Can a religious text be used for evidence?

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

National geographic is good enough for me   They comprehensively mapped the route matching real locations to descriptions in the story Of course someone will challenge it There is always some young gun  out to make a name for themsleves   

So instead of looking at all of the proposals you are going to stop and trust only one. Apparently, you never looked at the link because the proposals were not from 'some young gun" as you put it.

What makes the other possibilities untenable?

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There is an academic distinction between myths and legends 

A legend is presumed to have some basis in historical fact and tends to mention real people or events. Historical fact morphs into a legend when the truth has been exaggerated to the point that real people or events have taken on a romanticized, "larger than life" quality. In contrast, a myth is a type of symbolic storytelling that was never based on fact. Throughout time, myths have sought to explain difficult concepts (e.g., the origin of the universe) with the help of common story devices, such as personification and allegories.

These words are commonly used interchangeably to refer to the fictitious nature of something. Historically and academically, however, there is a difference.

Many European classic legends such as the sacking of troy,  or the voyages of Odysseus and Jason   began, based on true events and geographical locations, but became  legendary over time  Even Atlantis is probably such an example  

Exodus is a myth used to explain the origin of Israel and defend their rights to the location. It provides a statement of core beliefs.

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Example: Who gives a flying fatootie which swamp somebody might have crossed 3500-ish years ago instead of the Red Sea? The point of Exodus is to explain the origins of the Israelite national-scale presence on the shores the eastern Mediterranean as a massive migration from Egypt. Is that what happened? The archeology doesn't support it. Instead, it looks like some Canaanites developed a distatste for pork, shellfish, foreskins and figurative art. Those people didn't go anywhere, but did become a power in the area for a while.

The geograhy of those swamps makes it easy.  There were six of them:

Lake Menzala is a huge lagoon off the Mediterranean.  British ordinance maps show it as land, but warn:  "Area subject to inundation."  It is salt.  Before the Suez Canal, fresh water occasionally managed to get into the east end of it where a few reeds grew, but nothing significant.  It is not the "Sea of Reeds."

Lake Bardawil is also a huge lagoon off the Mediterranean.  The gap in the sand bar connecting them has been proposed as a location for the "Red Sea Crossing."  Presumably, they were swamped by a tsunami generated by the eruption of Thera.  The nearby Mount Cassius is a gigantic sand dune and once had a Roman temple to Diana, but archeological excavations indicate nothing before the Romans.  It, too, is salt, so it was not the Sea of Reeds.  People going this way were following Horus Ways up to Caanan - a route the Bible says was blocked by the Philistines.

Lake Ballah was filled in the digging of the Suez Canal.  It is now the location of Ballah Station, a wide spot where ships can pass.  In ancient times, Egyptian engineers routed the north branch of the Canal of the Pharaoh through it, saving several miles of digging.  Without that canal, it was a dry hole in the desert, but with it, it was a fresh-water lake where papyrus was abundant.  This was the "Sea of Reeds," as it is the only place on the Isthmus of Suez where reeds could grow.  It is not the site of the "Red Sea Crossing" because there is no militray advantage to be had by wading across a round lake - your enemy can gallop along the shore and meet you as you emerge.  The lake had a deep layer of organic muck that made it an obnoxious place to go wading and difficult to walk in.  Not to mention that the canal from the Nile supplied it with crocodiles and that it was the route up Horus Ways that the Bible describes as blocked.

Lake Timsah was a dry salt pan at the time of the Exodus.  The Darb es Shur crosses it.  All the "Israelites" had to do was walk across.  It was used as a dump for tailwater from the Canal of the Pharoah.  Canals have to have a gradient so that water flows through them and doesn't stagnate.  But that means you have to do something with the surplus water.  Lake Timsah was the answer.

Great Bitter Lake and Lesser Bitter Lake are really one lake, connected by a narrow channel.  This is the only place on the Isthmus of Suez where a military advantage could be obtained by crossing a body of water.  It is also the only place in the world where two opposing wave trains, driven by an "east" wind, could meet, forming "a wall of water on their left and a wall of water on their right."  At the time of the Exodus, the water surface was about 12 feet below maximum pool.  Like dry lakes in the southwestern US, the high-water shoreline would have been obvious (More on that later).

 

Crossing the Red Sea makes no sense at all if you look at a map.  The "Israelites" are travelling south southeast over the high ground east of Tia beni-Israel.  They are in their third day without water and are making for the spring Ayn Musa, which is four or five miles away.  To get to anyplace where they could cross the Red Sea, they would have to extend their journey by at least three additional miles and by 20 miles if go by Josephus' route.  To people already dehydrating, that could mean death.  I submit that they didn't cross the Red Sea at all.

And that leaves the narrows between the Bitter Lakes as the only possible location for the "Red Sea Crossing."

Doug

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I just noticed something @Liquid Gardens

It's interesting that the term "mechanism" is used in that quote to describe mind. I guess that means the brain really IS the mind, like so many have claimed and I've argued against.

I now realize that I was wrong for doing that. 

I'm not sure about that (within the context of your beliefs of course) just because I don't know why the mind can't be a mechanism within your belief framework.  Part of the reason for that is because it would depend on specifics on what qualities we think the mind has and what functions it carries out, which is undefined for me since I'm for all practical purposes a materialist at this point.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

So, perhaps the "non-material something" that exists that you referred to, is what's the result of the interassociation between the material and the spiritual, which is born of the decisions made in the mind and in at least one respect, acts like a vessel or vehicle that serves to deliver a person to that place beyond this world where resurrection will occur.

That's possible and really goes back to part of my quote.  I really don't know what this non-material something even is or defined as, I seem to get different answers depending on which non-materialist I talk to, I just know logically that critics of materialism are I assume claiming there is a non-material something.  I don't see any evidence for anything literally spiritual at all, I think decisions are born in our physical brain and am thus several steps removed from any discussion of 'resurrection'.

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

You can call it whatever you want, but that's the definition.  I totally agree that the people accompanied the rulers, probably preceded the rulers.  There's a papyrus, a letter from a frontier official to Merneptah telling that he allowed some Shosu to pass the fort to water their livestock at the "Pools of Pithom."  This is obviously not an invading army, just some nomads in need of a drink.  That's how the "invasion" of the Hyksos' people took place:  just a few families at a time settling peacefully in the Nile delta.

The Hyksos are described as "Semitic."  How did they get that way?  I assume it was by being born Semites.  Is there a way for one to be born into a group without being a descendent of it?

The Bible describes the "Israelites" as being a discreet group when they first entered Egypt.  The biblical Joseph apparently arrived there during the reign of Amenhotep II, but there were already many Asiatics living in Egypt.  This points to the nation of Israel having developed in Caanan before the Sojourn began.  Moses was not the founder of Israel.  This is also in agreement with dates assigned to inscriptions mentioning Israel.

At least some of the Amarna refugees made it to Jerusalem.  Maybe they were "Israelites" and maybe not.  According to Josephus, their descendents sent an army to help the slave revolt at Avaris/Piramesse in an attempt to recover their ancient capital.  He gives a more-complete order of battle than the "600 chariots" listed in the Bible.  In spite of this, I could find no evidence of a "battle" ever having occurred at the Red Sea (or the crossing at El Kubrit).  Maybe there was an army there, but I don't think there was a battle.  I believe "Pharaoh's Army" was the militray wing of an expedition to Sinai.  It was there to protect the workers from maurading tribes and to maintain order.  I don't think there was much love between the two wings.  In such a circumstance, it would be easy to see how a legend of a hostile army got started.

My reconstruction of events is exactly that:  a reconstruction.  Any reconstruction has to make assumptions because it doesn't have all the facts.  The only requirement is that it fit the known facts, at least most of them (A few can be disputed.).

The reign of Amenhotep II places them, as an alleged though otherwise unattested discreet body, at about 200 to 250 years before the earliest attestation of Israel having existed (i.e. the Merneptah Stele) circa 1208 BC. Not once has it been shown that the Israelites can be definitively equated as being Hyksos, Shasu or Habiru so I see this more as an attempt by the early Hebrews to rationalize themselves and their alleged importance on history into existance regardless of the actual facts. Using the Bible to validate a Biblical claim or Josephus, who was so far distant from the Hebrew origin story as to effectively know nothing, is meaningless IMO. 

cormac

[Doug1029]

21 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There is evidence that it did NOT happen. The evidence is in the lack of loss of economic might of the Egyptians. The evidence is in the lack of loss of military power.

Your suggestion is simply that exodus did not happen. Your suggestion is that something else happened.

You seem so disturbed that you have to make up stories which are not exodus and then suggest "exodus probably ooccurred as ..." That's not what exodus is about is it? You provide nothing at all to support your statements. You make some sort of vague story up and then suggest the event is historical? Is that what you are saying?

You make the mistake of not keeping to the topic of the thread which is "Can a religious text be used for evidence?" I am using exodus as an example of how a religious text cannot be used as evidence for history.

The events in exodus are NOT "clearly physically possible".  They did not happen. Exodus is a great example of  how a religious text cannot be used as evidence.

The only thing extraordinary about "The" Exodus was its timing:  it began after the New Moon in the month of April.  Expeditions to Sinai, of which there were something like 300+, usually began in October so as to avoid the furnace-heat of the Sinai.  Departing in April meant they were travelling during the hottest part of the year, so there must have been some unusual reason for that date.  I believe that reason was the Pelest threatening the Sinai copper mines.  They had to get a military expedition down there to protect them, so why not resupply the laborers while you're at it?  The departure of expeditions to Sinai was a completely boring event, not worth mentioning in Egyptian records.

There is no evidence of a battle - maybe a relatively small skirmish at Avaris/Piramesse (not the Red Sea), but maybe not.  But a slave revolt forced Seti to abandon his building project at Piramesse.  Seti would have attacked, but fear of a curse threatened by former priests stayed his hand.  Josephus tells us that Seti waited out the thirteen-year curse, but there aren't thirteen years available in the time line.  So maybe it was seven or eight years.  At any rate, Seti eventually attacked Avaris/Piramesse, only to find the slaves gone.  Not a very glamorous tail, but a more-likely one than a confrontation at the "Red Sea."  And it also explains why there was no effect on Egypt militarily.

If you're looking for someone to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, I nominate Ramses I.  He died of an ear infection.  Did he catch it after a swim in the Red Sea?  You should read his story.  Ramses I came to America - alright, he was dead; it was his mummy that came to America.  The Carlos Museum had a donation of an Egyptian mummy.  The curator noticed the arms were crossed as befitted a royal personage.  After some serious digging, he figured out that it was Ramses I.  His mummy was repatriated with royal ceremony.

Under this time-line, "Moses" (Osar-Seph) would have been dickering with Seti, the heir apparent, over the release of the Israelites.  Because Ramses I was not yet dead, Seti didn't have the authority to release them.  When Ramses died, Seti released the Israelites.  He eventaully did follow them - it was a full-out invasion of Caanan, not just chasing a bunch of escaped slaves.  Could Seti's mention of "troublesome Shosu" on the north wall of the Hypostyle Hall be a reference to these escaped slaves?

 

At any rate, there is lots of room for a reconstruction of the story between the known facts.  Did it really happen my way?  I don't know, but it seems a more-likely explanation than the traditional one.

Doug

[Will Due]

24 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not sure about that (within the context of your beliefs of course) just because I don't know why the mind can't be a mechanism within your belief framework.  Part of the reason for that is because it would depend on specifics on what qualities we think the mind has and what functions it carries out, which is undefined for me since I'm for all practical purposes a materialist at this point.

That's possible and really goes back to part of my quote.  I really don't know what this non-material something even is or defined as, I seem to get different answers depending on which non-materialist I talk to, I just know logically that critics of materialism are I assume claiming there is a non-material something.  I don't see any evidence for anything literally spiritual at all, I think decisions are born in our physical brain and am thus several steps removed from any discussion of 'resurrection'.

 

Of course the vessel or vehicle I was referring to is what everyone of faith describes conventionally as the soul.

I believe the soul is born of decisions, eventhough there might be things about its birth that are automatic, I'm really not sure. But soul growth is a different matter.

I'm also certain that honest doubting regarding the spiritual realities impinging on us, where the mechanical mind interassociates the material and the spiritual, will not disqualify anyone from being resurrected. 

I think souls grow in each of us dependent on the quality of the decisions we make, and not the quantity. Therefore, if someone who sees the obvious fallacies in the ancient religions and scriptures of the world and then rejects them, this might be more on the road to salvation than if these fallacies and contradictions or hypocrisies found in many religions are simply ignored blindly by people of faith.

I wonder about all of this a lot, but I guess we'll find out the truth about it eventually, one way or another. But then again, maybe not.

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Will Due

[Will Due]

 

I'd like to add one more thing.

It seems to me given the high level of deceit everyone must experience in this world, fairness demands a whole lot of consideration when it comes to how we will be judged to be candidates for ascension to the higher worlds.

This planet sucks.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Will Due

[Doug1029]

27 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The reign of Amenhotep II places them, as an alleged though otherwise unattested discreet body, at about 200 to 250 years before the earliest attestation of Israel having existed (i.e. the Merneptah Stele) circa 1208 BC. Not once has it been shown that the Israelites can be definitively equated as being Hyksos, Shasu or Habiru so I see this more as an attempt by the early Hebrews to rationalize themselves and their alleged importance on history into existance regardless of the actual facts. Using the Bible to validate a Biblical claim or Josephus, who was so far distant from the Hebrew origin story as to effectively know nothing, is meaningless IMO. 

cormac

There is an inscription [isr] in Thutmose III's Great Temple of Amun at Karnak that is tranlated as "Israel."¹  This implies that Israel was an establihsed nation only 75 years after the Hyksos left Egypt.

[i-s-r] is used in the Rock-Temple of Seti I at Wadi Abbad and [isr] is again used on Ramses II's Temple at Abydos.  [iss(w)r] is used on Thutmose II's Great Temple of Amun at Karnack, but might be a reference to Assyria.

¹Budge, E. A. W. 1978.  An Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Vol. 1, Sec 143.  Dover Publications.  ISBN:  0486236161; Thutmose III, List XVII, No. 14.

Thutmose III, Ramses II and Seti I all predate Merneptah.  Merneptah was Seti's grandson and Ramses' son.

Doug  

[Only_]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's the difference meaning-wise between 'all we are is matter in motion' and 'all we are is matter and spirit-something in motion'?

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

That's the difference.

[cormac mac airt]

10 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There is an inscription [isr] in Thutmose III's Great Temple of Amun at Karnak that is tranlated as "Israel."¹  This implies that Israel was an establihsed nation only 75 years after the Hyksos left Egypt.

[i-s-r] is used in the Rock-Temple of Seti I at Wadi Abbad and [isr] is again used on Ramses II's Temple at Abydos.  [iss(w)r] is used on Thutmose II's Great Temple of Amun at Karnack, but might be a reference to Assyria.

¹Budge, E. A. W. 1978.  An Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Vol. 1, Sec 143.  Dover Publications.  ISBN:  0486236161; Thutmose III, List XVII, No. 14.

Thutmose III, Ramses II and Seti I all predate Merneptah.  Merneptah was Seti's grandson and Ramses' son.

Doug  

It's either one or the other, either translated as Israel or Assyria. So which is it, definitively? Preferably with a citation. 

As to Budge you have got to be the only one I know who believes him to be a reliable source, but whatever. 

cormac

[+Liquid Gardens]

10 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

That's the difference.

I didn't just ask for 'the difference', I asked for the difference 'meaning-wise'.  Where does panpsychism provide more meaning (not just meaning to you) than materialism?  Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind and materialists see themselves as physical things in a world of physical things.  So?

Let me put it this way, I find meaning for example in taking good care of my cat and making sure she seems happy, comfortable, and content.  The fact that we seem to both only be material things is irrelevant in that.  Why then am I wrong to say that this is meaningful?  What does 'mind' have to do with anything in this assessment?

[Doug1029]

36 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

It's either one or the other, either translated as Israel or Assyria. So which is it, definitively? Preferably with a citation. 

As to Budge you have got to be the only one I know who believes him to be a reliable source, but whatever. 

cormac

Israel or Assyria.  I'm not good enough with languages to know.  You'll have to figure that one out for yourself.

How accurate was Budge?  I don't know that, either, but those inscriptions exist.  So what is your interpretation of them?  In any case, they aren't that much before the most-recent Exodus.  All they really demonstrate is that Israel was around before the Merneptah stele.  The Merneptah stele clearly shows that Israel existed in Caanan before the date of the last Exodus.

I note that Budge was the linguist who translated Gilgamesh.  He must know soemthing about ancient writing.

Note that we aren't even talking about the earlier Exodii.

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

You were, however, the one making the claim so the onus is on you to provide evidence supporting said claim. Otherwise your claim is meaningless and can be summarily dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting your conclusion. 

From what I see of your above post you made a claim without vetting it. I’ll remember that in the future. 

cormac

[nephili]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:41 PM, Mr Walker said:

Any text can be used academically to debate and discuss ideas etc  from within that text. In addition, parts  of the bible have been verified as historically accurate from other contemporary records and from  archaeology So yes, a book like the bible can be used as evidence in some debates 

Mr. Walker, I've actually come to really appreciate what you do for conversations on this forum. You are always keeping people going and you are clearly intelligent. I've watched you stir things up and even play devil's advocate. Even when everyone is harping on you for it. You're a chaos factor in some conversations and I thank you for that. I just wanted to tell you that. Sorry for my attitude in the past.

On the point you make here, I think that is what people do already. They use the bible to prove the bible. I don't think some that do that understand that it doesn't prove anything about the bible to quote from the bible. Especially when the bible is proven plagiarism and proven to be changed by groups with political motives throughout history.

It's almost like quoting a movie to try to prove the movie isn't fiction. Sometimes places are real in movies. Sometimes even a character may be based on a real person. That doesn't make it non fiction though.

I'd like to know the parts of the bible you say are verified. Outside of some places and a few random people, I'm not sure much has been proven 100%.

Edited March 23, 2018 by nephili

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

The reign of Amenhotep II places them, as an alleged though otherwise unattested discreet body, at about 200 to 250 years before the earliest attestation of Israel having existed (i.e. the Merneptah Stele) circa 1208 BC. Not once has it been shown that the Israelites can be definitively equated as being Hyksos, Shasu or Habiru so I see this more as an attempt by the early Hebrews to rationalize themselves and their alleged importance on history into existance regardless of the actual facts. Using the Bible to validate a Biblical claim or Josephus, who was so far distant from the Hebrew origin story as to effectively know nothing, is meaningless IMO. 

cormac

I propose that the biblical Joseph was actually the wealthy "Asiatic" landowner named Yuya.  He is the only commoner ever buried in the Valley of the Kings.

His daughter married Amenhotep III, becoming the Royal Wife.  Their son was Amenhotep IV, aka Akhenaten.  So Akenaten was half "Asiatic."  Akhenaten married Jochebed (aka Queen Tia), daughter of his Commander of Chariotry who was also an "Asiatic," making their sons, Tutankaten and Smenkare 3/4 "Asiatic."  Is it possible that there was a third son named Thutmoses?

If so, Thutmoses' mother was Jochebed (Moses mother was Jochebed.) and he would be a descendent of Yuya/Joseph (Moses was a descendent of Joseph.) and would be no more than 1/4 Egyptian.

At this time, Prince Thutmoses is pure speculation, but I understand that there are quite a few Egyptian princes who are unknown to history.  It certainly bears checking out.

Doug

 

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

It's either one or the other, either translated as Israel or Assyria. So which is it, definitively? Preferably with a citation. 

As I recall, the original paper was unable to decide whether the double-S was an accidental misspelling or actually meant Assyria.  When the experts can't decide, what are the rest of us to do?  At least, he was being honest.

In my own research, this is a minor point, not worth spending a lot of extra time on.  So I take the "expert's" word for it.

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

As I recall, the original paper was unable to decide whether the double-S was an accidental misspelling or actually meant Assyria.  When the experts can't decide, what are the rest of us to do?  At least, he was being honest.

In my own research, this is a minor point, not worth spending a lot of extra time on.  So I take the "expert's" word for it.

Doug

Not make up claims that are not supported by the facts for a start. It ruins your credibility. 

cormac

[Doug1029]

In summary, I believe a religious text can be used as a reference, especially when the subject is the text, itself.  It does not, however, "prove" anything.

At least in the biological and natural sciences, there really is no such thing as "proof" of anything.  We try to so constrain our experiments so that no other conclusions are rationally possible, but should somebody discover a way in which our constraints fail, the results of the experiment are weakened.

The same applies to citations of religious topics.  One can achieve probable "proof," but absolute proof eludes us.

Example:  my discussions with Cormac.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not make up claims that are not supported by the facts for a start. It ruins your credibility. 

cormac

I never claimed that the double-S did or didn't indicate Assyria.  That is something you imputed.

 

As I have said several times on here:  my work is a reconstruction.  The only requirements of a reconstruction are that it comport with known history, science, etc. and be a reasonable guess at the missing parts thereof.

If you want to ask how my reconstruction accounts for such-and-such known fact, then I will have to answer it.  But rants of your own about some discrepancy you perceive, but can't substantiate, do not contribute anything useful.

Doug

Edited March 23, 2018 by Doug1029

[cormac mac airt]

30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I propose that the biblical Joseph was actually the wealthy "Asiatic" landowner named Yuya.  He is the only commoner ever buried in the Valley of the Kings.

His daughter married Amenhotep III, becoming the Royal Wife.  Their son was Amenhotep IV, aka Akhenaten.  So Akenaten was half "Asiatic."  Akhenaten married Jochebed (aka Queen Tia), daughter of his Commander of Chariotry who was also an "Asiatic," making their sons, Tutankaten and Smenkare 3/4 "Asiatic."  Is it possible that there was a third son named Thutmoses?

If so, Thutmoses' mother was Jochebed (Moses mother was Jochebed.) and he would be a descendent of Yuya/Joseph (Moses was a descendent of Joseph.) and would be no more than 1/4 Egyptian.

At this time, Prince Thutmoses is pure speculation, but I understand that there are quite a few Egyptian princes who are unknown to history.  It certainly bears checking out.

Which ignores the fact that the Bible claims Joseph's bones were taken out of Egypt by Moses and buried at Shechem. Obviously he can't be buried at two places at once. 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

6 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I never claimed that the double-S did or didn't indicate Assyria.  That is something you imputed.

Doug

You brought it in as somehow relevant to the discussion. If it meant Assyria then it is NOT relevant. If it actually DID mean Israel then you can, or should, be able to reference a citation confirming that conclusion. You can't have (save) your cake and eat it too. 

cormac

[Doug1029]

16 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Which ignores the fact that the Bible claims Joseph's bones were taken out of Egypt by Moses and buried at Shechem. Obviously he can't be buried at two places at once. 

cormac

Obviously.  And that is just such a known fact as I have just asked for.

Have Joseph's bones (or anybody else's) been found at Shechem?  No.  The burial chamber may once have held somebody's bones, but it doesn't hold any now.  So the answer has to be that nobody knows where Joseph is buried, or even if he's buried, but Yuya's body was in his coffin.

And one doesn't expect the Bible to get everything right.

Doug

P.S.:  Moses is supposedly buried in a cave on Mount Nebo.  But that cave is known:  it's now the water supply for a monastery.  And there are no bodies buried in it.

Doug

P.P.S:  that cave has quite a history.  It is supposedly where the Arc of the Covenant was hidden en route to Africa.  And, if I remember right, just before Moses was buried in it, it housed a shrine to Baal Peor.  Remember Balaam and the talking donkey?  Him.

Doug

Edited March 23, 2018 by Doug1029

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Obviously.  And that is just such a known fact as I have just asked for.

Have Joseph's bones (or anybody else's) been found at Shechem?  No.  The burial chamber may once have held somebody's bones, but it doesn't hold any now.  So the answer has to be that nobody knows where Joseph is buried.

Doug

Which makes it a rather huge stretch to go from "noone knows where Joseph is buried" to "Yuya was Joseph". And it should be pointed out that Yuya was a member of the local nobility of Akhmim, so that doesn't exactly make him a commoner. 

cormac

[Doug1029]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Which makes it a rather huge stretch to go from "noone knows where Joseph is buried" to "Yuya was Joseph". And it should be pointed out that Yuya was a member of the local nobility of Akhmim, so that doesn't exactly make him a commoner. 

cormac

Indeed, it is a huge stretch.  But he was not a royal and the Valley of the Kings was reserved for royals.  But this is legend, not history.

What does history record about Yuya's early life?  Before he appears as a married, wealthy landowner, what was he?  Where was he born?  How old was he?  Nothing.  Was he the one who instigated the building of "Josephs' Canal?"  Joseph means "Great Seth."  It's an Egyptian name, not a Hebrew name.  But Yuya refers to "Yahweh."  Was Yuya a follower of Jehovah?  Amenhotep and Akhenaten had a minister named Joseph.  Was this the same man?  Yuya was married to the daughter of Aye, who later became Pharaoh.  Aye was known as "Priest Aye."  Jospeh's wife was the daughter of a priest.  Joseph administered food distribution; Yuya did the same.  I don't remember all the coincidences, but there are something like 30 of them.  And that starts to add up.

If you backtrack the time line, Joseph is given a wife.  If that wife got pregnant right away and the baby was born about a year later, when she was six she would be just the right age to marry Akhenaten III, who got married at age six.  Of course it doesn't "prove" anything, but deductive proof is beyond the reach of most science.  But we are stacking coincidence on top of coincidence.  At some point, the pile is going to collapse.

Doug