(April 9, 2014 at 4:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You have some great questions in there, Ape. Amenhotep III was one of the most powerful Egyptian rulers, ever. His son, initially Amenhotep IV was something of a nut who moved the capital to Amarna, began worshiping the Aten (sun) and changed his name to Akhenaten. At the end of his rule his reforms were overturned, the capital returned to Thebes, and his infant sun, Tutankhamun - originally Tutankhaten - became pharaoh at about the age of 8-9. Obviously, he was under the control of his handlers, notably Ay who became pharoah on Tuts' death. Ay reigned for only a short time and was succeeded by Horemheb who was the last king of the 18th dynasty.

For myself, I don't think that Akhenaten's religion turned into Judaism although there are a lot of theories trying to find direct links.

Akhenaten and Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism

Quote:Redford concluded:

Before much of the archaeological evidence from Thebes and from Tell el-Amarna became available, wishful thinking sometimes turned Akhenaten into a humane teacher of the true God, a mentor of Moses, a Christlike figure, a philosopher before his time. But these imaginary creatures are now fading away one by one as the historical reality gradually emerges. There is little or no evidence to support the notion that Akhenaten was a progenitor of the full-blown monotheism that we find in the Bible. The monotheism of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament had its own separate development—one that began more than half a millennium after the pharaoh's death.[77]

However, Greenberg argues that Judaism shows signs that in its early forms it had Henotheistic characteristics and that it later was refined into a monotheism around the time of King Josiah, relegating that which previously were considered gods, into gods that ought not be worshipped, i.e. angels.[78]

Maybe memories of Akhenaten's monotheistic religion inspired a Canaanite faction to declare their deity as the one true God for political and religious purposes. They then proceeded to wipe out what they labelled 'idolatry'. (The Roman Church did the same kind of thing by wiping out rival sects which were labelled heretical.)

Xtians are capable of infinite self-delusion.

There is no record of any "Israel" in the archaeological record until, at the earliest, 1207 BC and even that is less compelling when you look at it closely.

The Merneptah stele makes a reference to "Ysirir" which the finder, Flinders Petrie, declared meant "Israel." The word appears no where else in the entire corpus of Egyptian writing. No one really knows what the fuck it means.... but, without evidence no one will contest Petrie's claim.

The next time it turns up is in the Mesha stele...a 9th century Moabite inscription which tells how the Moabites kicked the asses of the Israelites.

BTW, here is a full translation of the Merneptah stele. As is so common with jesus freaks, the only word they look at is the one they want to see but how any one could read the first 140 lines and then the last 10 and not see the stylistic differences between the two simply boggles the mind.

http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/f...lation.php

(April 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:"Moses" would have been a character name based upon the myths of polytheism

Amusingly, the root form "mss" (moses, messes, or mosis) in Egyptian meant "born to" or "son of." Thus, Thutmoses meant "Born to Thoth," Ramesses meant "Born to Ra" and Ahmoses meant "Born to Ah."

"Moses" by itself, in Egyptian, would mean "Born to Fucking Nobody!"

Maybe there's a clue here on Jewish Answers org

Origin of the Name Moses/Moshe

Quote:Moses
In Egyptian, Moshe means a son. Thus, his naming is prefaced by a phrase that is literally translated, ‘he became to her as a son’ (cf. Ibn Ezra; Hadar Zekenim). Significantly, the suffix moshe is found (and exclusively so) in the names of many Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty, such as Ka-moshe (‘son of [Ra’s] majesty’), Ach-moshe (Ahmose; ‘son of the moon,’ or ‘the moon is born’) and Toth-moshe (Thutmose; ‘son of Toth’).

Maybe, when the story first started, he was given a name which translated as 'he became to her as a son'. Later on the name got shortened to Moses which just means 'son'. Then there's the explanation that Pharaoh's daughter named him Moses because she drew him out of the water.

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/shemot/tui.html

Quote:As the story develops, we realize that his sister, too, is not explicitly named, nor is the woman who saved this Hebrew child from the Nile introduced by name; rather, she is referred to simply as "Pharaoh's daughter." The only explicit name given in the story appears in verse 10: "When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, who made him her son. She named him Moses, explaining, 'I drew him out of the water.'"

It is highly unlikely that Pharaoh's daughter knew Hebrew, for if so, she would surely have called the child Mashui, using the passive form of the verb 'to draw water', not Moshe (Moses), which is an active form; for the child 'was drawn out' of the water and did not draw out others. Indeed, early commentators (such as Ibn Ezra) as well as modern ones (the Netziv) surmised that Moshe is not a Hebrew word, rather an Egyptian one, and that the Torah found a connection between the sound of the Egyptian word Moshe and the meaning of the Hebrew verb m-sh-h.

So, what we ended up with isn't how it started out.

A fine example of people twisting their scrotums into pretzels trying to make bible bullshit fit what they want it to.

(April 9, 2014 at 5:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, here is a full translation of the Merneptah stele. As is so common with jesus freaks, the only word they look at is the one they want to see but how any one could read the first 140 lines and then the last 10 and not see the stylistic differences between the two simply boggles the mind.

http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/f...lation.php

That's interesting. Seeing as the stele is about a campaign in Libya, Canaan and the Israelites must have been somewhere in North Africa.

Yeah - notice how in the first part Merneptah is the strong hand of Ra smiting Libyans left and right...amusing because he was about 65 when he came to the throne and at that time probably had trouble taking a good dump every morning.

The the last ten lines make no sense in a historical sense. Canaan WAS Egyptian. There was no need to conquer it and there is nothing to suggest that he was quashing a rebellion. Why would the Egyptians attack their own vassals? Further, all this strong hand of Ra shit is missing.

It almost reads like an after action report. "Yes, his majesty defeated the Libyans but losses were taken in Canaan where vassal towns were defeated" (by the Sea People? Attacking from the Mediterranean on the Egyptian flank?). It is not so glorious a victory in Canaan but the Egyptians are left holding the field...burned though it was.

It is very important for bible-thumpers to get their precious "israelites" into the story but it seems like a stretch.

(April 9, 2014 at 4:47 pm)Confused Ape Wrote:

(April 9, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Wait, so finding evidence of polytheism of both Egypt and the Canaanites, should prove that the Hebrew cult was a spinoff. But somehow Jews will spin this to mean they got it right despite the fact the other two were around prior. Still doesn't make their Lilith story or an other fantastic claim in their texts true.

They simply found a man who believed in the superstitions of his time.

The only thing we can say is true is that the people who became the Israelites were once ruled by Pharaohs. They didn't have to be in Egypt for that, however, because they lived in an area which was part of the Egyptian empire.

There's a thread somewhere in these forums where Minimalist and I were discussing the Hyksos who took over Lower Egypt. They were finally driven out by Ahmose 1. (Avaris in the following quote was the Hyksos capital in their part of Egypt).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos#Under_Ahmose

Quote:After the fall of Avaris, the fleeing Hyksos were pursued by the Egyptian army across northern Sinai and into southern Canaan.

Then there's the idea that the plagues of Egypt were the result of the Santorini eruption.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/24/scienc...xodus.html

Egypt didn't have to suffer all the effects because the rest could have been heard about from travellers' tales.

If you want a good myth for religious and political purposes you could take bits and pieces from various sources and cobble them together into the story of Moses and the Exodus. It wouldn't matter that the different sources were events which happened hundreds of years apart.

Yea Egypt had a spread, and for the proximity reasons I stated. But no matter the polytheism was clearly there BEFORE the Hebrews so they got their stories from prior polytheism. And yes the eruption would explain the myth of the plagues.

Quote:Then there's the idea that the plagues of Egypt were the result of the Santorini eruption.

Problem there is that a) Santorini has been triangulated by ice core evidence, dendrochronology and c14 dating to 1628 BC, and b) Egypt suffered only a mild direct impact from Santorini as the ash cloud was blown to the North East - bad day to be in Anatolia or the Greek Islands - but other than some tsunami effects on the coast Egypt was in the clear.

(April 9, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Then there's the idea that the plagues of Egypt were the result of the Santorini eruption.

Problem there is that a) Santorini has been triangulated by ice core evidence, dendrochronology and c14 dating to 1628 BC, and b) Egypt suffered only a mild direct impact from Santorini as the ash cloud was blown to the North East - bad day to be in Anatolia or the Greek Islands - but other than some tsunami effects on the coast Egypt was in the clear.

I think you are missing the point. This is no different than all the independent flood myths in human history. And in the last episode of COSMOS Neil Degrees Tyson went into all the comet myths worldwide throughout history. Legends spread and overlap and throughout time. Natural events viewed by ignorant people get turned into legends and myths and end up in religion. The volcano was local region wise so those close to it still could have spread word of the event outwards and away from the volcano when they managed to escape.

There were no significant environmental effects in Egypt from Santorini.

I mean, yeah...people can make shit up...but Judah didn't get hit hard by Santorini, either.

Crete? Greece? Turkey? Different story.