The Exodus Myth

[Sherman Bay]

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—

So it is news to you that people make stuff up? Tell tall tales? Imagine things/places/animals/events that aren't there? Invent stories that explain what they don't understand, due to abysmal ignorance?

...there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—...

How has that been verified? What corroborating evidence do you have?

...the Torah goes back many centuries—...

So "old" means accurate?

...writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity.

No one made up stories that others passed along and believed? Remember, this is a religious tome, and religions have been able to pass along patently false information for centuries using the power of religion; the hold the clergy has upon the populace, especially when combined with the government and the military.

The account of how from some seventy people descended from one man Abraham, became such a large nation, is providentially quite unique.

The idea that the unicorn exists is quite unique, too. Does that mean it is true? If I make up a story about a million people, is that more believable than a story about a dozen? More impressive, maybe, and that may be the reason tall tales get inflated.

Paul Bunyan is more impressive if his camp cook used a skillet a mile across to cook bacon and pancakes. A 12 inch skillet isn't going to impress anyone. The whole Paul Bunyan story only makes sense if everything is exaggerated. Do you believe it is true?

Providence played a major role until the actual exodus began to take place in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the people that the Egyptians had enslaved go.

Now it's your turn to make stuff up. See how easy that was?

 

[Giordano]

No



We have direct evidence they were not enslaved after Egypt conquered the region for the third time in a matter of years. We have direct evidence of conditions in the area after the Egyptian and Hittite peace treaty was concluded. We have direct evidence Ramesses II never launched another military operation in the area till his death.

I just dont know what other information you need to be satisfied that the Jews were not enslaved.

I
think you are missing the whole point of my post. If you had quoted the rest of it you would have seen that I expressly agreed that the Hebrews were not enslaved in Egypt. My point was that they exiisted in a land close enough to Egypy to allow them to be captured and enslaved, just like Jesus existed in a time and place that he could have been crucified. There is very liitle real evidence that either happened.

 

[Rincewind]

No



We have direct evidence they were not enslaved after Egypt conquered the region for the third time in a matter of years. We have direct evidence of conditions in the area after the Egyptian and Hittite peace treaty was concluded. We have direct evidence Ramesses II never launched another military operation in the area till his death.

I just dont know what other information you need to be satisfied that the Jews were not enslaved.

Thanks MG1962 - a good summary.

 

[I Ratant]

You may not need to be convinced of the latter event. The expression in the Book of Exodus is Yam Suph which seems to mean "Sea of Reeds", not "Red Sea". Modern translations reflect this understanding. Where or what the Sea of Reeds may have been is a matter of vigorous contention. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph

.
Whereever it may have been, it would have had to remain "open" for about 6 days for the 120 mile long column of Hebrews to cross it... average walking speed being 20 miles per day. And alla them kids and animals would slow that some.

 

[I Ratant]

I have read it in the Bible, and tend to believe most of what is written, but now it appears that some doubt exists, to which I am unable to give any evidence at this exact time. The account does seem feasible, if we take what was written there could be no re-enactment.

.
The account as written is not feasible, logistically or demographically.
These problems with the account have been well discussed here.
The believer in the account has to find the errors in the discussion, not just bumper sticker it away.

 

[Craig B]

.
Whereever it may have been, it would have had to remain "open" for about 6 days for the 120 mile long column of Hebrews to cross it... average walking speed being 20 miles per day. And alla them kids and animals would slow that some.

So? You said:

But it would be a lot harder to convince me the Red Sea was parted by God.

You don't have to be convinced of that. You have to be convinced that the Sea of Reeds was parted by God.

 

[HansMustermann]

Why would that be any easier to swallow? Whatever the "sea of reeds" may have been, it is made clear that it involved enough water to drown an army when it came back into place.

Exodus 14:27-29: "27. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing towardc it, and the Lord swept them into the sea. 28. The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. 29. But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left."

So it's not like the Lord just parted a field of reeds. A wall of water is specifically mentioned.

 

[Craig B]

Why would that be any easier to swallow? Whatever the "sea of reeds" may have been, it is made clear that it involved enough water to drown an army when it came back into place.

Absolutely. I'm just saying, not Red Sea. Sea of Reeds.

 

[pakeha]

Not at all. The word is correct here in a broad sense. See wiki. This isn't part of my note on Exodus. But this most certainly is. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

OK. In any case, there are still people today who believe the Exodus story really happened. After all, they made a movie about it, right? Right?

.
Whereever it may have been, it would have had to remain "open" for about 6 days for the 120 mile long column of Hebrews to cross it... average walking speed being 20 miles per day. And alla them kids and animals would slow that some.

Logistics. Gotta love logistics.

 

[MG1962]

I
think you are missing the whole point of my post.

Tell me why the information I gave you still allows for the Hebrews to be enslaved?

 

[MG1962]

Why would that be any easier to swallow? Whatever the "sea of reeds" may have been, it is made clear that it involved enough water to drown an army when it came back into place.

Because it changes the geography and course of the Exodus itself. If as some have suggested it relates to a series of extinct lakes near the coast, it presents the alternative of a much more direct route taken by those fleeing.

 

[HansMustermann]

Because it changes the geography and course of the Exodus itself. If as some have suggested it relates to a series of extinct lakes near the coast, it presents the alternative of a much more direct route taken by those fleeing.

Well, I was talking specifically about the parting of the Red/Reed sea, and specifically about whether moving the event to a different sea makes it easier to swallow. I'm pretty sure that parting the waters of a small lake would still count as a major miracle, regardless of which route they took to that place.

Plus, if if I were to talk about it making the whole exodus more palatable, it would still not get us anywhere, since, as you already agreed, there is enough other stuff going against it anyway. Regardless of route.

 

[Leumas]

Why would that be any easier to swallow? Whatever the "sea of reeds" may have been, it is made clear that it involved enough water to drown an army when it came back into place.

Exodus 14:27-29: "27. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing towardc it, and the Lord swept them into the sea. 28. The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. 29. But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left."

So it's not like the Lord just parted a field of reeds. A wall of water is specifically mentioned.

I made that exact same point a long while ago in another post here quoted below.


Also another point, any land crossing would have taken them directly into the many Egyptian FORTRESSES that dotted the area from Egypt to Israel.

Also notice the end of the quoted post... I think that Yam Soof did actually mean Red Sea. It was a term used to mean the Red sea rather than the combined meaning of the individual words taken separately

Another problem with translating as Sea Of Rushes is that Pharaoh would NOT have drowned in it much less his army....maybe the Chariots may have bogged down....but I am sure the army could have pursued the runaway slaves on foot.

In my opinion the words Yam Soof are just the way the ancient Hebrews referred to the body of water that is now called Red Sea.

ETA: In modern Hebrew Soof means END (noun)..... so Yam Soof could have meant the End Sea in ancient Hebrew.....ie the end of the land or the Border Sea??? which for Egypt would be the Red Sea??

Here is a map




Moreover, even the Bible itself says (Exodus 13:17) that god took them on the longer root (i.e. across to the Sinai then through to Jordan and then across the Jordan River to Israel) rather than the land crossing because he was afraid they might be too frightened if they saw the Philistines (i.e. Gaza area) they would run back to Egypt and refuse to follow Moses any longer.


Here is the old post

The words translated as Red Sea are Yam Soof (יַם-סוּף)....

Yam = sea.

Now Soof is translated as Red....but see below

The word consistently translated as Reed elsewhere in the Tanakh is the word Kaneh (קָנֶה).

The word translated in the KJV of the Bible as Marshes is Agameem (אֲגַמִּים)....but it is translated in the JPS Tanakh as Castles

Now the words Yam Soof are actually used very consistently whenever there is reference to the Red Sea.

There are many words for Red in the bible but NONE are Soof...e.g. Adummeem (אֲדֻמִּים).

There is ONE place I found in the Tanakh where there is the word SooF (סוּף) used not in reference to the Red Sea.

In Isaiah 19:6 the word is translated as Rushes in the KJV and Flags in the JPS official Tanakh in English.

(KJV) Isaiah 19:6 The canals will stink; he streams of Egypt will dwindle and dry up. The reeds and rushes will wither.

(JPS Tanakh)Isaiah 19:6 And the rivers shall become foul; the streams of Egypt shall be minished and dried up; the reeds and flags shall wither.

וְהֶאֶזְנִיחוּ נְהָרוֹת, דָּלְלוּ וְחָרְבוּ יְאֹרֵי מָצוֹר; קָנֶה וָסוּף, קָמֵלוּ


(KJV) Exodus 13:1818 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea.[a] The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle.

(JPS Tanakh)Exodus 13:18 But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.

וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

So it can be argued that the Red Sea was actually meant to be Sea Of Rushes.

Nevertheless, notice how the JPS Tanakh translates the words as Red Sea (above).

It can be argued of course that the words Yam Soof in fact are just what the Ancient Hebrews called the Red Sea....since the word Red Sea is not an ancient reference to the sea.

Another problem with translating as Sea Of Rushes is that Pharaoh would NOT have drowned in it much less his army....maybe the Chariots may have bogged down....but I am sure the army could have pursued the runaway slaves on foot.

In my opinion the words Yam Soof are just the way the ancient Hebrews referred to the body of water that is now called Red Sea.

Of course the whole thing is a moot point since the whole thing is a MYTH that never occurred.

For the fundamentalist......how do they reconcile:

• Bad translations in the supposed word of god?
• The elimination of the miracle of parting the Red Sea where now it becomes just crossing a swamp?

ETA: In modern Hebrew Soof means END (noun)..... so Yam Soof could have meant the End Sea in ancient Hebrew.....ie the end of the land or the Border Sea??? which for Egypt would be the Red Sea??

 

[MG1962]

Well, I was talking specifically about the parting of the Red/Reed sea, and specifically about whether moving the event to a different sea makes it easier to swallow. I'm pretty sure that parting the waters of a small lake would still count as a major miracle, regardless of which route they took to that place.

Plus, if if I were to talk about it making the whole exodus more palatable, it would still not get us anywhere, since, as you already agreed, there is enough other stuff going against it anyway. Regardless of route.

Most great legends have little kernels of truth hidden in them. Sometimes those kernels can give hints to the origins of the story. It is reasonable to assume Exodus did not spring into life fully formed. Perhaps the original tellings of the story (unrecorded) pointed to a more conventional story.

 

[Leumas]

Because it changes the geography and course of the Exodus itself. If as some have suggested it relates to a series of extinct lakes near the coast, it presents the alternative of a much more direct route taken by those fleeing.

Even the Bible itself says (Exodus 13:17) that god took them on the longer root (i.e. across to the Sinai then through to Jordan and then across the Jordan River to Israel) rather than the land crossing because he was afraid they might be too frightened if they saw the Philistines (i.e. Gaza area) they would run back to Egypt and refuse to follow Moses any longer.

Besides that whole coastal area has been excavated and they found many fortresses mostly Egyptian ones though not Philistine, though some might have been manned by Philistine garrisons.

Exodus 13:17

And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:​

 

[Leumas]

Most great legends have little kernels of truth hidden in them. Sometimes those kernels can give hints to the origins of the story. It is reasonable to assume Exodus did not spring into life fully formed. Perhaps the original tellings of the story (unrecorded) pointed to a more conventional story.

Maybe Joseph Smith really met an angel called whatever but there was no golden tablets.

Maybe L. R. Hubbard saw the remains of an alien ship in a volcano and built upon that to create his myths.

Maybe Harry Potter was really just an orphan boy who lived with his nasty uncle and he had telekinesis powers but was not really a wizard who went to Hogwarts.

Maybe Watson just exaggerated a real private detective in London in the 1880's who was clever but not really that amazing.

Maybe Tolkien found some archives about Middle Earth and then he made up the Rings stuff.

Zeus may have been an alien who had a phaser gun but they made a legend about him being a god who shoots lightning?

Maybe there was really a Hercules ala the movie in the cinemas now... I liked the movie it was nicely done.

Why can't a legend be just a myth created wholesale for a purpose of something or another…. people have done and are still doing that throughout history.

In my opinion one of the reasons the Exodus tale was spun was to make the intended audience hate Egypt, but yet ignore any commonality they might have had in customs and habits to Egyptians as vestiges of the old days of SLAVERY when they lived in Egypt.

In other words the tall tale served the Propaganda of telling the intended audience

Ignore any commonality you might see in your culture and habits and language to the Egyptian ones, they come from when you were oppressed and enslaved by those nasty bastards.
The Pharaohs of Egypt wanted to kill you and always will want to do so again.
So don’t ever think about allying with them.​

Whom do you think such propaganda might serve?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—the Torah goes back many centuries—writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity.
The account of how from some seventy people descended from one man Abraham, became such a large nation, is providentially quite unique.
Providence played a major role until the actual exodus began to take place in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the people that the Egyptians had enslaved go.

What I see here is how Yahweh is dependent on people to carry out his prophesies---but let us not go there now>

Still stuck on circular reasoning.

You believe "þͤ Fludde" happened, not because there is practical, physical, empirical, objective evidence that it happened, but because it is "in the book".

You believe the rape of Egypt, and the "exodus" happened, not because there is practical, physical, empirical, objective evidence that it happened, but because it is "in the book".

You are happy to reject actual evidence, to (attempt to) gainsay reality, in order to accept the unsupported stories in your comic.

 

[I Ratant]

Joe, Mary and the Kid walked to Egypt in what... 2 weeks,.. and then walked back. Along the route Joseph took when his brothers sold him. Etc.
The coastal route was well traveled by all the armies that manuvered in the area, among other things.
The diversion into the Sinai... WTF?

 

[Giordano]

Tell me why the information I gave you still allows for the Hebrews to be enslaved?

What is the problem? I've told you many times I don't believe the Hebrews were enslaved based on the information I have! I don't think that they were, and I doubt there is any such evidence. I was just indicating that their location and time would allow this, but it did not happen. Just as you pointed out that Jesus's location and time would have allowed him to be crucified. But a suitable location and time does not mean it happened. It is not evidence of the event itself. Lincoln visited Gettysburg, but that doesn't mean he manned a canon there.

Please if you quote me again, use my entire post this time? It might clarify what I am really saying.

 

[Giordano]

Because it changes the geography and course of the Exodus itself. If as some have suggested it relates to a series of extinct lakes near the coast, it presents the alternative of a much more direct route taken by those fleeing.

I thought you, like me, believe it never happened. If it never happened, it could not have happened many ways.