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

[memphis]

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

While they're wandering around in the desert, they do a census (hence, the tite of the book Numbers). Just the men over twenty (and not including the Levites) are 603,550. That's a pretty precise number, and once you consider women and children, the total number of people in the narrative is almost certainly over one million.

[12th Doctor]

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

While they're wandering around in the desert, they do a census (hence, the tite of the book Numbers). Just the men over twenty (and not including the Levites) are 603,550. That's a pretty precise number, and once you consider women and children, the total number of people in the narrative is almost certainly over one million.

That number might have some numerological significance that is lost to us today.  I don' know that for certain, I am simply throwing that out there.

The Bible is replete with numerology.

[memphis]

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

While they're wandering around in the desert, they do a census (hence, the tite of the book Numbers). Just the men over twenty (and not including the Levites) are 603,550. That's a pretty precise number, and once you consider women and children, the total number of people in the narrative is almost certainly over one million.

That number might have some numerological significance that is lost to us today.  I don' know that for certain, I am simply throwing that out there.

The Bible is replete with numerology.

Has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is whether there were a million people in the narrative. There almost certainly is. While I agree with you that numerology is huge in the Bible, that hardly lends it a air of credibility.

[12th Doctor]

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

While they're wandering around in the desert, they do a census (hence, the tite of the book Numbers). Just the men over twenty (and not including the Levites) are 603,550. That's a pretty precise number, and once you consider women and children, the total number of people in the narrative is almost certainly over one million.

That number might have some numerological significance that is lost to us today.  I don' know that for certain, I am simply throwing that out there.

The Bible is replete with numerology.

Has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is whether there were a million people in the narrative. There almost certainly is. While I agree with you that numerology is huge in the Bible, that hardly lends it a air of credibility.

Yeah, it does have to do with the point, because the argument being posited is that the entire account can be thrown out because of the accuracy, and improbability of some of the specific figures.  That's a load of trash.  "Authoritative" from this same time period, and until well up into the Middle Ages, exaggerate and alter numbers all of the time.

[Mechaman]

This is a stupid thread.

I have many reasons to doubt God's existence, but wasting time to ponder over such a pointless question as whether or not the Israelites, Jews, Hebrews, Jacob's children, whatever the hell they were called back then were held as slaves by the Ancient Egyptians isn't one of them.

I mean really.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

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?

It happened a lot in those days,and it was very common for groups to simply leave a society in an attempt to find a better environment. you talk about the Hebrews as being treated as second class citizens, but is their any non-biblical source that can show me this? if not than can you at least present an article that can tell me how second class citizens were treated? Perhaps it will be impossible to know if the hebrews were treated as second class, but there has to be some good evidence of other groups being treated has second class citizens. Thus learning about another group being treated as second class may give us some clues as to what it must have been like, and it will allow us to compare and contrast with the biblical account.

[John Dibble]

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.

I did not put any weight of his point onto yours. I did however address both.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the written records are important. Nobody is denying that. The point being made for American slavery is that there are multiple independent accounts with a high degree of consistency. Those three factors - multiple, independent, and consistent - are very important in how much weight we give the written accounts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What written records do we have that are independent of the Bible do we have exactly? If we have them, you should be able to reference them.

Again, a singular account for such major events, which supposedly spanned centuries, is not sufficient for reasonable belief. If I were to write an account of an entirely fictional major event, bury it in a sealed box somewhere, and historians find it a thousand years later do you think they'd believe it just because it was written? No, of course they wouldn't. Confirmation beyond a singular text is necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That has no relevance to this discussion. It has zero bearing on the evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Biblical account clearly states that they were not being allowed to leave. This implies coercion, in other words forced servitude. If that does not constitute slavery then what does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not relevant to the actual evidence of whether or not it actually happened. Just because something is plausible doesn't mean it's true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exaggerations in the Biblical account are an important consideration. If they are indeed exaggerations then that means the account is tainted. This is why it important to have multiple independent sources with a degree of consistency - it helps you weed out the falsehoods from the facts. This is no different than what historians try to do with other written histories.

[12th Doctor]

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.

I did not put any weight of his point onto yours. I did however address both.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the written records are important. Nobody is denying that. The point being made for American slavery is that there are multiple independent accounts with a high degree of consistency. Those three factors - multiple, independent, and consistent - are very important in how much weight we give the written accounts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What written records do we have that are independent of the Bible do we have exactly? If we have them, you should be able to reference them.

Again, a singular account for such major events, which supposedly spanned centuries, is not sufficient for reasonable belief. If I were to write an account of an entirely fictional major event, bury it in a sealed box somewhere, and historians find it a thousand years later do you think they'd believe it just because it was written? No, of course they wouldn't. Confirmation beyond a singular text is necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That has no relevance to this discussion. It has zero bearing on the evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Biblical account clearly states that they were not being allowed to leave. This implies coercion, in other words forced servitude. If that does not constitute slavery then what does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not relevant to the actual evidence of whether or not it actually happened. Just because something is plausible doesn't mean it's true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exaggerations in the Biblical account are an important consideration. If they are indeed exaggerations then that means the account is tainted. This is why it important to have multiple independent sources with a degree of consistency - it helps you weed out the falsehoods from the facts. This is no different than what historians try to do with other written histories.

The reason I am arguing specifics about the account is because, historically, it has been pretty well established that the Hebrews were in Egypt, for some reason, for a long time.  You do realize that right?  We can further extrapolate that they likely had the status of a "warrior class" in Egypt for some time.  Thus, the only discussion that is debatable is whether their status in Egypt degenerated over time, or if they just up and left, because they could, or because they were more powerful.  And then, if so, how much had their status degenerated.  This is why it is important to make the point that the Bible never states that the future Israelites were being used as mass slave labor to build the monuments of Egypt, the way that Hollywood portrays it, and that connotations of the word "slave" were quite variable in ancient times.

As for numbers inflation being proof that the Bible is spinning a total yarn... I guess accounts that attest to the existence of the Battle of Thermopylae should be thrown away completely as well, because they claim the Persian Army to have numbered over 1,000,000 men (Herodotus puts the number at almost 2 million)... a near impossibility.

[J. J.]

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]

I think you are confusing the Exodus with if Israelites were slaves in Egypt.  Those are two different questions.

Here is some evidence relating to a people named the Habiru or possibly the Shasu.

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

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As for numbers inflation being proof that the Bible is spinning a total yarn... I guess accounts that attest to the existence of the Battle of Thermopylae should be thrown away completely as well, because they claim the Persian Army to have numbered over 1,000,000 men (Herodotus puts the number at almost 2 million)... a near impossibility.

To say nothing of Roman accounts which, if taken at face value, appear to indicate that they committed genocide every single time they won a battle.

If we're looking at the OT as a primary source for serious history, then there's only one way it which it can be considered; as the collected oral history and traditions of one particular society.

[afleitch]

As for numbers inflation being proof that the Bible is spinning a total yarn... I guess accounts that attest to the existence of the Battle of Thermopylae should be thrown away completely as well, because they claim the Persian Army to have numbered over 1,000,000 men (Herodotus puts the number at almost 2 million)... a near impossibility.

To say nothing of Roman accounts which, if taken at face value, appear to indicate that they committed genocide every single time they won a battle.

If we're looking at the OT as a primary source for serious history, then there's only one way it which it can be considered; as the collected oral history and traditions of one particular society.

It's not even that- its the oral history/traditions of a priveliged and semi-literate elite which is subject to manipulation in order to support power structures. It's worth very little as oral history.

(Of course I'm a bit of a 'marxist' in my approach to things like that... )

[John Dibble]

The reason I am arguing specifics about the account is because, historically, it has been pretty well established that the Hebrews were in Egypt, for some reason, for a long time.  You do realize that right?

No, I don't, because aside from a singular account with rather fantastical claims I have not seen any evidence for it. If you would care to reference some of this evidence it would help your case immensely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This extrapolation should be based on evidence. Again, please reference it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, Hollywood's interpretation is not relevant. The Biblical account clearly indicates that they were in a second class position of service and that they weren't being allowed to leave - this is pretty much the definition slavery. That they might not have been used to build monuments is not relevant. The question is whether or not it is true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not totally throwing out the Biblical account - I think many portions of the Bible are at least based on historical events, just with some stuff thrown in or exaggerated. What's being asking for is independent verification of the account that is consistent enough to make the facts in question credible. The Battle of Thermopylae has multiple accounts as well, and I'm pretty sure there are at least some Persian accounts as well as Greek, so while we can't be sure of the actual numbers we can be reasonably sure the battle occurred.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not even that- its the oral history/traditions of a priveliged and semi-literate elite which is subject to manipulation in order to support power structures. It's worth very little as oral history.

Well, yeah. Though it isn't any different to anything else from that period in that regard. Reality is, that if we're looking for hard-ish facts from that period, the only thing out there is archaeology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inverted commas being important as no marxist historian without them thinks that any oral history has any worth

[12th Doctor]

The reason I am arguing specifics about the account is because, historically, it has been pretty well established that the Hebrews were in Egypt, for some reason, for a long time.  You do realize that right?

No, I don't, because aside from a singular account with rather fantastical claims I have not seen any evidence for it. If you would care to reference some of this evidence it would help your case immensely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This extrapolation should be based on evidence. Again, please reference it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, Hollywood's interpretation is not relevant. The Biblical account clearly indicates that they were in a second class position of service and that they weren't being allowed to leave - this is pretty much the definition slavery. That they might not have been used to build monuments is not relevant. The question is whether or not it is true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not totally throwing out the Biblical account - I think many portions of the Bible are at least based on historical events, just with some stuff thrown in or exaggerated. What's being asking for is independent verification of the account that is consistent enough to make the facts in question credible. The Battle of Thermopylae has multiple accounts as well, and I'm pretty sure there are at least some Persian accounts as well as Greek, so while we can't be sure of the actual numbers we can be reasonably sure the battle occurred.

*Sigh*

Starting from very early on, we have accounts in the historical record of a people called the "Habiru" (Hittite accounts) or the "Apiru" (in Egyptian accounts)... both names being a tiny linguistic jump to "Hebrew".  The Apiru are attested in the Egyptian accounts, first as an outside force or warriors.  But somewhere in around mid-2nd millennium BC, this changes.  Suddenly, the Egyptian historians have the "Apiru" as being both servants, serfs, a warriors fighting for the Pharaohs (with figures for the numbers of "Apiru" used in specific tasks ranging in the thousands).  Then suddenly... they just disappear from the accounts, and aren't mentioned again.

[Хahar 🤔]

Inverted commas

Is that what you call them?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Inverted commas

Is that what you call them?

Yes.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The reason I am arguing specifics about the account is because, historically, it has been pretty well established that the Hebrews were in Egypt, for some reason, for a long time.  You do realize that right?

No, I don't, because aside from a singular account with rather fantastical claims I have not seen any evidence for it. If you would care to reference some of this evidence it would help your case immensely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This extrapolation should be based on evidence. Again, please reference it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, Hollywood's interpretation is not relevant. The Biblical account clearly indicates that they were in a second class position of service and that they weren't being allowed to leave - this is pretty much the definition slavery. That they might not have been used to build monuments is not relevant. The question is whether or not it is true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not totally throwing out the Biblical account - I think many portions of the Bible are at least based on historical events, just with some stuff thrown in or exaggerated. What's being asking for is independent verification of the account that is consistent enough to make the facts in question credible. The Battle of Thermopylae has multiple accounts as well, and I'm pretty sure there are at least some Persian accounts as well as Greek, so while we can't be sure of the actual numbers we can be reasonably sure the battle occurred.

*Sigh*

Starting from very early on, we have accounts in the historical record of a people called the "Habiru" (Hittite accounts) or the "Apiru" (in Egyptian accounts)... both names being a tiny linguistic jump to "Hebrew".  The Apiru are attested in the Egyptian accounts, first as an outside force or warriors.  But somewhere in around mid-2nd millennium BC, this changes.  Suddenly, the Egyptian historians have the "Apiru" as being both servants, serfs, a warriors fighting for the Pharaohs (with figures for the numbers of "Apiru" used in specific tasks ranging in the thousands).  Then suddenly... they just disappear from the accounts, and aren't mentioned again.

The word Apiru could have also been a simple word for bandit, and the meaning of this word is sometimes debated by scholars. we have been talking for a long time about this but do you have any good articles that you can link me to so i can read up on the "Apiru"?

[John Dibble]

*Sigh*

I know, having to back up your claims with evidence is really annoying, isn't it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As has been mentioned, this seems to be a topic that's under debate. The word could have been used to describe a generic type of group rather than a singular ethnic group, though any such group might take on that name in the long run.

The disappearance from the accounts has other explanations as well. The term may have simply faded from use if it was a generic term for specific types of people, which is something that happens with language. Alternatively, the group may simply have been wiped out or just integrated completely into regular society.

Certainly it's a point of interest - not trying to discredit it, only pointing out the other options. I think we'd need to have more evidence to know conclusively, otherwise all we have is educated speculation at best. We may very well never know, given the difficulty in finding that kind of thing for things that happened so long ago.

[12th Doctor]

Let's suppose the "Apiru" is nothing but a word for a bandit of some kind... that would be nothing like English, then, right?  I mean, when people vandalize something, we don't named the act after some group of people.

[12th Doctor]

Certainly, our "slaves" aren't named after some group of people... I mean, that would be ridiculous, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know... the first one is obvious enough.

[John Dibble]

From the wiki article on Habiru:

You must be logged in to read this quote.