There is no evidence that Moses ever went to Egypt

[jbran555]

or that Jesus ever lived. how do we explain the lack of archaelogical evidence for things that say happened in the bible

 

[marshgreencohen]

you don't need evidence...you just need proof...

 

[ArnautDaniel]

or that Jesus ever lived. how do we explain the lack of archaelogical evidence for things that say happened in the bible

When you get down to it there isn't a lot of archaelogical evidence for a lot of ancient history.

If we applied the standard you seem to be applying to Moses here to all of ancient history, the books would be exceedingly thin.

It isn't unreasonable to ask that a common standard be applied to the bible as well as other sources of ancient history.

Anyway the lack of evidence of an individual is pretty much par for the course and we usually infer individuals from texts.

We don't expect the Egyptians to record defeats, and little of the events of the exodus would be expected to appear on the archaeological record.

What is troubling is the lack of evidence for a sudden invasion of Canaan a la Joshua. The archaeological evidence for such an invasion is lacking, and if anything it looks like the incursion of the Hebrews into Canaan was rather more akin to Mexicans moving into the Southwestern US than whites conquering the territory of the US.

 

[lilymarie]

Just studying all the Bible's amazing and utterly divine connections, as all scripture interconnects with God being the author and finisher of something, among all the other utterly astounding interconnections, that is proof enough for me there was divine inspiration.

As far as Moses, he was more than likely buried in the middle of no where. Remember these were archaeic times. I think people who have the internet now think life was always super information. Try to relate yourself to the time and place of how that civilization in ancient times lived.

As far as evidence that Jesus lived, if we had that we'd have no need for faith nor would we therefore "grow" and "learn" to love God simply because we believe in him and want to love him.

God didn't want a bunch of useless clones worshipping what they saw with their eyes.

I even came across a scripture the other day and I wish I'd had marked it, but it said something to the effect of "God wants us to SEE with your hearts and not our eyes".

However, human beings rarely see with their hearts, they want to see with their eyes. However, when Jesus talks about "blindness" and the Pharisees being blind, he's talking about their heart being blind.

I think lust, coveting, greed come through the eyes, but if the world could see through it's heart, I believe we'd have a better world.

However, regarding proof, most if not all archaeologists agree The Shroud of Turin is not a hoax.

You might want to look that up.

God is still the only one all-knowing. That's what I find so marvelous about the Bible itself.

We can learn about God's word, but none will ever be all knowing 'like' God. He knew what he was doing.

Even the scriptures say "Jesus was sent 'at the appointed time'..." Or it says, in the fullness of time... So, we cannot question the time, nor God's chosen people, nor prophets, nor anything.

I see God revealed in nature, and I see him revealed in the Bible, and his Holy Spirit lives inside me.

I don't need proof... I'd never have learned to 'see' with my heart. And I think seeing with the heart is the far better tool with which to see.

 

[artybloke]

However, regarding proof, most if not all archaeologists agree The Shroud of Turin is not a hoax.

I thought the current thinking was that it was about 13th century... (You have a link to a reliable source?)

That's the problem with science, it never stands still...

As far as Moses, he was more than likely buried in the middle of no where.

There would have been a tomb, and he would be buried in a significant spot that people could come on pilgrimage to. But then we'd have to find it after 3000 years and decide that this was unequivocally Moses' not someone else's tomb, and unless there were carvings or cartouches that would be impossible to verify.

Archeology can tell you a lot about how an ancient society lived, about ancient pottery and architecture. and documentary archeology is very valuable in reconstructing ancient events.

But you have to find it; and much of it is lost to the ravages of time. We don't even know Moses' Egyptian name (Moses is a Hebrew name) so how can we even begin to look for him? There is, however, no evidence of a significant tribal exodus at the time it's supposed to have happened, no evidence that a nation of Hebrews was enslaved, in fact no evidence of the Hebrews until much later.

You can't prove a negative; Moses could have existed and all the evidence has disappeared. But it's not looking good for Moses.

As for Jesus, there is some evidence that he existed in the very fact that a church arose around him very soon after he died. And in some contemporary documents, he gets a passing mention. So it's pretty likely.

 

[lilymarie]

I thought the current thinking was that it was about 13th century... (You have a link to a reliable source?)

That's the problem with science, it never stands still...

There would have been a tomb, and he would be buried in a significant spot that people could come on pilgrimage to. But then we'd have to find it after 3000 years and decide that this was unequivocally Moses' not someone else's tomb, and unless there were carvings or cartouches that would be impossible to verify.

Archeology can tell you a lot about how an ancient society lived, about ancient pottery and architecture. and documentary archeology is very valuable in reconstructing ancient events.

But you have to find it; and much of it is lost to the ravages of time. We don't even know Moses' Egyptian name (Moses is a Hebrew name) so how can we even begin to look for him? There is, however, no evidence of a significant tribal exodus at the time it's supposed to have happened, no evidence that a nation of Hebrews was enslaved, in fact no evidence of the Hebrews until much later.

You can't prove a negative; Moses could have existed and all the evidence has disappeared. But it's not looking good for Moses.

As for Jesus, there is some evidence that he existed in the very fact that a church arose around him very soon after he died. And in some contemporary documents, he gets a passing mention. So it's pretty likely.

Hi Arty,

I didn't feel like separating your questions, well, actually my arm hurts, so I just wanted to answer your questions regarding The Shroud of Turin.

It was discovered in the 13th Century.

As far as a reliable link on the internet, well that is kind of asking a lot. Many people put up troll websites just to cause problems, so the best bet is to back up the archaeological resources with at least 3 to 4 websites that at least site credentials and the archaeological findings with credit given to what archaeological institute was used, etc. Back up the credentials as far as internet research, don't take most of these stupid websites at face value; the net can run one around in endless circles.

However, I just had a thought, I do think there is an official website for the Shroud of Turin, you might want to search for the 'official' website and read the archaeological evidence there.

As far as I know, archaeologists cannot say that this is a hoax, nor can it be replicated in any way through science.

___________

As far as archaeological evidence regarding the ancient Egyptians, there is proof that they just "vanished". Now considering the biblical account of every firstborn son being killed.. well, it is logical to assume that mostly the men would be killed when the Red Sea plunged on them and also the firstborn sons being killed, would leave an awful lot of women... and that could perhaps explain why ancient Egypt just "disappeared". In other words, according to the biblical "exodus" it coincides with the disappearance of ancient Egypt to a point, which somewhat could prove they made themselves extinct to a point. If there were mostly only women left, they would have made themselves extinct.

There are facts of ancient Egyptians just "disappearing".

 

[artybloke]

"Proof?" What's that mean? Science doesn't do proof. It does evidence. What is the evidence? Is it textual (parchment, papyrus schrools, clay tablet, etc), pictorial (wall-paintings, carvings etc)? Where is this evidence? Is there a reliable source (peer-reviewed scientific journal refs. will do, anything that can be independently verified.)

Also, what are the dates and do they coresspond with Mosaic times? people would have come and gone from the Egyptian kingdom all the time, there were a lot of nomadic people around. Are one of these nomadic groups to be identified as Hebrews? If so which one?

I know I'm throwing out questions that you probably can't answer. But these are the kind of questions any reputable archeologist would ask. Archeology is a science entirely based on careful sifting of what is often very uncertain and shifting bodies of evidence, on fragments of papyrus, on a few stones in the desert, a few pots, wall-paintings and carvings, on writings that themselves can't always be relied upon to tell the truth.

Proof doesn't and can't enter into it. If Moses existed, most of the evidence that he ever did would have blown away with the wind. It would have turned to dust; and we can only glean a few clues here and there that show that he might or might not have existed.

I would never conclude from the evidence that Moses never existed. Neither would I conclude from the evidence that he did exist. The stories and legends about him in the OT may be based on true events or they may not. It's entirely possible that there are grains of factuality in them.

The same would be true of the Turin Shroud; even if it were 1st century, there is no guarantee that it covered the body of Jesus. You're looking for proof in the wrong place if you're expecting archeology to provide it.

 

[lilymarie]

"Proof?" What's that mean? Science doesn't do proof. It does evidence. What is the evidence? Is it textual (parchment, papyrus schrools, clay tablet, etc), pictorial (wall-paintings, carvings etc)? Where is this evidence? Is there a reliable source (peer-reviewed scientific journal refs. will do, anything that can be independently verified.)

Also, what are the dates and do they coresspond with Mosaic times? people would have come and gone from the Egyptian kingdom all the time, there were a lot of nomadic people around. Are one of these nomadic groups to be identified as Hebrews? If so which one?

I know I'm throwing out questions that you probably can't answer. But these are the kind of questions any reputable archeologist would ask. Archeology is a science entirely based on careful sifting of what is often very uncertain and shifting bodies of evidence, on fragments of papyrus, on a few stones in the desert, a few pots, wall-paintings and carvings, on writings that themselves can't always be relied upon to tell the truth.

Proof doesn't and can't enter into it. If Moses existed, most of the evidence that he ever did would have blown away with the wind. It would have turned to dust; and we can only glean a few clues here and there that show that he might or might not have existed.

I would never conclude from the evidence that Moses never existed. Neither would I conclude from the evidence that he did exist. The stories and legends about him in the OT may be based on true events or they may not. It's entirely possible that there are grains of factuality in them.

The same would be true of the Turin Shroud; even if it were 1st century, there is no guarantee that it covered the body of Jesus. You're looking for proof in the wrong place if you're expecting archeology to provide it.

No, it's still not actual proof proof. lol

However, the markings and the crown of thorns are quite interesting, definately removing the theory that it was someone else who was crucified.

It is an interesting bit of evidence, and many people, biblical archaeologists as well do believe it is very real, and very mysterious. No way to replicate it.

Also, there is definately proof of some type of slaves in Egypt -- the pyramids in themselves for instance, among other things.

However, that still doesn't "prove" these were Hebrew slaves.

Though the way the account is written, it's obvious they knew of Pharoh, among other things, etc. So, there were definately Hebrews there, unless one thinks the Bible is made up by "man" which I disagree. All the interconnections of the Bible are just to amazing to have been done by stupid man alone without divine intervention.

Upon reading the Bible, my God is a God of very, very intelligent design... beyond that of any learned mortal man or brilliant woman I've ever encountered.

The Bible is truly divine. God is wonderous. I never stop to marvel at the wonder of him.

However, science cannot 100% disprove anything, nor 100% prove anything either.

I just enjoy biblical archaeology very much. I enjoy all kinds of ancient artifacts. I think it's fascinating. But God is still the most wonderous of all; my mortal studies are truly meaningless and could just be described as silly words when compared to the greatness and majesty of him, The Lord... the great I am....

 

[artybloke]

However, the markings and the crown of thorns are quite interesting, definately removing the theory that it was someone else who was crucified.

Depends how it was done. Some say there are traces of pigment. But whatever - it may be genuine.

Also, there is definately proof of some type of slaves in Egypt -- the pyramids in themselves for instance, among other things.

I think the latest thinking is that the tombs of the Pharoahs - including the Valley of the Kings and the pyramids - were actually built by a form of indentured servitude. They were "paid employees" not slaves as such, and even had a city to themselves. They would have been Egyptian, not foreigners.

Though the way the account is written, it's obvious they knew of Pharoh, among other things, etc.

Well of course they did - he lived in the next door country to them (or thereabouts).

The Bible is truly divine.

Then why don't you put it on a pedastel and worship it instead of pretending you worship God? The Bible is not divine - that would be known as idolatry, something the Bible is very clear about - it's against it.

I'm sorry if that sounds like I'm condemning you, but when you call the Bible divine you are turning it into a god, whether you like to think you are or not.

The Bible was written by human beings, with limited human minds and knowledge - inspired but not dictated to by God.

So, there were definately Hebrews there, unless one thinks the Bible is made up by "man" which I disagree.

The Bible was written by human beings. You seem to be another of those strange people (at least they're strange to me) who think that the only vehicle for religious truth is historical fact. Why is that? Why can't God's truth be conveyed through fiction/poetry/allegory/parable etc? Nobody yet has given me a plausible answer to this question.

That doesn't mean that there are no facts in the Bible. But there's lots of parts of the Bible where I don't think it makes a jot of difference whether it is factual or not. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or not. The story may be fictional, it doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Floodnut]

No, you are right, Moses never went to Egypt. You will not ever find evidence that he went to Egypt. But the fact is he CAME from Egypt. This is what the Bible declares repeatedly, and it is evidenced by the grammar and vocabulary of the books of Moses, as well as the familiarity with Egyptian customs around 1500 BC, and correct geography of the period and the region.

 

[Floodnut]

or that Jesus ever lived. how do we explain the lack of archaelogical evidence for things that say happened in the bible

To say there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived. . . is simply incorrect.
I quote from my book on the New Testament for Socialist Students:
The documents of the New Testament are very frequently quoted in the writings of early Christians, as well as in the writings of their opponents. Indeed the opponents of the followers of Jesus argue their false teachings from the documents accepted as authentic by the Christians with few exceptions. In fact, if they attempted to put forward an incorrect teaching from an illegitimate source, they would have no success with those who rejected the false writings as having no authority among the disciples! Even the false teachers of ancient times point to the authentic and authoritative documents. Of course among the writings of early Christians outside the New Testament abundant references and quotations of our twenty-seven recognized documents. There are so many quotations that it is nearly possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament from these many direct references. And, again it is found that the quotations attest to the accuracy and preservation of the same words over and over. We are thus enabled us with great certainty to declare that though the original writings from the hands of the authors are physically lost, their contents and message are accurately before us in the Greek text we now use. Not only do these three sources confirm the accuracy of what we are reading, but they also point to an actual first century origin for the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

THE EVIDENCE OF NON-BIBLICAL REFERENCES
The quotations of the false teachers point to the reliability of the New Testament documents and in addition, these references outside of the Bible also confirm that the accounts of Jesus are in fact ancient. The vast number of plain references to Jesus of Nazareth in so many very forms of ancient documents points to His genuine historical existence. These many quotations treat Him as a real historical person who lived in the time period asserted by our New Testament writings. Not only does the Bible speak of Jesus, but documents other than the Bible, indeed numerous non-religious writings refer to Jesus and His followers. These writings show that already, by the beginning of the second century, the teaching of Jesus had spread throughout the Empire and that early on there were groups of disciples (churches) everywhere.

1.The historian TACITUS, writing in about 112 AD speaks of how the emperor, Nero, falsely accused and tormented the followers of Christ. He also says that Christ had been put to death by Pontius Pilate, just as declared in the Gospels. Tacitus is no friend to the message of Jesus, since he indicts it as a “pernicious superstition” and “mischief” what had spread through the city of Rome (Annals of Tacitus xv.44).

2.LUCIAN, also from the second century, mocks the disciples as followers of “the man who was executed because he introduced this new cult into the world [and] persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another.” Lucian further complains that these followers of Jesus denied the Greek gods.

3.Another historian, FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, who lived and wrote in the first century, spoke of Jesus as a wise teacher and “a doer of wonderful works.” He also writes of how Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate. In another statement, somewhat disputed, but clearly ancient, Josephus describes Christ as “a wise man, if indeed one should call Him a man” (Antiquities xviii.3.3). The predecessor of Jesus, the rugged prophet John (Mk 1:4-9) is described by Josephus in a passage which has no questions as to its authenticity (Antiquities xviii.5.2). In addition he speaks of an important follower of Jesus and how he was killed (Antiquities xx.9:1).

4.SEUTONIUS (69 – 140 AD), an official of the Roman government, maligns the followers of Jesus as “a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” He complains about seditions or disturbances raise at the instigation of “Chrestus,” which is probably an alternate spelling of for Christ (Life of Claudius 25:4; Life of Nero 16; Lives of the Caesars 26:2). Bear in mind though, that other historians say that this was a false accusation and from the actual writings of the New Testament, it can be observed that the disciples were not at all interested in overthrowing human governments (Ro 13:1-7; I Pe 2:13-15). Jesus did not come with any political objectives.

5.One Roman governor, PLINY THE YOUNGER, writes about the disciples in an inquiry to the emperor, Trajan. In this letter, written in 112 AD, Pliny is asking how to treat the followers of Christ. He says that he had been killing them all –men, women, boys and girls. However, he continues, if they would bow to an image of Emperor Trajan, they would be spared. Of what crime were they guilty? First of all, they did not worship the popular gods, refusing to bow to a statue of the emperor. He says further, that they bound themselves “not to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, and not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up” (Epistles X.96-98).

6.THALLUS, who wrote in 52 AD, tried to explain the darkening of the sun that took place at the death of Jesus as an eclipse (Compare Lk 23:44). However the execution of Jesus occurred in connection with a Jewish holiday that was observed during a full moon, making the eclipse untenable as an explanation for the darkness. Nevertheless, the effort of Thallus shows that events of the life of Jesus were well known by this time.

7.In an ancient personal letter dating from late in the first century, a father named MARA encourages his son to seek wisdom even though it might result in trouble. He then points to wise men who, though they were opposed, yet their opponents later encountered great disasters. Among the wise men he uses as examples are the well-know historical figures, Pythagoras and Socrates. He also refers to Jesus of Nazareth as an actual person, calling Him the “wise King” who was executed but “lived on in the teaching that He had given.”

THE “HISTORICITY” OF JESUS OF NAZARETH

These references to Jesus and His followers found in writings outside the Bible show that the disciples of Jesus were well established throughout the Empire by the end of the first century. Clearly, the accounts of the life of Jesus were not in any way an invention of he second century.

 

[artybloke]

Making statements without providing evidence doesn't do you any favours, Floodnut. What is the evidence that Moses (supposing that he existed) came from Egypt? Refs., please, otherwise I don't see why I should believe you.

It's noticeable that the evidence for the existence even of Jesus is largely circumstantial - the Tacitus, for instance, is talking of the existence of Christians, it's not actual evidence of Jesus himself. Josephus was infamously tampered with.

They're all perfectly reasonable - but not one of them is totally unquestionable. That's the nature of ancient evidence, however, and while you could take a very pessimistic view and say that none of them prove the existence of Jesus, there's no real reason to do so.

 

[FallingWaters]

Just a comment about the whereabouts of Moses burial... this is what we know from the Biblical account in Deuteronomy 34:5-6:
"5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 6 And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day."

The account says God buried him in a valley in Moab near Beth Peor, and no one knew exactly where.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

or that Jesus ever lived. how do we explain the lack of archaelogical evidence for things that say happened in the bible

Let's reverse the question: If someone found solid archaeological evidence that Moses in Egypt, or that Jesus lived - what difference would it really make?

The most one could say would be:
Moses once lived in Egypt, or that Jesus existed in 1st century Galilee.

One can believe in the existence of Jesus - but not necessarily believe in the events recorded about Him. So "proof of existence" is just one question in a line of further questions.

Proof of existence says nothing about the relationship of Moses to the God of Abraham, it doesn't verify the plagues of Egypt, it doesn't say that the Red Sea parted for the Israelites. Likewise evidence of existence for Jesus would say nothing about Jesus working genuine miracles, or that He is truly identified as the Messiah, or that He actually rose from the dead.

We should really ask:
1) Is it reasonable to expect - or demand - archaeological evidence for specific events and people? (Someone already addressed this in this thread).

2) Did God intend to use archaeological evidence to communicate to the world that Jesus is the Son of God? What did God use to communicate to the world that Jesus is the Son of God?


LDG

 

[Floodnut]

Making statements without providing evidence doesn't do you any favours, Floodnut. What is the evidence that Moses (supposing that he existed) came from Egypt? Refs., please, otherwise I don't see why I should believe you.

It's noticeable that the evidence for the existence even of Jesus is largely circumstantial - the Tacitus, for instance, is talking of the existence of Christians, it's not actual evidence of Jesus himself. Josephus was infamously tampered with.

They're all perfectly reasonable - but not one of them is totally unquestionable. That's the nature of ancient evidence, however, and while you could take a very pessimistic view and say that none of them prove the existence of Jesus, there's no real reason to do so.

Well bloke, I don't much care whether or not I am doing myself any favors. There is abundant evidence that Moses was in Egypt. He says he was, as is further confirmed by numerous other biblical writers, including Jesus himself, as well as Stehpen (Acts 7) and Paul (Hebrews 11). There is your evidence. God's word is true. For Christians that settles the matter. Case closed. Yet there are many, and apparently you are among them, who chose NOT to believe the Scriptures.
I truely do not care whether you believe me or not. This is what the Scripture declares. This is a Christian Forum and here we believe in the Scriptures.
There is also gravity, and Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States also. That will be true 2000 years from now as well, regardless of whether future archaeologists can find any evidence of his existence or not. My father exisits and existed also, regardless of the fact that our printed family history declares that he died without issue. His six children are here and so also are his dozens of grandchildren and great grandchildren. And this will be true also 2000 years from now whether would be factualist can find "evidence" or not. 1 billion Christians world-wide, regardless of their level of faith are further testimony that the root of our faith was here and lived on this planet and that He is now living in a glorified body as he said in Scripture.
That you "will not to believe" does not change that reality. There is gravity whether you believe it or not. You are leaping off the tall building hoping there is not, I have opted to NOT leap off the building believing there is gravity. If you are wrong it will cost you dearly.

 

[jeffweeder]

Maybe there is?

Joseph was also in egypt, prior to Moses, and he foresaw the exodus, and got his brothers to swear an oath, that when it happened his bones would go with them.
Interesting to note is that Joseph was exalted by pharoah and given the rule of Egypt.
In Egyptian history this happens in the 3rd dynasty-Djoser exalts Imohotep, and he rules over Egypt in the same way- he is a foriegner, and builder of the first step pyramid at sukkara.
Although this pyramid is the most logical place for him to be buried, no body has been found, What has been found is an empty coffin in an untouched tomb...
So who could Moses be? Why call him Moses?
Thutmosis 1 had no male heir, but a daughter-Hatshepsut.
Statues of her show her with a little boy on her lap- known as senmut.
I'm still a little rusty on it, but if this is Moses, then he is Thutmosis 2, who apparantley fell into disgrace, and a lot of his relics are vandalised. I have see n a statue of him, and there is something interesting here. A hooked nose. All others depict straight noses, typically Egyptian.

 

[FallingWaters]

Maybe there is?

Joseph was also in egypt, prior to Moses, and he foresaw the exodus, and got his brothers to swear an oath, that when it happened his bones would go with them.
Interesting to note is that Joseph was exalted by pharoah and given the rule of Egypt.
In Egyptian history this happens in the 3rd dynasty-Djoser exalts Imohotep, and he rules over Egypt in the same way- he is a foriegner, and builder of the first step pyramid at sukkara.
Although this pyramid is the most logical place for him to be buried, no body has been found, What has been found is an empty coffin in an untouched tomb...
So who could Moses be? Why call him Moses?
Thutmosis 1 had no male heir, but a daughter-Hatshepsut.
Statues of her show her with a little boy on her lap- known as senmut.
I'm still a little rusty on it, but if this is Moses, then he is Thutmosis 2, who apparantley fell into disgrace, and a lot of his relics are vandalised. I have see n a statue of him, and there is something interesting here. A hooked nose. All others depict straight noses, typically Egyptian.

That's really cool! Did you get that out of one book or online source? Where can I find out more?

 

[FallingWaters]

I found this:
The Moses Mystery:
The African Origins of the Jewish People
By Gary Greenberg
1997, Carol Publishing Group, Secaucus, NJ;
308 pages, no illustrations; $24.95 hardcover;
ISBN 1-55972-371-8

 

[FallingWaters]

and this:
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/moses.htm

 

[jeffweeder]

Hello FW
yes ,its out of this book, just did a goog and found ithttp://www.leocordia.com/exodus/index.shtml

A great read.