Creation

[afleitch]

Even if we were to assume that the account really means that a population of some 2 million slaves (which, if correct would be extraordinarily high for the ancient world) who co-habited with a 'master' population of comparative strength (or less) moved out of Egypt in a series of waves it doesn't prove that they were there to start off with.

As arable as the Nile Delta and valley was at that time, it could not have supported as high a population as has been summised from the Bible. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that they could have survived outside such an arable land for any length of time. Consider also the amount of livestock such a large population would need to take with them. Consider the sheer explosion in population that would have occured in a rather arid Israel that again no neighbouring civilisation records. Genetic and archaelogical evidence assessed from the earliest settlements suggests a humbler local origin, in line with Caananites and other early semitic settlements. They even share the same early alphabet. There is nothing to suggest that the Israelite's arrived later.

While some movement from Egypt (perhaps after a period of enslavement) is not impossible, evidence suggests that the Hebrews were in modern day Israel since long before (if we are to accept the Biblical account) the rather wide time period in which an exodus was supposed to occur) An exodus, on balance did not occur as the bible describes and if it did could hadly be called an 'exodus', rather a group of people after being enslaved returning home to their own people.

[afleitch]

Since Derek, you accept that any exodus was not the movement of up to 2 million people at once, but far less over the period of 'several years, even a century' then it's not an exodus is it? It's not a lot of movement and it's not over a short period of time. For the record that pales in significance to the genuine movement of millions of Jews in Europe during the Second World War which ended in the mass slaughter of six million of them.

As Dibble has said repeatedly and you have not answered, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were in Egypt in any great number and certainly not exclusively. Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that the Jews, alongside other semetic tribes were in what we now call Israel long before the period the exodus was supposed to have taken place (even if we allow the exodus a very large window in which to happen)

You keep making the assumption that this one statue commemorating (as Dibble has stated) a simple military victory against a pre-existing state of Israel is 'propaganda'; how do you know this? We know that propaganda has been a staple of society for millenia but it does not mean that this statue is, or indeed is not. You have to take a balanced view. Even if it was propaganda, it still suggests that the Egyptians fought the state of Israel. The archaelogical evidence suggests that Jews were in or around Israel long before all of this at any rate. (Indeed it's even now arguable that refuse, discarded bones etc found on-site indicate they developed certain dietry habits long before biblical scholars state that they were 'commanded' to)

The Jewish people were a semetic tribe in the Palestine area and were settled there long before the period in which an exodus is assumed to have occured. It is entirely possible that groups, clans whatever were enslaved by the Egyptians either through force or as war spoils; that's what the Egyptians tended to do to their neighbours. They also, as Dibble pointed out went to war with them quite a lot. There is no evidence to suggest that they originated from Egypt, or that if some were enslaved and carted off to Egypt, that none of their kin remained in Palestine. If there was slavery it cannot have been 2 million; it would be higher than the Nile Delta and Valley could sustain. 2 million could not have moved to Israel because it could not sustain that population either. Even a half or quarter of that figure is too much.

If this is the story of a small group of people having been enslaves escaping from Egypt over a number of years to re-join their families and kin in Palestine then it's not an exodus.

[afleitch]

Since Derek, you accept that any exodus was not the movement of up to 2 million people at once, but far less over the period of 'several years, even a century' then it's not an exodus is it? It's not a lot of movement and it's not over a short period of time. For the record that pales in significance to the genuine movement of millions of Jews in Europe during the Second World War which ended in the mass slaughter of six million of them.

As Dibble has said repeatedly and you have not answered, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were in Egypt in any great number and certainly not exclusively. Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that the Jews, alongside other semetic tribes were in what we now call Israel long before the period the exodus was supposed to have taken place (even if we allow the exodus a very large window in which to happen)

You keep making the assumption that this one statue commemorating (as Dibble has stated) a simple military victory against a pre-existing state of Israel is 'propaganda'; how do you know this? We know that propaganda has been a staple of society for millenia but it does not mean that this statue is, or indeed is not. You have to take a balanced view. Even if it was propaganda, it still suggests that the Egyptians fought the state of Israel. The archaelogical evidence suggests that Jews were in or around Israel long before all of this at any rate. (Indeed it's even now arguable that refuse, discarded bones etc found on-site indicate they developed certain dietry habits long before biblical scholars state that they were 'commanded' to)

The Jewish people were a semetic tribe in the Palestine area and were settled there long before the period in which an exodus is assumed to have occured. It is entirely possible that groups, clans whatever were enslaved by the Egyptians either through force or as war spoils; that's what the Egyptians tended to do to their neighbours. They also, as Dibble pointed out went to war with them quite a lot. There is no evidence to suggest that they originated from Egypt, or that if some were enslaved and carted off to Egypt, that none of their kin remained in Palestine. If there was slavery it cannot have been 2 million; it would be higher than the Nile Delta and Valley could sustain. 2 million could not have moved to Israel because it could not sustain that population either. Even a half or quarter of that figure is too much.

If this is the story of a small group of people having been enslaves escaping from Egypt over a number of years to re-join their families and kin in Palestine then it's not an exodus.

Yes no kidding it wasn't a large number of Jews in Egypt or Hebrews in this case. It was a small percentage but nonetheless influential due to the fact we are talking about it today. No kidding about the 2 million as I have been saying. The fact that we have records says something. You and your boyfriend seem to be arguing that somebody simply made it all up. That's deep, they just made it up, right. Look if you want to cling to his every word go ahead but what do you think happened? It also sounds like you're reading between my lines when you refer to a lack of evidence regarding an entire population being held as slaves in Egypt. The dietary laws were well in observance before the book of Leviticus was written. In fact Leviticus reflects an agrarian society that is already established and I don't dispute that. It's likely that the laws were written by the priests shortly after the first monarchy of Saul and were not canonized until well I date the P source to be just after the exile in the late 6th century BCE. I'm not sure what that has to do with creation or the issue of how many slaves were in Egypt. Stop thinking that I support the notion of 2 million travelers at any one time or even over a period of time. It was likely a small but influential group or groups. They may not have been escaping even but more like looking for water during a drought which would have been common during Egyptian summers. Again as for the statue it would be typical propaganda for that time. It's not like they had a 24/7 media (as I stated) to report on things. They only knew what the rulers told them and when they told them. It speaks of Israel being laid waste. That was obviously false for the fact that Israel remained. What other purpose would it have? In order to PROVE anything you'd have to be there at the time. How do you know that you were here yesterday and that someone didn't suck your brains out while you were sleeping and program you to think what you're thinking now? Exactly so stop wasting your time. This discussion is for people who want to come to a conclusion not exclude all conclusions. Tell your boyfriend that too.

That's priceless : I'll respond to the rest later.

[afleitch]

hahaha I said alot of profound things there though. As far as how things were created or came to be that hasn't been discussed yet. I believe in evolution for the most part and that it is the answer to how rather than why. Plus if you look at how evolution occurs; adaptation to new conditions, then it's really bound to happen. As for Genesis 1 it's not far off from evolution. Let's take a look at the Priestly source and what the biblical scenario is.

Day 1- Light                                          Day 4- Luminaries
Day 2- sea and heaven                        Day 5- sea creatures and birds
Day 3- dry land                                     Day 6- land animals and humankind

Now do I need to explain the parallels and poetry or is it self explanatory? Notice how in Genesis 1 everything is perfect and in harmony. The earlier account of Genesis 2 places things at odds and has a much more primitive view of Yahweh whereas Genesis 1 seems to have a more sophisticated view of the divine as outside of our world. Genesis 2 seems to view Yahweh as a deity who has anthropomorphic tendencies. Notice the progression.

Oh it's poetry no doubt; but it doesn't mean that the Hebrews had a handle on 'creation' and the got the order wrong; sea (pools of water) came after the formation of land. The 'luminaries' or to be precise the sun came before 'light' if we are being literal. It certainly came before land and sea. Likewise for most of the stars. Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable Birds came after land animals on so on. When I wonder did they think bacteria and viruses (who have domain over us in a way...) sit in all this (which of course they did not know anything about)

The traditional account of creation demonstrates how little they actually knew...if they firmly 'knew' anything at all.

[afleitch]

Where the Moon arrived on the scene and where it came from is still debatable

Before the sea and "land" as we would know it. It came about 30-50 million years after the solar system formed when Earth was still forming according to the leading theory - a big object hit the Earth at the right angle and knocked a significant amount of it off. The colliding object and the chunks ripped off formed into the moon. This also tilted Earth's axis and sped up it's rotation.

Oh yea prove it. Where's your proof? How do you know that happened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Read the theories surrounding the formation of the Moon. If you don't agree outline with evidence to back your claim an alternate theory.