The Red Sea is parting again, but this time Moses doesn’t have a hand in it.

I doubt Moses was fictional. I am sure that as per my post (above) emerging archeological evidence and improving current corrupted dating techniques now used in Egyptology will discredit the current chronological dates used to discredit the biblical account of the Exodus. Already much better document verification methods are being employed to challenge anti-biblical opinions of the Exodus, hopefully putting a cork in the mouth of instigators and others intent on discrediting Christianity.

Something else to think about ; even fiction usually contains a bit of truth with that in mind I am sure Moses existed and the Exodus story was accurate (as per the bible) which contains not a bit, but a megabit of truth [sic].

reva

 

No error it clear states Sea of Reeds in Hebrew....

 

Wrong Gods.

 

I do believe there was, but it is not quite what most people think of in reality.

The wars with and eviction of the Hyksos is a historical fact, and most chronicles called them "Shepard Kings", and stone carvings show them in striped multi-colored clothing (which regionally was only seen in the proto-Hebrews of the period). According to Egyptian texts, these were migrants that moved in from the lands of Canaan generations before, then were evicted.

I believe that what has been passed down in the Bible is a "Hebrew Spin" of those events, after being part of an oral tradition for hundreds of years prior to being written down. And the migrants who were thrown out changed to people who had become slaves and then were delivered from freedom by God.

And this is traditional in any kind of history prior to it being written down. It is estimated that at a minimum that at a minimum 600 (to as many as 1,600) years had passed between the events as they happened, and they were written down. That is a long time for things to change almost beyond recognition.

 

................................

 

The Hyksos were more likely Hurrians from Northern Iraq. .. who used superior bronze weapons, chariots and composite bows.

 

The Hyksos were not a single people, but composed of many groups from the region. Some of the surviving Egyptian descriptions in face specifically mention one of them was the "Chieftan of Canaan", yet another is mentioned as the descendant of the Assyrian Royal Family. And they were often described as "Hordes", implying much like the "Barbarian Hordes" that struck Rome that this was not a single group, but multiple groups that pushed up against their borders.

As a group they were also often called the "Shepherd Kings", implying that this was not a single unified group, but many forced together.

Myself, I look at a lot of history prior to 1000 CE as a history of human migrations. At that time a large percentage of the planet's population were still nomadic, and when their wanderings brought them up against the more "civilized" city dwellers, war often followed. And many times even these wanderers were once more civilized, pushed out of their lands by other wanderers. Franks, Gauls, Goths, Ostragoths, Visigoths, Dani, Varangians, Burgundians, Rus, Vandals, most of the "Tribes" we recognize today as "European" were actually Asian originally, pushed out to the West by the group that would eventually follow them into Europe, the Huns.

And one thing that is often true, is those of a more dynamic culture often make developments that the more sedate cultures do not. Like the Chinese, the Egyptians became rather moribund, with their civilization changing little over thousands of years. Egypt indeed was one of the first to develop the Chariot. However, these were heavy, normally pulled by oxen for trade. The Hyksos did bring them the "War Chariot" though.

As for the Composite Bow, that would not have been likely in Egypt because as a culture they were not "bowmen". Much like the Greeks and Romans who followed, their primary military force was always their Infantry, among the finest of the era. Even after acquiring the composite bow, this was still a weapon mostly reserved for the chariots and irregulars, not the main Egyptian Army.

To make "natural bowmen" takes many years, much to long of a time to make them a major part of your military. The exception is only found in cultures where the bow is also a major part of their food gathering. The Huns are a perfect example of that, as are Welsh (and the rest of England). In these cultures you had a common hunting tool converted to use in war, not a warrior tool developed for war (like the sword).

 

I thought the Hyksos had bows not the Egyptians.. I did know about the faster and lighter War chariots. Thanks.. Interesting response.

 

Oh, Egypt had the bow as well. The Goddess Neith in even the most ancient of times was depicted with a bow.



However, in a largely agricultural society, the bow was not a major weapon except for those who had the leisure to hunt for sport, or the more remote groups who were still nomadic and hunted for food. A bow would not be as important to a farmer or heardsman as would a staff, spear, flail or sling.

Pretty much every culture on the planet from the most ancient of days had the bow. Even Ötzi (circa 3300 BCE) had a bow and arrow, and was even killed by arrows. However, very few civilizations made archers a major part of their military force. This is often attributed simply to the length of time it took to train a bowman (and why the invention of the crossbow was quickly adopted by Medieval armies, the power of a bow but with a short training time).

Remember, to me almost anything like this is simply an analysis puzzle, where I look to precedents both before and afterwards. And without anything like the horse nomads or the Franklin-Yeoman classes of England they did not have any kind of pool of pretrained archers to draft. The only real use they made were in the war chariots once they were adopted - with the operators generally nobility who could afford to spend time hunting and practicing for war with bows from a chariot.

Infantry is much easier to train... take this spear-sword, stand next to him, follow commands and attack once the enemy is within range.

 

Interesting graphic re: the bow.. I know that horses were not common.. They required too much fodder and water. So only officers or the elite rode.. Everyone else was on foot. Plus, there were many places that horses were handicapped.. .. like the wheel.. in sand.

 

You have to remember that the horse was not native to the region, they came from central Asia. And the feral horses of the era were much smaller then the horse is today (the result of thousands of years of selective breeding). But they had domesticated the donkey over 1,000 years earlier. And while the Camel had been domesticated by this time, it was for food and as a beast of burden, the camel saddle had yet to be developed.

I have long been fascinated with the interaction of older cultures with the animals in their region. Especially the Sami (Lapplanders), who harnessed reindeer, but never were able to domesticate them (but did use them to follow the wild herds for hunting). It is often amazing how some groups would domesticate a species (llama, camel), yet take centuries (if ever) to make the next step and invent a saddle with which to ride that animal.

Or even more amazing that what seem to be such basic concepts such as the stirrup took thousands of years to become common.

 

Actually the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula began domesticating horses 9,000 years ago.. and they were smaller and faster than the later Roman horses.. but they were not useful in sand dunes.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=204561

 

I know .. the camel saddle wasn't really invented until 900 BC.. and often they rode two to a camel.. One drove the camel and they other was shooting arrows.

The Arabs domesticated horses 9,000 years ago. Shocking, eh?

 

..............................................................

 

*shrug*

Anybody that understands Plate Tectonics should be aware of this.

 

Most don't..............

 

Of this I am all to aware. Most people are idiots, and their understanding of science is little more then that of cavemen in my experience.

Just look in another thread and reading the ideas of people pumping water into a supervolcano to stop it from going off tells me the scientific comprehension of most people.



And no, I am most certainly not putting you in that category. But many in here would not be able to blow their noses if brains were TNT.

 

Thanks ..

LOLOL.. I grew up around geologists.. so this sort of thing interests me... and I am by no means an expert.

 

For me, it was growing up in Southern Idaho back in the 1970's, when much of what we now realize about Yellowstone was first being discovered (another topic I know).

In regards to things like Exodus, I sit back and try to look at it though the eyes of prehistoric history. Some read Atlantis and see what Plato wrote, a super-civilization on a continent that sank into the seas (and have spent the last 2,000 years searching for). Myself, I see a roughly 1,200 year old legend of the Minoan civilization and the destruction of Santorini. A kernel of truth, buried among over a thousand years of myth and legend.

 

So I am decades older than you.. The Minoan civilization had fascinated me since I read a National Geographic and made my first visit to Crete... in the 1950s.. Yes.. I am older than dirt.

 

At that time, the events around Santorini were just being discovered, that allowed archaeologists write a complete picture of the relationship between the island, the Minoan civilization and Atlantis. And even Jacques Cousteau tried to search for it, and was the first to put into the public consciousness the idea that the destruction of Thea was the most likely cause of the legend.

I look at almost all legends and myths and folklore, and see a bit of truth in them. No legend is made up entirely from a person's mind and becomes accepted by an entire civilization. But if you take an event like this (island explodes, destroying an advanced civilization) and carry it forward for a thousand years by word of mouth, it grows and changes as it goes until we have an entire continent that angered the gods.

I simply expand upon the concepts by Joseph Campbell on this, linking events instead of individuals. Some read Ziusudra or Gilgamesh or Noah and read a mythical story about God (or gods) saving people from a flood. Myself, I see it as a tale of survivors of a monumental flood (most likely in the Black Sea) who's stories become legend, then myth as the eons pass.

Where as Joseph Campbell wrote about the heroes in the legend, I tend to look for the history in the story.

 

Two of us with a lot of exposure to geology but no claim to expertise.

A little common sense helps tho.

 

Here is one I like: the Egyptians with all their stone work never came up with the arch and keystone.

Eskimos devised how to build a dome!

 

FYI...................