Origins of life

[David George]

OK
on moses
born: 1593 B.C.E.
Pharaoh:??? research

toward the end of Moses 40 year "sojourn" he was commisioned to spearhead a movement to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage,
so that is 1593 -40=1553 pharaoh was????
the bible does not name the Pharaoh , nor the Pharaoh before, and there is no secular writings about these events.

Ramses 11 is often suggested because of references to the building of cities of Pithom and Raamses by the Israelite laaborers.
that is Logical I say.


then there are the Amarna tablets,
found at Tell el-amarna on the Nile, which some
scholors think refer to "Habiru" as the Hebrews,
but this is not conclusive.

As far as the plaugues go, I doubt much would be found in Egyptian tablets, as They were notorious for only recording victories and things that made them look good. The best chance is to find other (secular) writings in addition to the bible.

"God's and Godesses" of Egypt, it is interesting to note that the ten plagues that God visited upon the Egyptians he humiliated them. Do you think they would record that? For example, the first plague the turning of the Nile in to blood, brought disgrace to the nile god Hapi.

If the Moses was born in 1593 B.C then the hykos kings would have ruled and probably the pharoah was Apepi 1[1600 to 1560] or Apepi 2.But Ramses II (c. 1278-1237 BCE) could't be the king.

[juju]

David: the Moses was born in 1593 B.C then the hykos kings would have ruled and probably the pharoah was Apepi 1[1600 to 1560] or Apepi 2.But Ramses II (c. 1278-1237 BCE) could't be the king.

Well archeologists do not yet know who was king when as far as this go's, That is why I said :

[quote]myself:Ramses 11 is often suggested because of references to the building of cities of Pithom and Raamses by the Israelite laaborers. [/quote

[juju]

David:

often call myself an odd one out.

well is it not us odd ones who are the deep thinkers?

you can think for yourself,

but keep an open mind,
do not let religion cloud your jugment of the bible.
I could have very well become an atheist if I had
not read it threw several times, and studied it, and
checked it out with secular references.
And also, be carefull, everything they teach in school
is not always proven, teachers orten project their own
opinions or the popular trends.,


If you want to understand
something you need to get the whole picture first,
you can not understand it from excerpts. Context is important.

Notice too, how some of the great scientists who
discovered things, were more often than not at odds
with conventional thinking.

[alextemplet]

. . . can't . . . stop . . . posting . . .

David: the Moses was born in 1593 B.C then the hykos kings would have ruled and probably the pharoah was Apepi 1[1600 to 1560] or Apepi 2.But Ramses II (c. 1278-1237 BCE) could't be the king.

Well archeologists do not yet know who was king when as far as this go's, That is why I said :

myself:Ramses 11 is often suggested because of references to the building of cities of Pithom and Raamses by the Israelite laaborers. [/quote

How do we know Moses was born in 1593BC? I remember reading that the heiroglyph record described a mass exodus of foreigners from Egypt leaving during the reign of Rameses II, and that's why most scholars believe that Rameses was the pharoah during that time. In fact the Bible indicates that Moses was born during the reign of the previous pharoah and had to flee Egypt after killing an Egyptian soldier, and he did not return until after that pharoah had died so that he would no longer be blamed for the murder. So if you want to know when Moses was born it was probably sometime during the reign of Rameses' predecessor.

Getting back to the heiroglyph record, why would such a large number of foreigners leave during a supposedly prosperous time during Egypt's history? The best explanation would be if they lived under less than ideal circumstances, such as slavery, which begs the question of why did the Egyptians let so many perfectly good slaves go? They must have had a very good reason, such as plagues. So even though the Egyptian record is notorious for only including details that make the Egyptians look good, a little good sense and conjecture can reveal some rather deep parallels between the Bible and the Egyptian record. I think this is why most scholars believe it was Rameses.

On a related note, the dates that David gave for the reign of Rameses also fit in well with rest of Hebrew history. After wandering in the desert for forty years, the Hebrews conquered Canaan and lived under the rule of the Judges for about two hundred years before the establishment of the monarchy. The monarchy is believed to have been established around 1000BC, and so if you do the math it adds up well with the dates that David gave. So I think this further strengthens the case for Rameses being the pharoah of the Exodus.

Boy, I just can't seem to get off of this topic, can I?

[Linn]

weeel
I am out of the converation tonight,
Carl Sagan Cosmos is on and then more on space.
ch 227 science. In case you want to watch them from 8-11 and then repeats so you can watch it again
night

[David George]

Now lets turn on to Zerah the ethiopian who attacked Asa king of judah[908-867].The Pharoah at that time was Osorkon 2.In Nubia it is not clear who the king was as they only developed writing later[Meriotic]And I do know a little of it.But there is no battle whatsoever during his period as far as I know.And Alex's account could be correct as during Apepi 1[1600 to 1560] it was the time when Caananites entered Egypt and Rameses is my Favorite Pharoah but I know that he covers up a lot of things.I donot know about the plagues nor do I believe it but in the famous battle of Kadesh[Egyptians Vs Hitities] He annouced the end as a splendid victory but the truth was that both sides had good losses

[damien james]

Did modern monotheism evolve from Zoroastrianism?

[Linn]

David.
continuing, on zerah,
and the force that came against Asa was a million warriors!
You seem to like history?

[alextemplet]

Did modern monotheism evolve from Zoroastrianism?

No, the Hebrews had a monotheistic religion before Zoroaster, and the Egyptian pharoah Akhenaton tried (unsuccessfully) to create a monotheistic faith even before this.

[Linn]

and the Egyptian pharoah Akhenaton tried (unsuccessfully) to create a monotheistic faith even before this.

was that the pharoah who built the temple city in the desert to Ra?
to worship the one god the sun?

[David George]

was that the pharoah who built the temple city in the desert to Ra?
to worship the one god the sun?

Yup he tried but many people didnot accept it and so they did not respect his religion and also worshipped the older Gods mainly in the night when his officials were asleep and soon after he was dead the people rejoiced and also desroyed many of his Possesions.I think the God was Amun Ra who's figure was a man and Ra's figure was Half Falcon half Man.Now what about Zerah you don't know about him in ancestral records and his Defeat doesn't seem o be real to me.

[Linn]

Yup he tried but many people didnot accept it and so they did not respect his religion and also worshipped the older Gods mainly in the night when his officials were asleep and soon after he was dead the people rejoiced and also desroyed many of his Possesions.I think the God was Amun Ra who's figure was a man and Ra's figure was Half Falcon half Man.Now what about Zerah you don't know about him in ancestral records and his Defeat doesn't seem o be real to me.

yes that is what would happen, his
succsesors scrached out, built over and etched over
anything pertaining to him, as if he didnt exsist.
I am glad there was still evidence found.

how bout the great sphinx?
was supossedly, re-worked )the face they believe has
been changed. Do you know anything about that?

RE: Zerah true, not enough is known, and often the biblical names of people were different from their other names. His successor probably wiped out anyhting of his too.
Imagine how much more we would know if they had not done that.

and as to the likelihood of defeat or not, there
have been other historical battles that have been won not due
to the size of the army, but in the strategies employed.