Sorry, that doesn't work. The people in the Levant at that time were Habiru, a term which describes Levantine nomads, irrespective of religion. 'Habiru' doesn't mean 'Hebrew' (although it isn't unreasonable to posit some overlap).

That aside, this doesn't do much for the Biblical account in Exodus, where the enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta region is the only reasonable reading. The Nile Delta is manifestly not the Levant.

Boru

(June 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Lek Wrote: Yes.  As with hardening Pharaoh's heart at the time of Moses, there have been occasions when God has intervened in the thoughts and actions of some who were already purposely unbelievers.  His promise is to reveal himself to those who seek him with a true heart.

No scholar believes that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt.  If you know of one, please post the citation here.

I don't know of any. Of course, none believed that King David existed until recently either, but we have now discovered that a King David did exist back then. We have limited historical evidence from those times and are learning more through archaeological discoveries as time goes on. As far as I'm concerned the book is still open on the exodus, but at the same time, I'm not naive enough to believe that the bible events are blow by blow historical accounts. I don't think that is its purpose.

(June 29, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 4:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've read the surrounding verses, tyvm, and 2 Thess. 2:11-12 isn't out of context, as much as you'd like it to be.  Read it again.  'God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie' clearly implies that if God hadn't stepped in, then these people might have changed their minds and repented.  In other words, the HS is not always to be trusted.

Further, there's nothing in the verse about God withholding anything.  'Send' is an active verb.  God performed an action which deluded people.

Why do your lot spend so much energy telling people that the Bible doesn't mean what it says?

Boru

Yes.  As with hardening Pharaoh's heart at the time of Moses, there have been occasions when God has intervened in the thoughts and actions of some who were already purposely unbelievers.  His promise is to reveal himself to those who seek him with a true heart.

So much for free will....or god loving everyone...

(June 29, 2017 at 2:38 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No scholar believes that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt.  If you know of one, please post the citation here.

I don't know of any.  Of course, none believed that King David existed until recently either, but we have now discovered that a King David did exist back then.  We have limited historical evidence from those times and are learning more through archaeological discoveries as time goes on. As far as I'm concerned the book is still open on the exodus, but at the same time, I'm not naive enough to believe that the bible events are blow by blow historical accounts.  I don't think that is its purpose.

I don't know of any scholars, certainly, a majority, who ever denied the existence of King David.  But, your abandoning of Biblical historicity is certainly a rupture with traditional Christian thought, which held the Bible to be completely historical.

---

(June 29, 2017 at 1:29 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No scholar believes that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt.  If you know of one, please post the citation here.

When discussing biblical events be sure to consider actual history.  Remember, Egypt was much larger than it is now.  The Egyptian Empire included the Levant area all the way to the Tigris River.  So even if the Hebrews were in the Levant and never actually in modern-day Egyptian territory they were in Egypt.

No evidence, though, that the Hebrews worked as slaves for the Egyptians.  In fact, it is know widely recognized that the pyramids were built by paid laborers who were organized into work groups who took pride and ownership in their contributions to the pyramid that they built.

(June 29, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Lek Wrote: Yes.  As with hardening Pharaoh's heart at the time of Moses, there have been occasions when God has intervened in the thoughts and actions of some who were already purposely unbelievers.  His promise is to reveal himself to those who seek him with a true heart.

So if god's responsible for the Pharaoh's attitude toward the Hebrews then what's the deal with the plagues, boils, rivers of frogs...

(June 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Sorry, that doesn't work. The people in the Levant at that time were Habiru, a term which describes Levantine nomads, irrespective of religion. 'Habiru' doesn't mean 'Hebrew' (although it isn't unreasonable to posit some overlap).

That aside, this doesn't do much for the Biblical account in Exodus, where the enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta region is the only reasonable reading. The Nile Delta is manifestly not the Levant.

Boru

According to this map the by 1000 BC the kingdom of Israel occupied most of the area in the Levant that Egypt had previously controlled.  It seems that the Bible uses the words Israelites, Hebrews, and Jews interchangeably.  

So, the apparent facts are that around 1,400 BC the Egyptians controlled the Levant area and by 1000 BC the Israelites had displaced them in most of the Levant.  Maybe someone can fill in the blanks about how that came to be.  

Later on the Assyrians and Babylonians took over and then the area fell under control of everyone and his brother.  
 

(June 29, 2017 at 1:28 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: But He really meant it when He said it about the Amalekites !!

Except there is no historical or archaeological evidence for any "Amalekites."  They were sort of like the Klingons of their day.

Quote: Of course, none believed that King David existed until recently either, but we have now discovered that a King David did exist back then.

The letters in question on the Tel Dan stele, shown here:



are written in Aramaic. If you notice, there are dots on either side of the word which are word separators...which sort of makes Aramaic a bit more advanced than Greek as they tended to run everything together in one big blob of text....sort of like a lot of theists around here! But regardless, George Athas, a scholar who has put in more time studying the stele than can be imagined, has pointed out that without a dot between B E T and D W D we are not dealing with the phrase "House of David" which bible thumpers wet their pants wishing for but rather a toponym, or place name like "Davidsburg" or since the vowels are not written out,
perhaps, "Dowudsberg." In any case, as we have plenty of examples of places being given godly or heroic names, Rome from Romulus. Athens from Athena. Susa from Inshushinal, a local diety in Persia.

Aside from all that, we actually know what dwd means in Aramaic and it means "beloved,"

https://books.google.com/books?id=bh6oBg...ed&f=false

So perhaps all that bwtdwd means in Aramaic is "My lovely House." In any case, real scholars are working on this. They don't need any help from you.

(June 29, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 1:28 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: But He really meant it when He said it about the Amalekites !!

Except there is no historical or archaeological evidence for any "Amalekites."  They were sort of like the Klingons of their day.

Well, it's interesting to contemplate folks forever precluded from Salvation even if they subsequently repented and did in fact then accept Christ and His resurrection. 

Christ almost, but not quite, died for all mankind's sins.

What about the Klingons?

(June 29, 2017 at 2:38 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No scholar believes that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt.  If you know of one, please post the citation here.

I don't know of any.  Of course, none believed that King David existed until recently either, but we have now discovered that a King David did exist back then.  We have limited historical evidence from those times and are learning more through archaeological discoveries as time goes on. As far as I'm concerned the book is still open on the exodus, but at the same time, I'm not naive enough to believe that the bible events are blow by blow historical accounts.  I don't think that is its purpose.

I can enlighten you on that, real simple. But based on your track record it'll be like trying to cram a cannonball through a Froot Loop.