For those who want proof of the exodus

[GrandizerII]

I believe you're thinking of the Merneptah Stele, but it doesn't refer to Israelites being slaves in Egypt, but rather the stele details the Israelites having their seed wiped out in a military campaign outside of Egypt.

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

I forgot to watch, but the scene I am referring to showed two or three hieroglyphs all denoting slaves that the Egyptians took, among them was the symbol for Israel. Again I'll set a reminder to watch and get that name.

You must have forgotten according to whose interpretation ...

[Minimalist]

I believe you're thinking of the Merneptah Stele, but it doesn't refer to Israelites being slaves in Egypt, but rather the stele details the Israelites having their seed wiped out in a military campaign outside of Egypt.

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

I forgot to watch, but the scene I am referring to showed two or three hieroglyphs all denoting slaves that the Egyptians took, among them was the symbol for Israel. Again I'll set a reminder to watch and get that name.

Don't bother.  It's a fragment of a statue presently located in Berlin.  The inscription is partial and only a handful of scholars think it says "Israel".  This fellow is a self-admitted xtian apologist and even he is not convinced.

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...tah-stele/

Again, what the Merneptah stele says, in Egyptian, is "Ysirir."  So how did we get from Ysirir to "Israel?"

British archaeologist, John Romer, explains:

Six years after his work at Tell el-Hesi, Flinders Petrie was digging at Thebes, sifting his way through ton upon ton of sharp stone fragments, the pitiful debris of royal temples. It was, he recalled later, disastrously dull labour, and he was tempted to leave it. Then, all at once, objects that had been buried for millenia among the rubble started to turn up. A fine portrait sculpture of the king who had built one of the temples was found, the first ever discovered of the Pharaoh Merneptah, that son of Ramesses II who in those days was widely believed to have been the 'Pharaoh of the Exodus'. Then his men came across a huge rectangular granite block lying face down in the rubble, a great grey stela covered in small lines of hieroglyphic (see Plate 3). The block was massive and Petrie did not have the equipment to move it; but what a fascination! A huge new monument, well preserved and covered in history. Petrie had his men clear some of the rubble out from under the stone so that, as he says, 'one could crawl in and lie on one's back, reading a few inches from one's nose'. Then he asked a visiting scholar, who specialized in inscriptions, to examine the lengthy text. 'There are the names of various Syrian towns', he reported after a miserable afternoon on his back in Petrie's trench, 'and one which I do not know, Isirir'. 'Why,' said Petrie, 'That is Israel'. 'So it is,' his friend replied, 'and won't the reverends be pleased'. And so they were and have been ever since, for the Israel Stela as the great block is now called, holds upon it the most ancient mention of Israel yet discovered. During almost eighty years of field work in archaeology, Petrie wrote more than a 1000 books and articles. He excavated royal tombs, opened pyramids and discovered golden treasures but, as he himself said at dinner on the evening of the day the great grey stone was first deciphered, 'This stela will be better known in the world than anything else I have found'. Such was, and such remains, the allure of the Bible in archaeology.

Bolding in the original.  So, no study.  No comparison.  No question about why "Israel" is suddenly included in a list of "various Syrian towns."  The association is quite similar to the early practice of saying that the "apiru" sounds like "hebrew" so that is what it must be or that the "Sherden" among the Sea People "sounds like" Sardinia so maybe they came from there.  It is stupid and lazy archaeology in fact it is just silly guesswork.

We really do not have any idea what "ysirir" meant to the Egyptians.

[Drich]

I took an introduction to history in university, and one thing they told us, is that very little is actually really known about the past in certain way, but rather it's a best guess type of thing. Yet people are discussing like history is learned as absolute fact.

The biggest damning evidence against christianity is there is not record of jesus kept by the Romans.
That should be a big hint to them they are being lied to.

Seriously?
You do know we have less than 10% of all roman documentation produced right?

If you only had access to 10% of the internet, what are the chances you won't have access to the sites you most frequently visit? (90%) Does that then mean those sites do not or Never existed?

For instance Pontius Pilate was an established Roman figure head in the time of Christ and other historians report that on two separate occasions that he himself was just barely able to stop two insurrections.. A insurrection of the people your governing is a very big deal, something that would demand a lot of 'paper work'. (requisitions for soldiers supplies etc..) yet we have none of this. Only the recordings of this event are the two secular historians who record the insurrections. Yet this is considered to be 'vetted history.'
 Matter of fact the only thing even written about pilate outside of the bible and the two secular historians is the fact his name appears on what is known as the 'pilate stone.' Their are 4 words two of which are his name.

Now going by your logic if you want to exclude what the bible says we can say pilate started out as governor and after Tiberius died Pilate no longer existed because 'we don't have roman records of it.'

[Minimalist]

Don't strain your brain, drippy.  You're in over your head.  If we had anything like the documentation for your godboy that we have for Pontius Pilate there would be no discussions on the idea that jesus was a myth.  But we don't.  So the mythicist position is valid and growing.

[Drich]

Right. I'm not sure it's safe to say that very little is known of the past, but even going with that it doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with any old shit.

Ever been to a natural history museum? One of the first things they tell you (if you take the tour) is unless their is a period record of a people time or event the best any of them can do is try and construct or compile a narrative of a time, event or people by looking at the things people discarded or left because it was of no use to them.

The illustration I head was 'it's like trying to put a picture together of a time in society by looking at a culture's trash if you remove all biodegradable material, then break up what's left into quarter size pieces.

In the case of Egypt we have larger artifacts, but we also have to contend with how they wrote history to only shine a positive light on themselves and almost never recorded failures.. The artifact Alpo posted a wiki link to is a good example of this, in that Egypt claimed to have wiped out all of Israel, and we know that to be untrue.

So even if we could accurately put all of their history back together, we would still be viewing it through the lens of Ancient Egyptian propaganda.

[Drich]

You're weren't going to say that "their was no evidence for the Exodus?"

why break the pattern of rebuttal? It was working so well for you.

At least i am not on the going to  be banned eventually list.

Of course your not, you are a model atheist.. Question nothing, believe anything anyone has to say on you tube, ignore what you don't want to hear, and just re-ask the question 10 times if you don't understand or cant think up a way to refute the answer. Never respond topically when you can just red herring your way out with a question about noah's ark.

So why would you be bann if you conform to the perfect model of atheism?

[Drich]

Did you not read the OP? I pointed to the source material there.

No, dripshit, you pointed to a fucking asinine movie cobbled together by a couple of bible-thumping shitwits who just KNOW that their fucking fairy tales are true no matter how many times they are told otherwise.

You're pathetic.

then it should be very easy for you to provide primary/secondary source material that refutes said movie correct? Or at least provide a commentary that point to such material...

[Drich]

The more evidence there is, the less need there is for faith.

So this is really just self faith mutiliation. The religious consider their evidence to be actually evidence, while it has no impact on atheists who do not.

I think you have your religions confused...

Jesus Himself told us we only need the faith of a mustard seed and if we could honor him by placing that mustard seed's worth of faith in Him we could move mountains of doubt.

[Drich]

I forgot to watch, but the scene I am referring to showed two or three hieroglyphs all denoting slaves that the Egyptians took, among them was the symbol for Israel. Again I'll set a reminder to watch and get that name.

You must have forgotten according to whose interpretation ...

who's interpretation of what? Egyptian hieroglyphs???

[Drich]

I forgot to watch, but the scene I am referring to showed two or three hieroglyphs all denoting slaves that the Egyptians took, among them was the symbol for Israel. Again I'll set a reminder to watch and get that name.

Don't bother.  It's a fragment of a statue presently located in Berlin.  The inscription is partial and only a handful of scholars think it says "Israel".  This fellow is a self-admitted xtian apologist and even he is not convinced.

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...tah-stele/

Again, what the Merneptah stele says, in Egyptian, is "Ysirir."  So how did we get from Ysirir to "Israel?"

British archaeologist, John Romer, explains:

Six years after his work at Tell el-Hesi, Flinders Petrie was digging at Thebes, sifting his way through ton upon ton of sharp stone fragments, the pitiful debris of royal temples. It was, he recalled later, disastrously dull labour, and he was tempted to leave it. Then, all at once, objects that had been buried for millenia among the rubble started to turn up. A fine portrait sculpture of the king who had built one of the temples was found, the first ever discovered of the Pharaoh Merneptah, that son of Ramesses II who in those days was widely believed to have been the 'Pharaoh of the Exodus'. Then his men came across a huge rectangular granite block lying face down in the rubble, a great grey stela covered in small lines of hieroglyphic (see Plate 3). The block was massive and Petrie did not have the equipment to move it; but what a fascination! A huge new monument, well preserved and covered in history. Petrie had his men clear some of the rubble out from under the stone so that, as he says, 'one could crawl in and lie on one's back, reading a few inches from one's nose'. Then he asked a visiting scholar, who specialized in inscriptions, to examine the lengthy text. 'There are the names of various Syrian towns', he reported after a miserable afternoon on his back in Petrie's trench, 'and one which I do not know, Isirir'. 'Why,' said Petrie, 'That is Israel'. 'So it is,' his friend replied, 'and won't the reverends be pleased'. And so they were and have been ever since, for the Israel Stela as the great block is now called, holds upon it the most ancient mention of Israel yet discovered. During almost eighty years of field work in archaeology, Petrie wrote more than a 1000 books and articles. He excavated royal tombs, opened pyramids and discovered golden treasures but, as he himself said at dinner on the evening of the day the great grey stone was first deciphered, 'This stela will be better known in the world than anything else I have found'. Such was, and such remains, the allure of the Bible in archaeology.

Bolding in the original.  So, no study.  No comparison.  No question about why "Israel" is suddenly included in a list of "various Syrian towns."  The association is quite similar to the early practice of saying that the "apiru" sounds like "hebrew" so that is what it must be or that the "Sherden" among the Sea People "sounds like" Sardinia so maybe they came from there.  It is stupid and lazy archaeology in fact it is just silly guesswork.

We really do not have any idea what "ysirir" meant to the Egyptians.

where did you get "Ysiris"? I read the article and it translates the word in question on the Berlin fragment to be spelled "Ishrael" rather than the Israel of the Merneptah Stele. In the article you posted the Author who has written over 1000 books and articles says the "Berlin fragment's" spelling could be the direct result of the fact their they did not have dictionaries/common spellings in ancient Egypt., plus he points to the Idea this fragment could put "Ishrael" in the 13th century (The same as the movie) which could also account for the different spelling as 'Ishrael'. In that Israel may have simply been known by that name at that time.

Your link your information old sport. Maybe you should read before you post.