prove that the jews were held as slaves by egyptians without using the bible!

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Obviously the egyptians did not use slaves to build the pyramids,but they did use slaves for many other things. The Hebrews lived in the egyptian kingdom, and still live in Egypt today. Thus if their was a mass exodus than it could have occurred because the jews did live in egyptian cities, and towns during the 9th dynasty. There are various accounts of particular pharos being suspicious of the jewish population, but this does not mean that they were ever enslaved. Obviously this could imply that the Hebrews were treated poorly, but right now i am just geusing.

In the end it will be up to yall to find the answer!

[12th Doctor]

Prove that blacks were held as slaves in the South without using available written accounts.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Prove that blacks were held as slaves in the South without using available written accounts.

Stop trying to change the subject.

[Bo]

Prove that blacks were held as slaves in the South without using available written accounts.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Hey, Supersoulty brings up a legitimate point. My history teacher a few years back said that you never know whether something really occured or not for sure unless you were there directly.

[12th Doctor]

As a more in depth response, the terms "slave" and "servant" (with two separate definitions of that word) are often conflated in scripture.  To be someone's "slave" did not necessarily mean extremely harsh treatment, or even have any negative connotations in many cultures and languages, indeed, the word "slave" is often used by Paul to describe how people ought to relate to Christ... and is used by Christ to his Apostles in the last Supper (actually to make the point that he no longer thinks of them as "slaves").

All the records that we have indicate that the Hebrews started out as servants to Pharaoh... and the scriptures say this to be true.  The historical records indicate that the Hebrews were a warrior class, in Egypt, under the service of Pharaoh.  But according to the scriptures, this changed.  Because of our way of viewing the word, we probably think of it as being a little more harsh than the original writers had intended (like masses of Hebrews being whipped by an Egyptian foreman, while they move massive blocks of stone to erect the monuments)... based on the treatment of the Bible, its probably more closely intended to mean something like "Second Class Citizen".

But, when a warrior class has a "protection" agreement with a ruling power, historically, two things tend to happen... the warrior class eventually gets treated as less than, or the warriors want out of the "agreement" and the ruler says "no, no... you protect us, but we protect you" ("feudalism"), and then the relationship is severed.  So there is no reason to think that the same could not have happened to the Hebrews.

[12th Doctor]

Prove that blacks were held as slaves in the South without using available written accounts.

Stop trying to change the subject.

I wasn't.  My point is that "under class" history rarely becomes history at all, because they don't write their own accounts, their buildings don't last, etc, etc.

If we didn't have historical accounts of slavery, how would we ever know that it existed?  Do we have the chains?  Do we have the slave shacks?  Do we have the slave ships?  No.  And that was just 150 years ago.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

As a more in depth response, the terms "slave" and "servant" (with two separate definitions of that word) are often conflated in scripture.  To be someone's "slave" did not necessarily mean extremely harsh treatment, or even have any negative connotations in many cultures and languages, indeed, the word "slave" is often used by Paul to describe how people ought to relate to Christ... and is used by Christ to his Apostles in the last Supper (actually to make the point that he no longer thinks of them as "slaves").

All the records that we have indicate that the Hebrews started out as servants to Pharaoh... and the scriptures say this to be true.  The historical records indicate that the Hebrews were a warrior class, in Egypt, under the service of Pharaoh.  But according to the scriptures, this changed.  Because of our way of viewing the word, we probably think of it as being a little more harsh than the original writers had intended (like masses of Hebrews being whipped by an Egyptian foreman, while they move massive blocks of stone to erect the monuments)... based on the treatment of the Bible, its probably more closely intended to mean something like "Second Class Citizen".

But, when a warrior class has a "protection" agreement with a ruling power, historically, two things tend to happen... the warrior class eventually gets treated as less than, or the warriors want out of the "agreement" and the ruler says "no, no... you protect us, but we protect you" ("feudalism"), and then the relationship is severed.  So there is no reason to think that the same could not have happened to the Hebrews.

The bible is not a primary source, and their are various articles that attempt to claim that the jews were never enslaved by the egyptians. Basically I am looking for an historical piece that can provide proof that the jews weres slaves/servants/second class citzens or whatever. Until that proof arises,well than I guess the jews were never enslaved.

[Bo]

As a more in depth response, the terms "slave" and "servant" (with two separate definitions of that word) are often conflated in scripture.  To be someone's "slave" did not necessarily mean extremely harsh treatment, or even have any negative connotations in many cultures and languages, indeed, the word "slave" is often used by Paul to describe how people ought to relate to Christ... and is used by Christ to his Apostles in the last Supper (actually to make the point that he no longer thinks of them as "slaves").

All the records that we have indicate that the Hebrews started out as servants to Pharaoh... and the scriptures say this to be true.  The historical records indicate that the Hebrews were a warrior class, in Egypt, under the service of Pharaoh.  But according to the scriptures, this changed.  Because of our way of viewing the word, we probably think of it as being a little more harsh than the original writers had intended (like masses of Hebrews being whipped by an Egyptian foreman, while they move massive blocks of stone to erect the monuments)... based on the treatment of the Bible, its probably more closely intended to mean something like "Second Class Citizen".

But, when a warrior class has a "protection" agreement with a ruling power, historically, two things tend to happen... the warrior class eventually gets treated as less than, or the warriors want out of the "agreement" and the ruler says "no, no... you protect us, but we protect you" ("feudalism"), and then the relationship is severed.  So there is no reason to think that the same could not have happened to the Hebrews.

The bible is not a primary source, and their are various articles that attempt to claim that the jews were never enslaved by the egyptians. Basically I am looking for an historical piece that can provide proof that the jews weres slaves/servants/second class citzens or whatever. Until that proof arises,well than I guess the jews were never enslaved.

Then I guess blacks were never enslaved either.

[Vepres]

As a more in depth response, the terms "slave" and "servant" (with two separate definitions of that word) are often conflated in scripture.  To be someone's "slave" did not necessarily mean extremely harsh treatment, or even have any negative connotations in many cultures and languages, indeed, the word "slave" is often used by Paul to describe how people ought to relate to Christ... and is used by Christ to his Apostles in the last Supper (actually to make the point that he no longer thinks of them as "slaves").

All the records that we have indicate that the Hebrews started out as servants to Pharaoh... and the scriptures say this to be true.  The historical records indicate that the Hebrews were a warrior class, in Egypt, under the service of Pharaoh.  But according to the scriptures, this changed.  Because of our way of viewing the word, we probably think of it as being a little more harsh than the original writers had intended (like masses of Hebrews being whipped by an Egyptian foreman, while they move massive blocks of stone to erect the monuments)... based on the treatment of the Bible, its probably more closely intended to mean something like "Second Class Citizen".

But, when a warrior class has a "protection" agreement with a ruling power, historically, two things tend to happen... the warrior class eventually gets treated as less than, or the warriors want out of the "agreement" and the ruler says "no, no... you protect us, but we protect you" ("feudalism"), and then the relationship is severed.  So there is no reason to think that the same could not have happened to the Hebrews.

The bible is not a primary source, and their are various articles that attempt to claim that the jews were never enslaved by the egyptians. Basically I am looking for an historical piece that can provide proof that the jews weres slaves/servants/second class citzens or whatever. Until that proof arises,well than I guess the jews were never enslaved.

Most historians agree that many of the realistic stories in the bible are probably based on some grains of truth. However, they still take it as a grain of salt.

[Deldem]

As a more in depth response, the terms "slave" and "servant" (with two separate definitions of that word) are often conflated in scripture.  To be someone's "slave" did not necessarily mean extremely harsh treatment, or even have any negative connotations in many cultures and languages, indeed, the word "slave" is often used by Paul to describe how people ought to relate to Christ... and is used by Christ to his Apostles in the last Supper (actually to make the point that he no longer thinks of them as "slaves").

All the records that we have indicate that the Hebrews started out as servants to Pharaoh... and the scriptures say this to be true.  The historical records indicate that the Hebrews were a warrior class, in Egypt, under the service of Pharaoh.  But according to the scriptures, this changed.  Because of our way of viewing the word, we probably think of it as being a little more harsh than the original writers had intended (like masses of Hebrews being whipped by an Egyptian foreman, while they move massive blocks of stone to erect the monuments)... based on the treatment of the Bible, its probably more closely intended to mean something like "Second Class Citizen".

But, when a warrior class has a "protection" agreement with a ruling power, historically, two things tend to happen... the warrior class eventually gets treated as less than, or the warriors want out of the "agreement" and the ruler says "no, no... you protect us, but we protect you" ("feudalism"), and then the relationship is severed.  So there is no reason to think that the same could not have happened to the Hebrews.

The bible is not a primary source, and their are various articles that attempt to claim that the jews were never enslaved by the egyptians. Basically I am looking for an historical piece that can provide proof that the jews weres slaves/servants/second class citzens or whatever. Until that proof arises,well than I guess the jews were never enslaved.

Then I guess blacks were never enslaved either.

This is not really the same- first off, there are records of slave sales, the Civil War, and all the primary sources during and shortly after slavery. Now, there literally is nothing besides the Bible for Hebrew enslavement. Of course, it's possible they were slaves- I mean, there's no way to disprove that. But, it's also totally possible that they were merely oppressed which, while still bad, technically isn't slavery.

[12th Doctor]

As a more in depth response, the terms "slave" and "servant" (with two separate definitions of that word) are often conflated in scripture.  To be someone's "slave" did not necessarily mean extremely harsh treatment, or even have any negative connotations in many cultures and languages, indeed, the word "slave" is often used by Paul to describe how people ought to relate to Christ... and is used by Christ to his Apostles in the last Supper (actually to make the point that he no longer thinks of them as "slaves").

All the records that we have indicate that the Hebrews started out as servants to Pharaoh... and the scriptures say this to be true.  The historical records indicate that the Hebrews were a warrior class, in Egypt, under the service of Pharaoh.  But according to the scriptures, this changed.  Because of our way of viewing the word, we probably think of it as being a little more harsh than the original writers had intended (like masses of Hebrews being whipped by an Egyptian foreman, while they move massive blocks of stone to erect the monuments)... based on the treatment of the Bible, its probably more closely intended to mean something like "Second Class Citizen".

But, when a warrior class has a "protection" agreement with a ruling power, historically, two things tend to happen... the warrior class eventually gets treated as less than, or the warriors want out of the "agreement" and the ruler says "no, no... you protect us, but we protect you" ("feudalism"), and then the relationship is severed.  So there is no reason to think that the same could not have happened to the Hebrews.

The bible is not a primary source, and their are various articles that attempt to claim that the jews were never enslaved by the egyptians. Basically I am looking for an historical piece that can provide proof that the jews weres slaves/servants/second class citzens or whatever. Until that proof arises,well than I guess the jews were never enslaved.

Well, I guess you just beat down all us religulous types with your iron logic.  Since no evidence exists to contradict the biblical account, and you won't accept that the Bible might contain a shred of historical accuracy, you win.  Unless you would like me to detail the number of times the Bible has been proven to be a fairly accurate historical account, and prepare a list of things thought to be "myths" or "lunacy" until they were proven correct.  I would do this purely as a courtesy of course, since the argument already belongs to you.

[Bo]

How about you ask God yourself.

[The Mikado]

I'd appreciate it if people stopped using "Jews," "Hebrews," and "Israelites" interchangeably.

[useful idiot]

What does it matter? If you're a non-Christian(which I'm assuming), then it shouldn't matter to you at all. It should only matter to a Christian or a Jew, so why don't you leave that to them and find something better to do with your time then try to put forth some stupid challenge like that,  that you know very well can't be proved, in order to get a silly point across?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

At the risk of sounding like an appalling modernist bigot... we know relatively little* about anything that happened (below an elite level) before the 1790s or so. As you go further back from that point, what's known slowly shrinks away until there's... well... essentially nothing, other than what can be worked out from the archaeological record. Which is, and no offense to archaeologists is intended here, not a lot. Of course when you're looking at information on events relating to elites, the pattern is much less ordered. But even so, after a certain point the amount of non-archaeological information starts drying up to almost nothing as well. Most events in the OT are way beyond that point.

In other words, this is a totally unreasonable question based on some seriously dubious assumptions.

*That is, compared to what we know about just about anything more recent. I mean, there's more primary information on living, housing and working conditions in ninteenth century Manchester than there is for the entire country at all times before then. Seriously.

[memphis]

Prove that blacks were held as slaves in the South without using available written accounts.

Stop trying to change the subject.

I wasn't.  My point is that "under class" history rarely becomes history at all, because they don't write their own accounts, their buildings don't last, etc, etc.

If we didn't have historical accounts of slavery, how would we ever know that it existed?  Do we have the chains?  Do we have the slave shacks?   Do we have the slave ships?  No.  And that was just 150 years ago.

Visit a museum sometime. There is a ton of non-written evidence for slavery, including some that you just mentioned. Also, there is a wealth of different historical sources for American slavery, but presumably only one for the Egyptian slavery. As a side note, I remember going to an ancient Egypt exhibit as a kid and being all indignant about Egypt because of all the Bible stuff.

[John Dibble]

Prove that blacks were held as slaves in the South without using available written accounts.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Hey, Supersoulty brings up a legitimate point. My history teacher a few years back said that you never know whether something really occured or not for sure unless you were there directly.

No, his point isn't legitimate and yours isn't either.

With some things you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be reasonably certain if there's enough evidence. When it comes to the history of slavery in the US we can be reasonably certain because we have that kind of evidence. Not only are there multiple written accounts, but those accounts are from independent sources and largely consistent with one another. There's also lots of physical evidence.

On the other hand there's the issue of whether or not the Hebrews were ever slaves to Egypt. The one source referenced is the Bible - it's account of that is one sided (written from the Hebrew perspective) and contains rather fantastical claim. If there's no other written accounts of physical evidence, it makes it so that you can't be reasonably certain that the event actually occurred. This is why it is legitimate to ask for evidence outside of the Biblical account.

[J. J.]

I think that there are Egyptian account as well.

[memphis]

Quoth wikipedia:
More than a century of archaeological research has discovered nothing which could support the narrative elements of the book of Exodus - the four centuries sojourn in Egypt, the escape of well over a million Israelites from the Delta, or the three months journey through the wilderness to Sinai.[16] The Egyptian records themselves have no mention of anything recorded in Exodus, the wilderness of the southern Sinai peninsula shows no traces of a mass-migration such as Exodus describes, and virtually all the place-names mentioned, including Goshen (the area within Egypt where the Israelites supposedly lived), the store-cities of Pithom and Rameses, the site of the crossing of the Red Sea, and even Mt Sinai itself, have resisted identification.[17] The archaeology of Palestine has equally failed to substantiate the Bible's account of the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites arriving from Egypt some forty years later - of the 31 cities supposedly conquered by Joshua, only one (Bethel) shows a destruction level that equates to the Biblical narrative, and there is general agreement that the origins of Israel lie within Canaan itself.[18] Even those scholars who hold the Exodus to represent historical truth concede that the most the evidence can suggest is plausibility.[19]

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I think that there are Egyptian account as well.

I am not trying to win or lose, and prove a point. Instead I am trying to learn about what happened.

There are only two things that i am certain of.
1. Egyptian did not use slaves to build the pyrmaids,but they did use slaves for other things.
2. There was a large jewish population that lived in egypt, and many of them stayed even after moses.
3. Some or just two pharoh's may have envyied the jews.

[The Mikado]

I think that there are Egyptian account as well.

I am not trying to win or lose, and prove a point. Instead I am trying to learn about what happened.

There are only two things that i am certain of.
1. Egyptian did not use slaves to build the pyrmaids,but they did use slaves for other things.
2. There was a large jewish population that lived in egypt, and many of them stayed even after moses.
3. Some or just two pharoh's may have envyied the jews.

The Bible never said anything about the Pyramids (which were there long before the usual dates for the Exodus).  It says the Hebrews (not Jews, stop doing that), built the great storehouses of Pithom and Rameses.  Whether or not that's true is a different question, but they certainly didn't build Giza.

I haven't done the research, so I don't want to shoot my mouth off, but the opinion seems to be shifting to the notion that a bunch of prominent Israelites had come from an Egyptian background and assimilated into the local Israelite tribes, who adopted their story as their own.  Hence the ridiculously gory invasion stories.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

There is no proof....you either believe it or your don't.  Dat simple.

[12th Doctor]

Visit a museum sometime. There is a ton of non-written evidence for slavery, including some that you just mentioned. Also, there is a wealth of different historical sources for American slavery, but presumably only one for the Egyptian slavery. As a side note, I remember going to an ancient Egypt exhibit as a kid and being all indignant about Egypt because of all the Bible stuff.

No, his point isn't legitimate and yours isn't either.

With some things you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be reasonably certain if there's enough evidence. When it comes to the history of slavery in the US we can be reasonably certain because we have that kind of evidence. Not only are there multiple written accounts, but those accounts are from independent sources and largely consistent with one another. There's also lots of physical evidence.

On the other hand there's the issue of whether or not the Hebrews were ever slaves to Egypt. The one source referenced is the Bible - it's account of that is one sided (written from the Hebrew perspective) and contains rather fantastical claim. If there's no other written accounts of physical evidence, it makes it so that you can't be reasonably certain that the event actually occurred. This is why it is legitimate to ask for evidence outside of the Biblical account.

Okay, lets reign this in here, alright. 

First, Rocam is a troll who likely isn't agreeing with me at all, but rather trying to delude me point by sounding like an idiot. 

Second, my point is not about some kind of nihilism, or "well, gee... if you can't prove it" type of thing... that's what Hoff is doing.  My point is that, in terms of physical, archeological evidence it's not all that unusual that there would be nothing remaining that could directly link the Hebrews to a "sevantile" life style, as evidence for under-class life rarely exists.  Yes, we certainly do have evidence of slavery in the South, but without through written records, we wouldn't know that much about what this evidence means.

Third, we do have written records about the status of the Hebrew peoples.  But the account of supposed under-class, which we are lucky to have at all, since usually it is only the more powerful group that gets to write the history, is completely ignored by people who grant the Bible no air of legitimacy and place the disproving and discrediting of it as the final goal of their quest, before they even know what evidence they will turn up.

Fourth, as I said, alot of the imagery that we associate with Exodus doesn't even come from the Bible, it comes from Hollywood.  Looking at Hoff's last post, he clearly thinks I think that there were large bands of Hebrew slaves who were treated as subhumans and erected all the great monuments of Egypt.  I said the opposite, and the Bible never portrays that as the case.  The Bible says "slave" but ancient languages were not as fine in their distinctions about "slaves" and "servants" (and the exact connotation of the word "servant" which can mean two things in our culture depending on the circumstances) as we are.  If you look at the condition of the Hebrews as it is portrayed in the scripture, it would seem closer to suggesting that, by the time of Moses, many of them were treated as second class citizens... not as harsh as Hollywood makes it out to be, but not good either.

Fifth, if you look at any other type of "warrior class" throughout history, a common theme seems to be that the warrior class starts out as welcomed, respected partners of the powers that be, and then eventually come to be treated as expendable, or under the "protection" of the king, as opposed to the other way around.

Sixth, any other exaggerations (not talking about the miracles here, but the numbers, the years the Israelites spent wondering, etc) in the text are just that... and God knows that other histories never exaggerate the details, right?

[12th Doctor]

3. Some or just two pharoh's may have envyied the jews.

Because that's never happened, that any group of people who were once invited, brought, or migrated into a country have quickly become reviled, right?

[12th Doctor]

And, BTW, a "million" is commonly used throughout the scriptures as a number simply meant to mean "alot".  Not a specific count.