Sunday, January 08, 2012

Does Egyptian History Contradict the Torah


[Great Pyramid of Giza]

One apparent conflict between secular history and Judaism is that according to traditional Jewish chronology, the Deluge (Genesis 7) occurred in 2106 BCE. The Dispersion (Genesis 11) occurred in 1765 BCE. This means that between those two dates, for a period of 340 years, the earth was uninhabited outside of Mesopotamia. Also people after the Dispersion spoke different languages than they did before the Deluge. According to Tan. Buber, Noach 28, prior to the Dispersion all people spoke Hebrew.

Egyptians, however, supposedly the spoke the same language from 3400 BCE until 1700 CE. How can this be explained?

I would assume that the antediluvian Egyptians were among the “mighty men of old” (Genesis 6:4). They built the Great Pyramid and spoke Hebrew. They died in the Deluge. [I suspect that this early race of superior men also built the remarkable Stonehenge monument which dates from about the same period.]

Following the Dispersion, new settlers arrived in Egypt who wished to revive the culture of the earlier inhabitants. They never approached the architectural achievement of the original Egyptians, however they emulated Old Egyptian culture and claimed descent from them. (Many ancient dynasties claimed descent from ancient gods or heroes.)

Until about 1300 BCE, writing was pictographic. This means that each character represented a word, not a sound. This system is still used in eastern Asia today. Therefore, we cannot know what ancient Egyptian sounded like. For example, today, Japanese writing is derived partly from Chinese characters, although the two spoken languages are entirely different. The written language may have no connection to the spoken language in some cases. The antediluvian Egyptians may have spoken Hebrew while Egyptians after the Dispersion spoke Egyptian, but continued to use hieroglyphics.

This is to some extent similar to the Latin alphabet which continued to be used long after the destruction of Rome. In fact, this blog is being written in the Latin alphabet. Classical Greek and Roman architectures were also often revived. Most people today use a slightly modified Roman calendar. So the old Egyptian writing continued long after the original old Egyptians were gone.

Interestingly, the Egyptians are virtually the only ancient culture not possessing a flood legend, I would suppose because they wished to deny their lack of continuity with the pyramid builders.

100 comments:

Alex said...

Egypt may have had a Flood Myth: Egypt:

People have become rebellious. Atum said he will destroy all he made and return the earth to the Primordial Water which was its original state. Atum will remain, in the form of a serpent, with Osiris. [Faulkner, plate 30] (Unfortunately the version of the papyrus with the flood story is damaged and unclear. See also Budge, p. ccii.)

Ironmistress said...

The Roman Empire was eventually destroyed only in 1461 when Trapezunt and Mistra fell to the Ottoman Turks.

The last remnant of the Western Roman empire has been - and is still - the Vatican - the Catholic Church was the state religion of the Western Roman Empire.

Roman empire ceased to be "Roman" in 278 when the capital was transferred to Mediolanum (today's Milan). The capital of the Western Roman empire was never Rome, but Ravenna. The capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was, of course, Constantinople.

As we know of linguistics, Hebrew is merely another of the Semitic languages, and not the mother language of all the world. The archeological record for the prehistory of Biblical Hebrew is far more complete than the record of Biblical Hebrew itself. Early Northwest Semitic materials are attested from 2350 BCE to 1200 BCE, the end of the Bronze Age. The Northwest Semitic languages, including Hebrew, differentiated noticeably during the Iron Age (1200–540 BCE), although in its earliest stages Biblical Hebrew was not highly differentiated from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite.

Hebrew developed during the latter half of the second millennium BCE between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an area known as Canaan. The Israelite tribes established a kingdom in Canaan at the beginning of the first millennium BCE, which later split into the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south after a dispute of succession. The earliest Hebrew writing yet discovered was found at Khirbet Qeiyafa and dates to the 10th century BCE.

Hebrew became a distinct language only in the 11th century BCE. Before that it was merely a dialect of Proto-Canaanite language.

There are several languages older than that in the modern world. Sanskrit, Greek, Chinese, Latin, Coptic - it is a quite whimsical to assume everyone spoke Hebrew before the Flood. Or even Proto-Semitic.

Languages evolve constantly, and modern Hebrew differs from Biblical Hebrew which differs from Mishnaic Hebrew which differs from Diasporaic Hebrew. One of the radical changes is the shift of tav from "t" into "th" into "s". Likewise, beit has denoted originally "b", but rather it is read as "v". The Ashkenasi Hebrew is more evolved than Sephardic: Ashkenasi "shabbos" vs Sephardic "shabboth" or "bris" vs "brith".

The Septuagint - the Greek translation of Tanakh in 150 BCE - has pretty much preserved the original forms of Hebrew words as how they were pronounced at the Maccabean period. Greek alphabet contains vowels, while Hebrew alphabet does not - it is an abjad. That is why Christians read רִבְקָה as "Rebecca" (as it reads Ρεβέκκα in Septuaginta), Ashkenasim as "Rivka" and Sephardim as "Ribka". The stem consonants - r-b-q are the same (the final he is, of course, mere mater lectionis denoting the word ends in vowel), but the vowels and the reading of the consonants have changed a lot during the centuries.

Languages are subject of constant change. Perhaps the evolution of the Romance languages is the best example. All Romance languages stem from Latin, and are mutually intelligible to at least some extent - a Brasilian from Minas Gerais is able to understand a Romanian from Bucharest who is able to understand a Canadian from Quebec. Yet they are distinct languages. If mutual intelligibility is the yardstick of a language, then Latin is the most widely spoken language in the world and Romance languages are its dialects.

Ironmistress said...

Here a good introduction to the history of Hebrew and how it evolved from Proto-Canaanic.

Moshe P. Mann said...

Dear JP,

I find it very revealing that you constantly banter around the term "mesorah" as if everything that the narrow-minded chareidi world does is Torah MiSinai, and here you openly offer an explanation which by your own admission ("I would assume...") is completely fabricated!!

Don't get me wrong - I think your explanation is quite interesting. But to claim it as "The Mesorah" (with a capital T) won't convince anyone with the intellectual maturity beyond that of a teenager.

I have noticed BTW that this is a frequent occurence in the Chareidi world - passing off cutesy little divrei torah as if it's Torah MiSinai. No wonder that Rabbi Slifkin shli"ta has the truth on his side!!

jewish philosopher said...

Can anyone cite any actual archeological evidence contradicting what I write in this post?

By the way, I do have proof of the Torah's authenticity.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

Moshe P. Mann said...

"Can anyone cite any actual archeological evidence contradicting what I write in this post?"

Can anyone cite any actual archeological evidence against the tooth fairy?

Of course not, but that doesn't make it part of the mesorah.

BTW, do you really expect us to think that all of your krumme pshatim are a continuation of the mesorah just because you listened to Reverend Miller's tapes?

jewish philosopher said...

But there's no evidence for the tooth fairy either however the evidence for Torah is surely as substantial as the evidence for anything in premodern history.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-history-bunk.html

Moshe P. Mann said...

Let's get back to the point - what makes your fabricated teenage-level teirutzim a part of the mesorah?

jewish philosopher said...

Are you sober, because I'm not following this.

Jeff said...

I am neither a historian nor a linguist, to be able to give any informed opinion of your hypothesis. However, I would assume that any modern linguist would consider it preposterous to assert that Hebrew PRECEEDED other Semitic languages rather than being derived from them.

Imagine somebody noticing the similarity between the words "etrog" or "lulav" in Hebrew to their predecessors in Aramaic or Greek. Then imagine claiming that the original Aramiac or Greek word was actually Hebrew! It seems to be that is what you are doing.

Or better yet-- take the word "Sabbath" and then claim that that Moses actually spoke English!!

The geneology and evolution of languages is a complex field in and of itself with which I assume you have little familiarity. Or do you?

jewish philosopher said...

I think that most academics simply make an assumption that the Torah was fabricated by Ezra. Of course I disagree. And to claim I'm wrong just because many experts say so would be an argument from authority, a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authority

Jeff said...

An argument by authority is not a logical fallacy, read the article entry you yourself quoted.

It is completely acceptable inductive logic to bring an expert in a particular field as an authority on a subject. The fallacy would come into play if I would quote a doctor or a lawyer (or a rabbi) as an authority on linguistics.

"I think that most academics simply make an assumption that the Torah was fabricated by Ezra."

The field of linguistics has nothing to do with religion or theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics

Is this not another example of you rejecting logicical reasoning and evidence when it contradicts your deeply held religious claims?

To me, it sounds like a case of:

"My religious texts, which I believe in, tells me X. X contradicts various claims in the fields of biology, cosmology, history, psychology and now, linguistics. Therefore, I consider those field's claims to be bullshit."

Not much I can respond to that, except, "gizente' heit"

Jeff said...

Reject modern knowledge in deference to historic texts, then call it "ancient wisdom"

Great marketing!

jewish philosopher said...

The appeal to authority is dependent on many conditions.

"If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his area of bias will be less reliable."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Experts may be biased against Judaism because they would find Jewish observance burdensome.

Why don't you accept Catholicism? All the experts in the Vatican endorse it?

Therefore, can anyone cite any actual archeological evidence contradicting what I write in this post?

Jeff said...

If you are claiming that linguists are arguing that Ezra wrote the Torah, and using them as an authority regarding biblical authorship, that would be a fallacy.

However, you are confusing cause and effect.

Because, if their investigations reveal that other languages preceeded Hebrew, the theological problem in your post is a incidental to their findings, not the cause of them.

There may be other repurcussions of these findings. Thats how scientific inguiry works. The assertion that linguists begin with the statement "Ezra wrote the bible, now lets see what linguistic theory we can come up with to support that" reveals a complete ignorance about how science works.

But, as I said, believe what you want.

Ironmistress said...

JP, what you claim is basically the same as one anecdote which I encountered from the mouth of a certain anonymous Fundie Christian:

"If the King James Bible was good enough for the Apostles, it will be good enough for us!"

The cuneiform script is the oldest extant script system. It was developed in the end of the 4th millennium BCE, and became phonetic in the 29th century BCE - far before the assumed Flood. The language was Sumerian, not Hebrew.

The Indus script was invented in 3500 BCE and used for Harappan language. It is no more in use, though.

The Phoenician abjad of the 13th century is the oldest alphabet around. The Proto-Hebraic alphabet was invented in the 9th century BCE. It was replaced by the modern Hebrew alphabet in the 5th century BCE.

The oldest full alphabet which is not abjad, is the Greek system - which BTW is still very much in use. It was fully developed in the 9th century BCE

jewish philosopher said...

Experts should have evidence to back up their opinions. Where is the evidence that languages other than Hebrew were spoken prior to 1756 bce? Remember that hieroglyphics and cuneiform are pictographic and give no hint as to the spoken language.  

jewish philosopher said...

"became phonetic in the 29th century BCE"

Around the 26th century BC, cuneiform began to represent syllables of spoken Sumerian. Also in that period, cuneiform writing became a general purpose writing system for logograms, syllables, and numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing#Mesopotamia

I don't know what that means exactly.

I don't believe it's possible to speak Sumerian today. This is perhaps the most complete Sumerian/English dictionary available.

http://www.sumerian.org/sumerian.pdf

It appears that spoken Sumerian is lost to us. 

"The Indus script was invented in 3500 BCE"

And cannot be translated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Writing_system

"The Proto-Hebraic alphabet was invented in the 9th century BCE. It was replaced by the modern Hebrew alphabet in the 5th century BCE."

The Talmud mentions this:

Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra,46  the Torah was given in Ashshurith script47  and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel48  the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans.49  And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script.50
Sanhedrin 21b

http://www.israelect.com/Come-and-Hear/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_21.html#PARTb

jewish philosopher said...

Incidentally, I agree that the Hebrew alphabet was unknown until the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. Writing is unmentioned in Genesis. I am just adding that prior to the Dispersion no spoken language was known other than Hebrew. I would also assume that prior to Adam no language existed at all.

Jeff said...

"Incidentally, I agree that the Hebrew alphabet was unknown until the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. "

Why would God give them a book that they couldn't read?

" Where is the evidence that languages other than Hebrew were spoken prior to 1756 bce? "

Again, I'm not a linguist, but I assume that the answer to that is the same as "how do we know they didn't actually speak English, using ancient hieroglyphs?"

I don't think any linguist what agree with either assertion.

Also, where does the Torah itself claim that the forefathers spoke Hebrew?

Theologians are appointed guardians of the faith-- its dogma, philosophy, and practice. They are not experts on history or cosmology or science. I would ask neither a rabbi, a priest or an imam an opinion about medicine, evolution, or the origins of the planets.

And neither should you.

jewish philosopher said...

Moses taught them how to read it, along with the correct vowels. That's part of the oral law.

I assume that if you would sit down with a professor of ancient Egyptian studies and ask him "How do we know that the Old Kingdom Egyptians did not actually speak Hebrew?" He would answer "Well, why on earth should they have? All those biblical stories about Adam and Eve, the Deluge and the Dispersion are simply myths!"

To which I'm saying "Fine, I'm completely OK with that. But how do you know? I have evidence that the Torah is authentic. Where is your evidence it isn't?"

Moshe P. Mann said...

JP - your wild unsupported hypotheses about early history have taught us one thing: Haredim and historical accuracy just don't mix!

Jeff said...

" I have evidence that the Torah is authentic"

And Muslims have plenty of "evidence" that the Koran is authentic prophecy, and Christians have equally good "evidence" of their books being correct.

Look, a modern person views "evidence" differently than religions do. For religion "tradition" is a form of evidence.

For us skeptics, things like chemistry, statistics, induction, and the scientific method, are evidence. Things like the Kuzari argument, watchmaker, anecdotes, etc--even "common sense", simply do not hold up to the standards of "evidence".

People have to lie to themselves and be convinced of their own lies to persuade other people. That is the history of religion in a nutshell.

jewish philosopher said...

As far as I can tell, we know how Sumerian sounded based on how Akkadian sounded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language#Phonemic_inventory

and we know how Akkadian sounded based on how other Semitic languages (Hebrew?) sound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language#Phonetics_and_phonology

and there is a lot of guesswork and uncertainty.

jewish philosopher said...

"your wild unsupported hypotheses"

Very well supported, as I keep mentioning.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

"And Muslims have plenty of "evidence" that the Koran is authentic prophecy, and Christians have equally good "evidence" of their books being correct."

Sure they do, and so do evolutionists, however on close inspection it's all nonsense.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

"For us skeptics, things like chemistry, statistics, induction, and the scientific method, are evidence."

OK, using chemistry, statistics, induction, and the scientific method prove to me that Julius Caesar was a real person.

My proofs of Judaism are based on inductive reasoning, statistics although not chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
 
Also, just incidentally, early Near East chronology is somewhat shaky, with estimates varying by a couple of centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East

Jeff said...

"OK, using chemistry, statistics, induction, and the scientific method prove to me that Julius Caesar was a real person."

Who cares? We don't live our lives based on whether or not he existed.

The Kuzari argument is inductive reasoning and statistics? Please explain.

jewish philosopher said...

"Who cares? We don't live our lives based on whether or not he existed."

Right you believe in Julius Caesar without a second thought because he never told you what to eat or whom to have sex with. You reject Moses because he does. Like all atheists, you deny the obvious truth because of personal bias.

"The Kuzari argument is inductive reasoning and statistics?"

Sure:

The Anti-Conspiracy Principle states: If a large group of people, for example 10,000 or more, unanimously claim to have had a certain experience, they must be telling the truth.

This is because most people tell the truth most of the time. If they do lie, they lie as individuals or as small groups. It is impossible to organize a large group to all tell the same lie and not have at least a significant minority eventually reveal the truth.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

I think that's inductive reasoning and a statistic.

Jeff said...

"The Anti-Conspiracy Principle states: If a large group of people, ..."

I believe that you have been through this in previous posts; it may be inductive reasoning, but you have no data. Such a group of witnesses does not exist, and may have never existed. The earliest record we have of their existence is from manuscripts dated to over 1000 years after they supposedly experienced it.

One of the problems with the Armenian genocide is that witnesses no longer exist, and written or photographic records were not so great in those days. How much more so from a so-called revelation experience 3500 years ago. We're lucky that the Jewish holocaust is well documented.

"Right you believe in Julius Caesar without a second.."

I would not be the slightest bit offended if you say he never existed. Or Alexander the Great. In fact, I'm not even offended if you say there was no big bang. I really don't care, because it doesn't matter. Furthermore, I can't think of any historical claims from 2000 years ago, other than religious claims, that really matter.

Nor am I vested in any particular evolutionary claim-- I don't care whether or not I came from monkeys or worms, as you say. I DO care, however, how things work now, because that matters. If evolutionary biology can best explain it-- so be it.

jewish philosopher said...

We know that ancient Jews unanimously claimed that they received the Torah from their forefathers and this is the "experience" I'm referring to; read my post.

"I DO care, however, how things work now, because that matters."

If you burn in hell forever, that matters.

Jeff said...

"If you burn in hell forever, that matters."

The Evangelicals say the same thing about you for not accepting Jesus, and yet, you don't care; Similarly, I don't care because the rabbis who made such statements are full of you know what...trying to scare people like you into submission.

jewish philosopher said...

How about doctors - they do the same thing don't they? 

My doctor says that if I drink three liters of vodka a day, I'll die. If I eat six double cheese pepperoni pizzas a day I'll die. If I smoke two packs a day I'll die. If I have unprotected sex with prostitutes I'll die. If I inject heroin I'll die. If I snort cocaine I'll die.

What a control freak - trying to scare me into submission! Death, death, death! Well I told him what's he's full of! He can take his diplomas and shove them you know where because I'm not going to be frightened by fairy tales like that!!

Jeff said...

Well, as long as you believe in Hell, about a hundred million evangelical Christians think your are heading there. For some reason you seem unconcerned.
I, too am unconcerned.

But I guess I'll meet you there some day. Ha.

jewish philosopher said...

Let's say you are diagnosed with cancer. There are many different treatment options.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/treatment

Would you just choose to do nothing since, whichever you choose, the other guys say you're going to die, so why bother? They're probably all full of it.

jewish philosopher said...

On the topic of the ancient Near Eastern languages, there is one scholarly opinion that Sumerian was not actually a language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Halévy

ksil said...

"If you burn in hell forever, that matters"

too bad the torah makes no mention of this....if it was there, and importnant, dontcha think it would be mentioned? once?

jewish philosopher said...

At the time which the Torah was given, reward and punishment was often immediate and physical. Read from Genesis up through Judges. The Torah therefore emphasizes that.

jewish philosopher said...

Once the Biblical period ended and divine providence was no longer so clear, hell is mentioned.

http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-5b.html

jewish philosopher said...

Here are some interesting comments about ancient Near Eastern chronology. It's not graven in stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology

http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm

Jeff said...

Returning to the subject at hand...

I wouldn't apriori consider Egyptian history records as more reliable than Jewish sources.

However, archeological records and artifacts speak for themselves. Your claim that they all ancients "spoke Hebrew", were all wiped out, and started over again pretending to be the native inhabitants is quite silly.

Your problem is not just with the Egyptians. What about the Chinese? India? They spoke Hebrew, too, right? Until after Babel they came back, started all over and "pretended" to be the ancient Chinese and Indians, right? How likely is THAT?

It is even questionable if the ancient Hebrews themselves spoke Hebrew. The Torah itself does not even claim that!

The Babel story is a allegorical tale, whose purpose, like many biblical stories, was to give ancients an answer to the question , "how did it come to be that things are how they are".

Ironmistress said...

Experts should have evidence to back up their opinions. Where is the evidence that languages other than Hebrew were spoken prior to 1756 bce? Remember that hieroglyphics and cuneiform are pictographic and give no hint as to the spoken language.

Hieroglyphs bear both the pictographic and phonetic value - similarly as Japanese manyogana script. Likewise, cuneiform turned into phonetic script in the 29th century BCE.

Where is the evidence Hebrew was spoken before 10th century BC? Nowhere.

The Roman Catholics believe Latin was the universal language before the Flood. The Muslims believe it was Arabic. Hindus believe it was Sanskrit. Buddhists believe it was Páli. Who are you to claim they were right and you were wrong?

Reality check: Hebrew is exactly a similar language as any language, and as one it lives and evolves and is subject to similar linguistic evolution as any other languages.

Dead languages do not evolve. Hebrew was efficiently a dead language from the 3th century BCE to 19th century. Its evolution was in standstill during those centuries. Likewise, Latin has been a dead language since the 4th century. It does not evolve. If Latin was revived like Hebrew, it would again be similarly subject to linguistic evolution like Hebrew is today in Israel.

The linguists can pretty well construct languages backwards. The laws of linguistic evolution are well known, and reverse engineering a language and reconstructing an assumed language of the yon is pretty possible and works well. This is called glottochronology

There has been one common and ancestral language for the whole humankind back in the Stone Age, but it has not been Hebrew.

Ironmistress said...

Moses taught them how to read it, along with the correct vowels.

In that case, the Septuaginta ought to be the authoritative source. As being written in Greek, it contains the correct vowels and also the correct pronunciation for the consonants.

Reality check: Hebrew is a Semitic language, and they all are alike. They all are written in abjad, consonant script, since the words all consist of three stem consonants. This is result of linguistic evolution, not divine revelation. If Moses had received the law as you claimed, he would have received it as written in Hangul - the Korean script - as it is universally considered as the easiest and most perfect system of phonetic writing there is.

Hebrew can be perfectly well written in Latin and Greek alphabet, the bonus is that you will get vowels as well. Hebrew alphabet is a shorthand script like all abjads.

That's part of the oral law.

No, that is linguistic evolution.

I assume that if you would sit down with a professor of ancient Egyptian studies and ask him "How do we know that the Old Kingdom Egyptians did not actually speak Hebrew?" He would answer "Well, why on earth should they have? All those biblical stories about Adam and Eve, the Deluge and the Dispersion are simply myths!"

No, he would say "Because we can interpret the hieroglyphs and find the phonetic values which the pictographs represent and we can reconstruct the language. It is very close to modern day Coptic".

Ironmistress said...

As far as I can tell, we know how Sumerian sounded based on how Akkadian sounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language#Phonemic_inventory) and we know how Akkadian sounded based on how other Semitic languages (Hebrew?) sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language#Phonetics_and_phonology)

Certainly, since all Semitic languages are related to each other. But the Proto-Semitic language was not Hebrew. A child is not the ancestor of a family even if he bears the same surname.

Linguistically Arabic is the oldest extant Semitic language, not Hebrew. Arabic preserves 28 of the original 29 proto-Semitic consonant phonemes, while Hebrew has only 21 (consonants, b, v, g, d, h, w, z, ch, t, y, k, l, m, n, p, f, r, s, tz, sh, th). Two Hebrew letters are silent - aleph and ayin.

The Hebrew script in Israel is continuously evolving, and the trend is towards full alphabet instead of just abjad. Yod is used to represent 'i', vav as 'u' and also aleph and ayin as full vowels - similarly as Yiddish treats them.

and there is a lot of guesswork and uncertainty.

Less than you might think.

Ironmistress said...

How about doctors - they do the same thing don't they?

My doctor says that if I drink three liters of vodka a day, I'll die. If I eat six double cheese pepperoni pizzas a day I'll die. If I smoke two packs a day I'll die. If I have unprotected sex with prostitutes I'll die. If I inject heroin I'll die. If I snort cocaine I'll die.


It is the amount what makes a substance a poison, not any innate properties of the substance.

Drinking one shot of vodka per day does not harm you. Eating a slice of double pepperoni pizza per day won't harm you. Smoking a cigarette once in a month does not harm you. More likely than not unprotected sex with prostitutes will get you to paternity lawsuit. If you inject heroin once in a month it won't kill you. Likewise snorting cocaine once in a year won't kill you.

It is not intimidating or being a control freak, but common sense.

Jeff said...

JP, I think what you're basically saying, is that once one accepts the overall assumption that the Torah is true and of divine origin, then everything in it must be true and correct. If you then find a problem, there will always be a way to reconcile.

The problem is by that standard, nothing could ever disproven. I sometimes amuse myself thinking, what kind of discovery could potentially disprove Judaism? Here are a few candidates:

1. We discover intelligent life on another planet, and they're all Muslims.
2. We figure out how to artificially regenerate life-- ie rescucitate a really dead person, who then reports no afterlife experience.
3. Find ancient manuscripts showing that the Bible was a forgery.
4. Discover that prayer is actually harmful.
5. Another holocaust targeting the ultra-orthodox community.

Now I know of course that one can always think of an "excuse"-- a theological workaround.

And what you suggest in this post is a "theological workaround"-- an excuse for a contradiction. Even if its not impossible, how likely is it to be true, given what we know? That's the question you have to ask of you're being honest and not lying to yourself.

jewish philosopher said...

"What about the Chinese? India?"

The written history of China and India begin after the Dispersion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Early_historic_period

"Hieroglyphs bear both the pictographic and phonetic value"

I don't believe that was true during the Old Kingdom.

"Likewise, cuneiform turned into phonetic script in the 29th century BCE."

It doesn't seem that way.

http://www.sumerian.org/sumerfaq.htm#s13

"Where is the evidence Hebrew was spoken before 10th century BC? Nowhere."

The Hebrew alphabet was given together with the Torah at Mount Sinai. The earliest alphabetic inscriptions seem to be some sort of Hebrew characters found in the Sinai from about the period of the Exodus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age_alphabets

"Who are you to claim they were right and you were wrong?"

My religion makes more sense.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

"The linguists can pretty well construct languages backwards."

This is just speculation.

"Hangul - the Korean script - as it is universally considered as the easiest and most perfect system of phonetic writing there is."

I suppose Koreans think so.

"Because we can interpret the hieroglyphs and find the phonetic values which the pictographs represent and we can reconstruct the language."

I don't think Old Kingdom hieroglyphics in themselves would give you any idea of pronunciation. They are pictographs.

"But the Proto-Semitic language was not Hebrew."

Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical proto-language ancestral to historical Semitic languages of the Middle East. It's not an actual language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic

"It is not intimidating or being a control freak, but common sense."

And when rabbis tell me to observe the Torah or I'll go to hell it's also simply the truth.

jewish philosopher said...

"JP, I think what you're basically saying, is that once one accepts the overall assumption that the Torah is true and of divine origin, then everything in it must be true and correct. If you then find a problem, there will always be a way to reconcile. "

A Holocaust denier would say the same thing about you. Once you've accepted that the Holocaust happened, then if you find a problem, and there are many

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Arthur-Butz/dp/091103823X

you will always find a way to reconcile.

I look at all evidence and make choices based on the preponderance of available evidence, whether in regards to history, politics, health care, religion, parenting or anything else.

Think about atheism for a second. As an atheist you must believe that you are the result of the purely mindless, random chance interaction of particles over an immensely long period of time - the classic monkey typing Shakespeare scenario. (I know that the origin of species involves natural selection - however what created our universe with natural laws which make life possible? Blind chance.) Being a soulless bag of chemicals created by unguided, meaningless random chance you of course have no free will. You are merely a zombie acting automatically according to the chemicals swishing around in your brain. I don't find this too plausible for many reasons. 

Jeff said...

"A Holocaust denier would say the same thing about you."

He could say that, but he would be a moron.

jewish philosopher said...

I personally see Torah deniers as being little different than Holocaust deniers: ignoring the most blatant, obvious facts (Watchmaker Analogy, Kuzari Principle among many others) while embracing the most ridiculous nonsense (evolution, documentary hypothesis for example).

ksil said...

what about someone that just simply rejects watchmaker and kuzari (which have been debunked time and again) and wants to live their life without being harassed by people that do believe in this narishkeit

jewish philosopher said...

what about someone that just simply rejects auschwitz and the gas chambers (which have been debunked time and again)

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Arthur-Butz/dp/091103823X

 and wants to live their life without being harassed by people that do believe in this narishkeit 

Jeff said...

For the record:

1. A person can believe whatever he wants. If a person denies the holocaust in the privacy of his own living room, so be it.

2. As far as public expression, I am against the laws that criminalize denial. (In democracies)

3. The public deniers and pseudo-historians should be publicly discredited and humiliated, by being allowed to spout off their nonsense and show themselves to be fools.

Jeff said...

People like to use epithets like Nazi and bring up Hitler and Holocaust as a technique for evoking an emotional response. For me it does nothing. It doesn't affect me. If some Heredi would call me a Nazi I would just flip him a birdie and move on with my day.

So, JP, analogies and threats of holocaust denial-- it doesn't move me. Bring it up all you want, its just a distraction from the real debate-- are your claims credible.

So rather than making your silly analogies which nobody believes, in order to get people riled up-- forget it-- why don't you actually support your claims on this post? And that goes beyond saying, "its possible" and "disprove it".

jewish philosopher said...

Alcoholics are routinely in denial.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa050797.htm

Hitchens was probably a good example of that. How did it work for him?

That's all atheism is - denial. "I'm going to hell? LOL!"

jewish philosopher said...

I am constantly supporting my claims, in between chopping to pieces the claims of others.

Just peruse a few goodies; but I have plenty more!

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/11/science-versus-atheism.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/10/near-death-experience.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/08/eternal-people.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-proofs-that-atheists-are-lying.html

jewish philosopher said...

And holocaust denialist are not necessary Nazis by the way; most are probably Muslims. In fact I think almost all Muslims deny the holocaust.

Jeff said...

"I am constantly supporting my claims"

Let's list your assertions in this thread and their proofs:

1. There is hell and atheists are going there. Proof: it says it in the Talmud.

2. All ancient peoples everywhere spoke Hebrew prior to the flood. Proof: Its says it in the Talmud

3. All of Asia and Africa except for Mesopotamia was depopulated with the flood, and the Babel refugees migrated to these places, only to pretend to be the original inhabitants (despite the archaeological evidence of continuous civilizations in these areas. Proof: The Bible says it.

4. The Bible is the true word of god. The proof: supposed long gone witnesses from 3500 years ago.

5. Scientists who support evolution do so because they want to deny Judaism and have free sex. Proof: None

6. Bible denial is like holocaust denial. Proof:None

You'll have to to better than that. (Although its probably good enough to lie to yourself)

jewish philosopher said...

I demonstrate over and over the truth of the Torah and Talmud, for example

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/gods-wisdom.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/05/torahs-amazing-honesty.html

I demonstrate clearly how ludicrous evolution is

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/03/climate-change-and-evolution.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

Your refutation seems to be: scientists disagree. You don't really know why, but they do and you're going to accept that as valid.

Well, I know why:

According to atheism prophesy cannot exist and therefore clergymen are unimportant, making scientists society's most important intellectuals. Many scientists have therefore enthusiastically promoted atheism while many young atheists have chosen a career in science.

Obviously, scientists are no more honest than anyone else.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/11/science-and-pseudo-science.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/09/portrait-of-scientist.html

You however choose to accept their teachings on blind faith because they permit anything, not just promiscuity but ANYTHING including murder

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/10/atheists-have-license-to-kill.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/02/portrait-of-professor.html

while orthodox Judaism is perhaps the worlds most burdensome religion

http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm

and heretics are even condemned to eternal damnation

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/jewish-heretics.html

Jeff said...

Rather than an endless loop argument about who is rational and who is in denial (which could only be determined by an agreed upon third party), I suggest a different tact.

Please give us your concept/definition of an expert or authority. Do you accept the idea that, in secular knowledge, such a class of people exist? Please avoid spurious or provocative analogies to Stalin and North Korea.

Seriously. What is an expert? What is an authority?

jewish philosopher said...

WHAT ABOUT NAZIS! HOW ABOUT IF I REFER TO NAZIS! HA HA!

I don't believe much in experts. I'm an independent thinker and do my own research and draw my own conclusions. That's what got me where I am.

Jeff said...

OK, I'm a Nazi, I confess :)

Seriously, you gave an honest answer. No problem with that. However, the reality is that in highly advanced societies, as a group we have no choice to rely on experts in all kinds of spheres.

This doesn't preclude a layperson from being knowledgeable about a topic, but it does mean that, by necessity, we relegate many decisions to technocrats and experts. That is probably the single biggest change in society in the past 200 years. (for better or for worse)

This dilemma repeatedly comes up when you want to have political oversight of professional organizations within government-- say on military, public health or fiscal issues. Although the President may be the commander in chief, you wouldn't actually want him to run the armed forces. You wouldn't want people who read Reader's Digest health section, be put in charge of medical departments in hospitals.

So while I would commend you on your "skepticism", I don't see how you can dispense with "experts". Of course you as an individual can believe what you want, but I don't see how modern society can function that way.

jewish philosopher said...

I pretty much agree with Reagan and Lenin: Trust, but verify. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

Jeff said...

OK, but you have a practical problem.

An individual, who is not a professional in a specific field, is in most circumstances unequipped to be exposed to and evaluate all the relevant information. That is what training and experience is about. I'm not saying the expert should never be questioned. I AM saying that, if I want to get the BEST and MOST RELIABLE opinion on something, I would ask an expert. Wouldn't you? After all, the expert has access to the most information, and the tools to evaluate it.

Doctors in one specialty will consult with one from another. Why? Couldn't he just read it in a book himself?

So let's ask about biology or zoology or linguistics. JP, even if you're a smart guy, do you honestly think that you have access to the same level of information and expertise as an expert, to opine regarding something in one of these fields? Just by reading lay articles and books and internet articles you can compare yourslf to an expert?

BTW a theologian is an expert on the dogmas of his religion, not an expert in languages, history, cosmology or zoology. We see this very clearly from the Talmud, which relied on the "expert" knowledge of nature at the time.

jewish philosopher said...

Atheists agree that one needn't know too much about something in order to reject it.

Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God) maintains that Richard Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Advocacy_of_atheism

By the same token, I can argue "Do you have to read up on Darwinism before disbelieving in evolution?"

Jeff said...

"I can argue "Do you have to read up on Darwinism before disbelieving in evolution?"

No, not read up on "Darwinism" per se, however, without exposure to the breadth and depth of biological information about organisms, including the tools to analyse it--pick one field like genetics for example--that generally, only a professional would be exposed to, you have insufficient information to draw an opinion.

I would agree with you that ignoramuses about any religion are not qualified to criticize, in any intelligent manner. On the other hand, Judaism is not supposed to be a religion of experts-- its for the people, so you shouldn't need to be an expert to understand it.

I personally HAVE been exposed to Judaism in depth and breadth, and I chose to be a skeptic. But obviously many other don't...

jewish philosopher said...

Again, as Dawkins succinctly points out, one needed not be an expert in every crackpot idea in order to reject it. A quick glance may be quite enough.

Take these for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

I see no need to spend precious years of my time studying them in depth to know they're wrong.

Jeff said...

No. You are confusing being an expert in an "idea" vs being expert in a discipline.

The fact is that you "know" that moon landing conspiracy theories are false, because you are relying on "sources" that you consider authoratitive-- mainstream media, NASA records, historians. You are not able to evaluate the "raw" data yourself. So how do you know? No, you don't need to be an expert in "moon landings". Same with the holocaust example (!)

When you think about it, there's hardly anything you know that doesn't rely on information from somebody else that you either consider reliable or not.

So we're just arguing about who's reliable, right?

jewish philosopher said...

No one is inherently reliable or unreliable, however judgments about various topics are based on a preponderance of evidence, bearing in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I believed that I am sufficiently well informed about religion to decide that Judaism makes more sense than Hinduism, Islam, atheism, Catholicism, etc etc although I'm sure hundreds of millions of very nice, intelligent, educated people would vehemently disagree.

Jeff said...

Fair enough about religion. But science?

Let's take DNA. Do you believe that it exists and controls the development of cells? If so, and given that "No one is inherently reliable or unreliable", have you personally reviewed the preponderance of evidence, or are you relying on some faceless "expert" who tells you it exists? Have you personally seen it? Maybe its part of the "big DNA Hoax".

I'm serious. How do you know its true, if there are no such thing as experts?

jewish philosopher said...

Different branches of science have different levels of credibility, as I point out.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/11/science-and-pseudo-science.html

Expert opinions in general have some importance, however within very limited parameters.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Jeff said...

Do you consider linguistics to be pseudoscience? I think that they would have a lot to disagree with about this post. I am wondering whether they would think that your assertions here make any sense at all, in light of what is known.

JP, I honestly think that you would sound more credible by just saying, "Yes, history, archaeology and linguistics contradict the Torah, but I believe in the Torah deeply so I accept that there is a contradiction and live with it."

That sounds far more rational to me, than spouting some wild fekokte theory that makes no sense and contradicts everything that we know.

jewish philosopher said...

My question is: how much is actually KNOWN about history prior to 1756 bce and how much is merely ASSUMED. Consider these quotes for example. 

"The creation of a reliable chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology

"Due to the sparsity of sources throughout the "Dark Age", the history of the Near Eastern Bronze Age down to the end of the Third Babylonian Dynasty is a "floating chronology". In other words, it fits together internally as a "relative chronology" but not as an "absolute chronology"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East#Variant_Bronze_Age_chronologies

"Logographic systems, or logographies, include the earliest true writing systems; the first historical civilizations of the Near East, Africa, China, and Central America used some form of logographic writing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logogram#Logographic_systems

"The main difference between logograms and other writing systems is that the graphemes aren't linked directly to their pronunciation. An advantage of this separation is that one doesn't need to understand the pronunciation or language of the writer to understand it. The reader will recognise the meaning of 1, whether it is called one, ichi or wāḥid in the language of the writer. Likewise, people speaking different Chinese dialects may not understand each other in speaking, but can to a significant extent in writing even if they don't write in standard Chinese. Therefore, in China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan prior to modern times, communication by writing was the norm of international trade and diplomacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logogram#Separating_writing_and_pronunciation

So is there actual evidence that there was no Dispersion and no Deluge and that non-Hebrew languages were spoken in this era, or do secular scholars merely assume this because they simply assume that anything miraculous is a myth?

Saying the Torah is false because it mentions miracles and miracles cannot happen and we know that miracles cannot happen because the Torah is false would, of course, constitute a logical fallacy of question begging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

jewish philosopher said...

This quote is also interesting:

Middle Kingdom (2040–1650 BC)
During the Middle Kingdom, architecture and art styles first continued or imitated older styles. The Old Kingdom became the 'golden age' of the Middle Kingdom, and literature, which flourished during this period, frequently referred to the past. 

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/7.9.html

Jeff said...

I would defer to somewhat with truly expert and not wikipedia level knowledge of the subject....

jewish philosopher said...

Supposedly, wikipedia is pretty good

http://www.livescience.com/9938-study-wikipedia-pretty-accurate-hard-read.html

however if anyone has better information, I'm all ears.

natschuster said...

I understand that most of what we know about Egyptina history was acquired from fragments of copies of the works of Menuto, who lived during the ptolemaic period. He transcribed the oral traditions he heard from the Egyptian preists. So our information is not even second hand. It isn't even third hand.

Jeff said...

I don't think real experts frequent this blog.

ksil said...

Saying the Torah is false because it mentions miracles and miracles cannot happen and we know that miracles cannot happen because they have never been witnessed experienced or recorded and go against all known scientific knowledge makes perfect sense!

"how much is actually KNOWN about history prior to 1756 bce..."

bingo....we don't know, therefore we accept some outlandish man-made bubba maysah?!?! in line with zeus, santa, tooth fairy, and all the other narishkeit the folks in china and other far east countries believe...its all BS. too bad you dont see it, or should i say, too bad for your kids,,,,growing up in such a cult (maybe one day they will see the light, hopefully when they can read these blog comments and other skeptik blogs....hope)

jewish philosopher said...

"I don't think real experts frequent this blog."

Well, if there are some secrets which I don't know, readers of this blog don't know and I cannot find it on the Internet, then I'll guess I'll just have to remain sunken in ignorance.

"they have never been witnessed experienced or recorded and go against all known scientific knowledge makes perfect sense!"

Here's a miracle.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocaust-clear-evidence-of-gods-hand.html

If you're waiting for some sort clear, open revelation of God's presence, don't hold your breath. It has rarely happened in history, which I think is unsurprising. I worked for a corporation with about 2,000 employees for about 15 years. I personally saw the CEO probably three times. I personally saw him speak once. God is probably more important. He's not going to stop by and chat every week or two.

".we don't know, therefore we accept some outlandish man-made bubba maysah"

That's precisely why I reject evolution 

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

with this nonsense about worms becoming everything from blue whales to bald eagles to people and instead I accept the very rational Torah

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

Jeff said...

" He's not going to stop by and chat every week or two."

What else has He got to do? Is His attention limited?

That's a silly anthropomorphism. Have to do better than that. After all, your God is all knowing, all present and all powerful. You're defending him for being too busy? Oy, poor guy!

jewish philosopher said...

"What else has He got to do?"

Besides visiting people like us? I'm sure plenty.

Jeff said...

"Plenty" out of infinity is infinitesimally small...

Flowing with your anthropomorphism....according to Judaism, the universe was created for man, so why would revealing himself to us be so tiresome? Being an all powerful king, Wouldn't glorifying yourself and revealing your power and greatness to your subjects be a worthy endeavor? Especially since your greatness and power is being challenged so much.

Still waiting for something better!

jewish philosopher said...

We can speculate endlessly about God's motives, however the exercise is probably about as productive as fleas speculating about human motives. Even in terms of studying nature, we seem to be hitting a wall,

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/10/has-science-fizzled-out.html 

let alone fathoming the motives of nature's Creator.

Jeff said...

"let alone fathoming the motives of nature's Creator."

Fair enough, but don't say that it makes logical sense. It doesn't.

jewish philosopher said...

It's perfectly logical. For us to fathom God's motives we would have to be as intelligent as He is, which is clearly not the case. God can create people. We cannot create even a bacterium.

Jeff said...

In other words, its logical to be illogical.

Interesting philosophy! That will get you far.

jewish philosopher said...

It's perfectly logical. For us to fathom God's motives we would have to be as intelligent as He is, which is clearly not the case. God can create people. We cannot create even a bacterium.

Joel said...

"Being a soulless bag of chemicals created by unguided, meaningless random chance you of course have no free will. You are merely a zombie acting automatically according to the chemicals swishing around in your brain. I don't find this too plausible for many reasons."

You are always having an "advantage" when debating atheists, by declaring them to be biased because of their sax drive. It seems that you are also biased, by not being able to live with the idea that you are just chemicals swishing around in your brain.

You shouldn’t give away this weakness of yours.

jewish philosopher said...

If you believe that we are both merely bags of chemicals, why do you care what I think?

Joel said...

Me? I don't care. It's just that my bag of chemicals cares what you think. They are laid out in such a configuration that they care for other people.

jewish philosopher said...

But from your point of view, I am not fundimentally different than a garbage bag full of sewage. And neither is anyone else reading this. What is the point of sending a message to a garbage bag full of sewage? Do you talk to Dumpsters or toilets for example?

Joel said...

I would love to communicate with Dumpsters and toilets, if they would only reply. People who can hear their replies actually do talk to them. (These people have the schizophrenic chemical configuration).

Seriously though, It would be perfectly logical for garbage cans to care for one another. I care about you because your chemical configuration is very similar to mine. The same way you care for a fellow orthodox Jew, which is because he is similar to you.

jewish philosopher said...

If we have no free will in any case, then all debate and discussion is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Joel said...

So now we have two biases...

1. bag of chemicals.
2. no free will.

Yes, I know. Atheists also have two. 1, sex. 2, bacon.

jewish philosopher said...

The concept that people are objects who do not possess a soul is the foundation of psychopathy. I am certainly against other people being psychopaths, but I might enjoy being one. It's very liberating.

Joel said...

Atheists would argue that the biggest psychopath in world history is... You know who. Further they would argue that if you don't like other psychopaths then you sure shouldn’t humble yourself before the biggest one of them all.

jewish philosopher said...

God is the infinitely kind creator who gives life to all things. Atheists are emotional two year olds who lash out at God because He makes and enforces some very reasonable rules.

Joel said...

Atheists would argue that believers are a special case of Stockholm Syndrome.

jewish philosopher said...

Stockholm Syndrome is a bond sometimes forming between an abuser and a victim.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/08/opinion/oe-ochberg8

I don't see how God's demand for obedience to a balanced, healthy way of life, after having created us, constitutes abuse.

jewish philosopher said...

Just incidentally, the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing may be a myth. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery#After_the_robbery

I can at least say for myself as a victim of abuse (and I'm referring to my adopted parents) I don't feel any bonding caused by the abuse.

I think if there is actually a Stockholm Syndrome at all, it may be in cases of a male abuser and a female victim.

Anonymous said...


It was Josephus who said the Egyptians "set them (Israel)also to build pyramids..." (Antiq. II, 9:1) Pyramids were built at least up till the time of the Ahmose (about 1540 - 1515 BC), first king of the 18th Dynasty, when Israel would have been there. I am not saying all the pyramids were build by Jews or slaves. For more info on Red Sea/Yam Suf crossing, and Mount Sinai please have a look at this site = http://www.sinai-horeb.com/