4 ms·

Can you supply archaelogical, or historical proof that Moses existed as a real person? The egyptians kept stellar records and there's no record of 100k people

Can you supply archaelogical, or historical proof that Moses existed as a real person? The egyptians kept stellar records and there's no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. It's hard to fathom that'd go unnoticed. It's also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would've lived...so how can that be infallible if it's passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The egyptians kept stellar records The best evidence is that the egyptians were very biased in what was recorded in ways that would be likely to have survived (triumphs, yes, defeats, not so much) and that even when things were recorded, events and persons who later fell into disfavor were actively eradicated from the kind of durable, monumental records that would be most likely to survive. > and there’s no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. What 20 mile stretch of land are you talking about? With the classical (but probably wrong) association of the Yam Suph with the Gulf of Suez, the “wilderness” would have been (or at least started) on the Sinai Peninsual, which is more than 20 miles in either dimension. (There’s a number of other interpretations of the Yam Suph, including the Gulf of Aqaba, which would have put the wilderness in (again, starting in) Arabia. (There’s good reasons to doubt the Exodus story, but you’ve completely missed the real ones: while the absence of records of the actual Exodus is much less surprising than you make, the absence of evidence of anything like the population that supposedly took part in it ever existing in Egypt at any time in order to leave in the Exodus is the big one.) > It’s also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would’ve lived…so how can that be infallible if it’s passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game? Societies with high literacy may not be good at maintaining stable oral traditions, but those without it are known to be. Even if that weren’t true, mundane written documents aren’t infallible either, believing in infallible writing usually involves invoking a special divine gift of inspiration. But if that works for writing, there’s no reason it can’t work for oral tradition, or for writing that is remote from events.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The egyptians kept stellar records The best evidence is that the egyptians were very biased in what was recorded in ways that would be likely to have survived (triumphs, yes, defeats, not so much) and that even when things were recorded, events and persons who later fell into disfavor were actively eradicated from the kind of durable, monumental records that would be most likely to survive. > and there’s no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. What 20 mile stretch of land are you talking about? With the classical (but probably wrong) association of the Yam Suph with the Gulf of Suez, the “wilderness” would have been (or at least started) on the Sinai Peninsual, which is more than 20 miles in either dimension. (There’s a number of other interpretations of the Yam Suph, including the Gulf of Aqaba, which would have put the wilderness in (again, starting in) Arabia. (There’s good reasons to doubt the Exodus story, but you’ve completely missed the real ones: while the absence of records of the actual Exodus is much less surprising than you make, the absence of evidence of anything like the population that supposedly took part in it ever existing in Egypt at any time in order to leave in the Exodus is the big one.) > It’s also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would’ve lived…so how can that be infallible if it’s passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game? Societies with high literacy may not be good at maintaining stable oral traditions, but those without it are known to be. Even if that weren’t true, mundane written documents aren’t infallible either, believing in infallible writing usually involves invoking a special divine gift of inspiration. But if that works for writing, there’s no reason it can’t work for oral tradition, or for writing that is remote from events.