Does egyptian history conflict with bible history
by ninja_matty69 46 Replies latest members adult
-
-
King Solomon
Nancy Drew said:
Check out Gobekli tepe in turkey that will really give you some conflict.
Wow, that site is really in horrid shape. Isn't that signs of water damage, I see? What better proof than seeing water damage, likely due to be submerged in Noah's flood?
-
cofty
We will avoid discussing the flood in detail as this is documented elsewhere in section 7.15.
Can't wait.
-
King Solomon
We will avoid discussing the flood in detail as this is documented elsewhere in section 7.15.
Well, when you do, consider Historical evidence against Noah's Flood
(atrocious spelling, but valid points)
-
NOLAW
the first commonly accepted pharaoh known as Menes ruled around the year 3098 BCE. Other rulers are said to have ruled before him but most accept these are mythical or names of the gods of Egypt.
Thi s bad archaeology! The more we dig the more deeper we go in time. Actually it is exactly the opposite: famous rulers give rise to myths and are deified.
At this point I would like to stress how similar sounds the name of the first king of Crete: Minos. We are talking of the one and the same person = Manu of Hinduism (the progenitor of mankind, and also the very first king to rule this earth, who saved mankind from the universal flood) = Noah of the bible =? Manco of Incas.
-
Leolaia
The OP imo has little conception of Egyptian chronology as it is in the 21st century and seems to labor under a biblical inerrency bias that pits uninspired secular sources against sacred scripture and concludes that the latter is inherently superior. In reality, Egyptian chronology is not built on a dead reckoning of fragmentary, erroneous, contradictory king lists and canons, but is fixed in its outlines by 1) absolute dates obtained from astronomical observations and calibrated radiocarbon dating, 2) a relative chronology based on monumental and inscriptional evidence, pottery assemblages, architectural features, etc., and 3) synchronisms between Egypt and material cultures elsewhere (such as in the Aegean or sites in the Levant), as well as with independently established chronologies (such as those of Anatolia, Ugarit, or Mesopotamia). These weave together to the extent that the pieces fit largely into a coherent picture that would be disrupted if the outlines of Egyptian chronology are altered dramatically. The situation is not one of utter chaos but one in which multiple lines of evidence converge to a great extent. Then the data from king lists, monuments, and inscriptions can be mapped into the broader chronology, but because of the nature of the evidence there will always be lacunae and uncertainties in the details, but that does not affect the overall picture. You cannot move the whole chronology around on the order of several hundreds of years (as one might do who believes there was a global Flood in c. 2350 BC) without creating massive disorder to what is overall a coherent picture. There is a reason why the standard model is the concensus view: it is the best solution to the available data that we have at the present time.
The only reason one would think the Bible trumps "secular" evidence is the belief that the Bible is a super-speshul divinely-inspired book that could contain no error. That is something that is a matter of faith; it isn't a material fact. In reality, the relevant books in the OT date many hundreds of years after the time of the supposed Egyptian "sojourn" (the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is another faith-based tradition that is not supported by facts), and indeed reflect that distance in time (e.g. while the pharaohs of the sixth century BC are named in the OT, the pharaohs of Genesis and Exodus are always anonymous). So when Genesis refers to a place called "Ramesses", that doesn't mean that the pharaohs who bore that name must have lived hundreds of years earlier than they supposedly lived, it just means that the writer used a name that was common at the time he wrote; the original name of Pi-Ramesses was Avaris. There is actually very little in the Bible that could assist Egyptian chronology, as it only talks about the people and culture in rather vague terms. The Bible also does not spell out a clear, unified chronology; one must be constructed out of the data in the text, and the data is often difficult to interpret and contradictory. The common decision to split the 430 years as time spent in both Canaan and Egypt (shortening the span to only 215 years to better accommodate the few number of generations) is one hermeneutical device that arose in Hellenistic chronography (which appears also in the NT) that overrides what is actually stated in the text. There is little reason to regard the time span figures indicated in the text as unassailable when other stated numbers (such as the incredible ages of the patriarchs or the inflated numbers of Israelites in the wandering narratives) are not historically credible.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Leo provides yet another edjumakashunal smackdown!
Yeah Leo & "folding chair of truth"!
-
Finkelstein
One theory finds similarities between the Egyptian god Horus and Jesus. Writer Gerald Massey argued that the deity of Horus and Jesus shared identical mythological origins in his 1907 book Ancient Egypt, the light of the world. [12] W. Ward Gasque conducted a world-wide poll of twenty Egyptologists to verify if there was any academic support for these claims. The scholars dismissed several of the claimed parallels. One scholar cautioned that "[e]gyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets." [13] Massey's views have been expanded upon by Toronto Star columnist Tom Harpur , author Acharya S , political comedian Bill Maher , and the British Broadcasting Company
Another theory involving Egyptian origins of the Jesus story points to parallels with the god Osiris. Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge suggests possible connections or parallels in Osiris' resurrection story with those found in Christianity :
"The Egyptians of every period in which they are known to us believed that Osiris was of divine origin, that he suffered death and mutilation at the hands of the powers of evil, that after a great struggle with these powers he rose again, that he became henceforth the king of the underworld and judge of the dead, and that because he had conquered death the righteous also might conquer death...In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ , and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child." [18]
Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger notes that in one account of the Osirian cycle he dies on the 17th of the month of Athyr (approximating to a month between October 28 and November 26 in modern calendars), is revivified on the 19th and compares this to Christ rising on the "third day" but thinks "resurrection" is a questionable description. [19] In contrast, Christ Myth proponent George Albert Wells refers to Plutarch's account and asserts that Osiris dies and is mourned on the first day and that his resurrection is celebrated on the third day with the joyful cry "Osiris has been found". He also argues that St. Paul's comparison of bodily resurrection with a seed being planted, and corn then growing (1 Cor 15:35-38), is based on Ancient Egyptian concepts in which the germinating seeds in Osiris beds represent resurrection. [20]
-
MrFreeze
Well the Egyptians never enslaved an entire race of people. They never suffered the fallout from a massive slave labor force leaving. The people who built the great Egyptian structures were well compensated Egyptians. Zero proof of a million nomads wandering through the desert. That's all you need to know.
-
Finkelstein
Mythological plagiarism in ancient times was a probable and most likely possibility
