king's monument. It certainly would not have been the case with Merneptah's stela, considering how highly regarded Amunhotep III was by later kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible says the Hebrews of Moses( who was a Egyptian royal) built the store houses of Ramesses, Ramness I was just a Govener before the Ramesses dynasties began after Athenaten, and tired to destroy all of Athenaten`s family histories. Would`n it be logical this may have been the pharaoh Ramness`s family`s who gave chase in the exodus?

http://en.wikipedia....ist_of_pharaohs

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible says the Hebrews of Moses( who was a Egyptian royal) built the store houses of Ramesses, Ramness I was just a Govener before the Ramesses dynasties began after Athenaten, and tired to destroy all of Athenaten`s family histories. Would`n it be logical this may have been the pharaoh who gave chase in the exodus?

http://en.wikipedia....ist_of_pharaohs

No, because as far as archeology is concerned there never was such a thing, at least not how the Bible claims it. If nearly a million people, plus their families, had left Egypt at any time in the bronze age or Iron Age Egypt would have lost over 1/3 of its population going into a steep decline. There is no such a decline nor are there suddenly ghost towns that cannot be accounted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionmark has a good point, the fact of loosing 1/3 of the work force of Egypt would have spelled ruin for the economy of Egypt, even then. I think this would have been an event recorded in other kingdoms and cultures of the time. Going from a great military power of the region to an economically ruined country, is something people tend to notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible says the Hebrews of Moses( who was a Egyptian royal) built the store houses of Ramesses, Ramness I was just a Govener before the Ramesses dynasties began after Athenaten, and tired to destroy all of Athenaten`s family histories. Would`n it be logical this may have been the pharaoh Ramness`s family`s who gave chase in the exodus?

http://en.wikipedia....ist_of_pharaohs

Biblical scholars who've tried to find some shred of evidence for Exodus have turned to Ramesses II as a possible candidate largely because of the Delta city of Pi-Rameses (pr-ramss, "House of Ramesses"). Imagine their excitement many years ago when an archaeological site did turn out to be this ancient city, so the place itself is real. To stress, the city dates to the reign of Ramesses II and not to his grandfather, Ramesses I, the latter of whom wasn't on the throne long enough to accomplish much of note.

However, questionmark's point is critical. Ancient Egypt was not a slave-based economy, and a significant portion of its population was never slaves. The Old Testament reports something like 600,000 men of fighting age involved in the flight from Egypt, so when you add to that the number of old men, women, and children, the final figure would've approached two million people. Obviously that's not remotely realistic.

While the city of Pi-Rameses was a real place, and while it's mentioned in the Old Testament as one of the cities in which the Hebrews toiled for Pharaoh, this doesn't make Exodus a real event. All it really means is that the Hebrew scribes who penned the story of Exodus had access to old place names of the Egyptian kingdom. All told, many if not most events and places recorded in the Old Testament reveal a Holy Land and environs as was known around the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, but not the thirteenth century BCE when Ramesses II lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biblical scholars who've tried to find some shred of evidence for Exodus have turned to Ramesses II as a possible candidate largely because of the Delta city of Pi-Rameses (pr-ramss, "House of Ramesses"). Imagine their excitement many years ago when an archaeological site did turn out to be this ancient city, so the place itself is real. To stress, the city dates to the reign of Ramesses II and not to his grandfather, Ramesses I, the latter of whom wasn't on the throne long enough to accomplish much of note.

However, questionmark's point is critical. Ancient Egypt was not a slave-based economy, and a significant portion of its population was never slaves. The Old Testament reports something like 600,000 men of fighting age involved in the flight from Egypt, so when you add to that the number of old men, women, and children, the final figure would've approached two million people. Obviously that's not remotely realistic.

While the city of Pi-Rameses was a real place, and while it's mentioned in the Old Testament as one of the cities in which the Hebrews toiled for Pharaoh, this doesn't make Exodus a real event. All it really means is that the Hebrew scribes who penned the story of Exodus had access to old place names of the Egyptian kingdom. All told, many if not most events and places recorded in the Old Testament reveal a Holy Land and environs as was known around the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, but not the thirteenth century BCE when Ramesses II lived.

Ramesses I they say may have died from the plague of those few years, given rise to the frist son or king of that dynasty dying.

I do agree much of what was written were of places of the sixth centuries bc,but still these places may have excisted before and were known.

As far as the numbers of the Bible, the counting system was not realistic and were most likey exaggerated.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say.. this is the first time I wandered into this thread.. so I have read all 20 pages in one go..

Kmt.. mate I really do love reading your posts.. each time you post something I learn something new :D

keep up the good work..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, DingoLingo. I'm glad my long-winded diatribes can be of help to folks. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, DingoLingo. I'm glad my long-winded diatribes can be of help to folks. :lol:

Oh, they indeed can kmt. I rarely have anything to contribute in this part of the forum, but every time I read your posts I learn something new, which is always a pleasure.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Your point about the Egyptians is well taken as Moses is said to have been raised by Egyptian royalty. Certainly some record of that would have survived.

What should be considered when trying to find references of Moses in the Egyptian records is is that the Egyptians never kept a record of their defeats. There are records by both Persian and Syrian historians that record Egyptian defeats that are found no were in the official Egyptian histories. Likewise the same is true of the Persians [ defeat by Trojans not recorded ] and the Syrians. The Persians do however mention taking the Hebrews into captivity proving that they existed as a culture at that time and the Persian historians never doubted the existence of Moses not forgetting that they would have had historical references that are now long lost to us! The Persians kept a record of the Hebrews because they were never defeated by them. In fact the Persians eventually let them free to rebuild Jerusalem.

I'm not a particular fan of amateur christian archaeologist Ron Wyatt [ Indiana Jones was modelled on his exploits ] but his research is a good read and certainly all of the historical references he cites can be checked and verified as can the geography and archaeology [ in a manner ] on the ground.

http://kahalyahweh.net/Articles/Sinai/Jebel-El-Lawz.htm

http://www.wyattmuse...mount-sinai.htm

http://www.wyattmuse...mages/wpe98.jpg

http://www.wyattmuse...ages/wpe1C4.jpg

Edited by Erudite Celt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kmt and all, great information:):),I,m just one who likes to think there really is some true history behind some myths, and in the books of the Bible.Some say Moses ,Jesus, did`nt really exist and of course Atlantis. I just happen to disagree,allthough much glorification was given to these written stories,I do believe they were based on some real facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should be considered when trying to find references of Moses in the Egyptian records is is that the Egyptians never kept a record of their defeats. There are records by both Persian and Syrian historians that record Egyptian defeats that are found no were in the official Egyptian histories. Likewise the same is true of the Persians [ defeat by Trojans not recorded ] and the Syrians. The Persians do however mention taking the Hebrews into captivity proving that they existed as a culture at that time and the Persian historians never doubted the existence of Moses not forgetting that they would have had historical references that are now long lost to us! The Persians kept a record of the Hebrews because they were never defeated by them. In fact the Persians eventually let them free to rebuild Jerusalem.

I'm not a particular fan of amateur christian archaeologist Ron Wyatt [ Indiana Jones was modelled on his exploits ] but his research is a good read and certainly all of the historical references he cites can be checked and verified as can the geography and archaeology [ in a manner ] on the ground.

http://kahalyahweh.n...bel-El-Lawz.htm

http://www.wyattmuse...mount-sinai.htm

http://www.wyattmuse...mages/wpe98.jpg

http://www.wyattmuse...ages/wpe1C4.jpg

I believe they have the best theory on the Exodus :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've debated with myself over this topic a lot. I fully believe in my religion, but sometimes occasional doubts slip in. If you scour the internet a bit, you can find a couple pretty credible sites. I actually found a good article on the PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html. Maybe it will help :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the people that cannot be trusted at all is Wyatt. He simply made things up as he went along. He simply made up stories that he sold to the choir. A good example is his claim of anchor stones near Ararat. They are stones that are made of rock local to Ararat. That would have Noah importing rocks for his ark local to the spot he would end up. It's a good story from Wyatt, but just a story.

Some of the problems with Exodus are:

1. No large population of slaves

2. No mention of large population of Hebrew slaves

3. No loss of military might due to loss of entire army as claimed in Exodus

4. No loss of economic might due to loss of large work force

5. No evidence for large number of people living in the Sinai

There are other issues as well if you look them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the people that cannot be trusted at all is Wyatt. He simply made things up as he went along. He simply made up stories that he sold to the choir. A good example is his claim of anchor stones near Ararat. They are stones that are made of rock local to Ararat. That would have Noah importing rocks for his ark local to the spot he would end up. It's a good story from Wyatt, but just a story.

Some of the problems with Exodus are:

1. No large population of slaves

2. No mention of large population of Hebrew slaves

3. No loss of military might due to loss of entire army as claimed in Exodus

4. No loss of economic might due to loss of large work force

5. No evidence for large number of people living in the Sinai

There are other issues as well if you look them up.

Not to mention:

No archeological evidence of dwellings for 600.000 families being abandoned (see Numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moses was the Pharaoh Thutmoses III... I can prove this useing. Ancient documented stories archeology and meteor impact data, ice tree core samples. Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaohs Daughter for a reason. Hatsetsup was the Pharaohs daughter, married her brother became wife of Pharaoh she needed a son to complete the title mother of Pharaoh. Her brother died after 3 years of ruling Egypt. She pulled Moses from the river Styx the Nile in Africa. She told everyone the boy was her brothers son by a concubine wife. Hatsetsup ruled over Egypt for 21 Years. Moses killed her obliverated her image from Egypt and left Egypt. Moses left his boy son Amenhotep II to rule over Egypt. When Moses returned to Egypt to free his people his son the Pharaoh did not remember him. Moses killed him in the Exodus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moses was the Pharaoh Thutmoses III... I can prove this useing. Ancient documented stories archeology and meteor impact data, ice tree core samples. Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaohs Daughter for a reason. Hatsetsup was the Pharaohs daughter, married her brother became wife of Pharaoh she needed a son to complete the title mother of Pharaoh. Her brother died after 3 years of ruling Egypt. She pulled Moses from the river Styx the Nile in Africa. She told everyone the boy was her brothers son by a concubine wife. Hatsetsup ruled over Egypt for 21 Years. Moses killed her obliverated her image from Egypt and left Egypt. Moses left his boy son Amenhotep II to rule over Egypt. When Moses returned to Egypt to free his people his son the Pharaoh did not remember him. Moses killed him in the Exodus.

Quite a few problems with this.

  1. There are no ancient documented stories which tell us Moses and Tuthmosis III Menkheperre were the same person. There's plentiful textual and archaeological evidence for the life of Tuthmosis. Outside the Old Testament, there is no evidence for Moses.
  2. Tree-core samples and meteor-impact data would have no conceivable useful relevance to your scenario. Fancy words don't help your cause, I'm afraid.
  3. Tuthmosis III reigned 1479-1424 BCE. Despite what 1 Kings 6:1 tells us about the number of years in which Exodus occurred before Solomon built his temple, which would in fact mathematically place Exodus during the reign of Tuthmosis, there is no evidence the Hebrews even yet existed.
  4. Related to #3, the earliest textual evidence for the Hebrews is on the Merneptah victory stela of Dynasty 19 ("Israel is laid waste, his seed is not"). The stela dates to about 1208 BCE. Archaeology of the Holy Land melds well with this as the earliest emergence for a people identifiable as proto-Hebrew.
  5. It is correct that Tuthmosis I, Hatshepsut's father, was succeeded by Tuthmosis II, Hatshepsut's brother. It is also true that Hatshepsut married this brother, which was common for pharaohs of Dynasty 18. It is also correct that Tuthmosis II died after a moderately short and unremarkable reign. However, it was not three years in length but at least a dozen years.
  6. Hatshepsut did not "need" a son. She had one, thanks to Tuthmosis II. Granted, she was not the mother but the step-mother, which in ancient Egyptian terms was a subtle and often irrelevant distinction in the first place, especially in royal families. She also happened to be the aunt of Tuthmosis III at the same time.
  7. The mother of Tuthmosis III was hardly a "concubine." She was a secondary queen named Iset. While kings probably sired any number of sons from the women of their harems, these sons rarely if ever were in line for the throne. Tuthmosis III was in direct line because he was born not only of the king but of a queen, if secondary in status.
  8. There is no such thing as "the river Styx the Nile in Africa." You're mixing cultures.
  9. Hatshepsut didn't have to tell anyone that Tuthmosis III was her brother's son. That would've been known immediately upon his birth. And in fact it's well attested in inscriptional material. Hatshepsut didn't pull Tuthmosis III out of a river. His parentage and birth are firmly understood and part of the ancient historical record.
  10. Hatshepsut did in fact rule over Egypt for around twenty years, but not from the start. She began as the regent of Tuthmosis III and grasped power early on. While she proclaimed herself as the monarch, Tuthmosis III never disappeared. It is odd but he is still shown with Hatshepsut on royal monuments, although in a place of inferior status to her.
  11. There is no evidence that Hatshepsut was killed by anyone, including Tuthmosis III. And the idea that he smashed her monuments immediately upon assuming full control of the throne, is a very outdated and disproved theory. We now know years passed before he sent out his agents to do this.
  12. Tuthmosis III absolutely did not abdicate at any point in his reign. That's just silly. He was ancient Egypt's most powerful warrior-pharaoh. More than any strong king of the early New Kingdom, Tuthmosis III is who forged Egypt into the most powerful empire in the Near East. Tuthmosis III spent nearly all of his long, remarkable reign leading his army into battle.
  13. Related to #12, it was in Syro-Palestine that Tuthmosis III concentrated most of his military campaigns. He swept all before him clear up to northern Syria. He certainly wasn't leading a bunch of escaped slaves into freedom in those northern lands—he was conquering them and all of the people who resided in them.

These are the facts, codebreaker. And they're rather basic ones at that. I can point you to any number of books to help to elucidate these facts, but I think the onus is on you now. You've taken on the guise of a troll as of late, so do you care to repair your standing? How about some links from legitimate research material or books by respected historians to support your claims? Anything?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.