The Exodus

[BayGBM]

Anyone watch the 10 Commandments a couple weeks ago?

[Migs]

don't hold much belief in the ark.

[MCWAY]

Anyone watch the 10 Commandments a couple weeks ago?

I miss the TV broadcast, but I have it on both tape and DVD. In fact, I have the "Ten Commandments" and "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" on the same tape.

I still love that movie and it's over 50 years old. One of my favorites scenes is then the high priest complains to Pharaoh (Seti) about Moses' using the grain from the temple, dedicated to the gods, to feed the hungry Israelites.

Seti later asks if the plans to his jubilee is complete. The high priest, Jannes, confirms that all is ready, except the official proclamation of marriage, between Prince Ramses and the throne princess, Nefeteri, who defiantly shouts, "NO!" (Remember that she has to marry the next Pharoah, and since she's in love with Moses, she's been politicking with Seti, to get him to pick his adopted nephew).

Seti questions how sure Jannes is that Ramses will be the guy. Jannes smugly asks, "Who else could be your successor?"

Nefeteri snarls as Jannes, "MOSES, of course!!!".

Jannes growls back, "BECAUSE OF MOSES, there is no wheat in the temple granneries!!"

As Jannes retorts to Nefeteri, Seti looks him up and down curiously and replies, "You don't look any leaner!".

The way he says it and the timing just cracks me up.

[BayGBM]

I miss the TV broadcast, but I have it on both tape and DVD. In fact, I have the "Ten Commandments" and "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" on the same tape.

I still love that movie and it's over 50 years old. One of my favorites scenes is then the high priest complains to Pharaoh (Seti) about Moses' using the grain from the temple, dedicated to the gods, to feed the hungry Israelites.

Seti later asks if the plans to his jubilee is complete. The high priest, Jannes, confirms that all is ready, except the official proclamation of marriage, between Prince Ramses and the throne princess, Nefeteri, who defiantly shouts, "NO!" (Remember that she has to marry the next Pharoah, and since she's in love with Moses, she's been politicking with Seti, to get him to pick his adopted nephew).

Seti questions how sure Jannes is that Ramses will be the guy. Jannes smugly asks, "Who else could be your successor?"

Nefeteri snarls as Jannes, "MOSES, of course!!!".

Jannes growls back, "BECAUSE OF MOSES, there is no wheat in the temple granneries!!"

As Jannes retorts to Nefeteri, Seti looks him up and down curiously and replies, "You don't look any leaner!".

The way he says it and the timing just cracks me up.

There is some great writing throughout that film.

I assume the version of TTC you have is DeMille's 1956 version.  Have you seen the 1923 version which he also directed?  TTC most people think of is actually a remake.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/

[MCWAY]

There is some great writing throughout that film.

I assume the version of TTC you have is DeMille's 1956 version.  Have you seen the 1923 version which he also directed?  TTC most people think of is actually a remake.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/

Nope!!

I didn't know that there was a 1923 edition. As you stated, I thought the original one was the one done in the 50s. Who played Moses in the first one (I assume it was NOT Charlton Heston)?

[The Luke]

I know sooooo much about this whole Exodus thing (due in part to my treasure hunting interest in the Ark of the Covenant and its relatio to the RLC mystery), yet I'm afraid to post in this thread for fear of McWay's cut and paste regurgitations...


Pity, 'cause this is a wonderful historical mystery. A mystery into which many, many scientific inroads have been made.

For example, we now know with good authority:
-who Moses actually was
-what the seven plagues were
-when the Exodus occurred
-what the Ark actually was
-where the real "Mount Sinai" is
-where the waters actually parted
-where the true homeland of the Hebrews actually was
...etc etc etc


The Luke

[spotter]

There is some great writing throughout that film.

I assume the version of TTC you have is DeMille's 1956 version.  Have you seen the 1923 version which he also directed?  TTC most people think of is actually a remake.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/

I saw the original & the remake....I was on a Universal Studio tour and they showed how it was done....

[MCWAY]

I know sooooo much about this whole Exodus thing (due in part to my treasure hunting interest in the Ark of the Covenant and its relatio to the RLC mystery), yet I'm afraid to post in this thread for fear of McWay's cut and paste regurgitations...


Pity, 'cause this is a wonderful historical mystery. A mystery into which many, many scientific inroads have been made.

For example, we now know with good authority:
-who Moses actually was
-what the seven plagues were
-when the Exodus occurred
-what the Ark actually was
-where the real "Mount Sinai" is
-where the waters actually parted
-where the true homeland of the Hebrews actually was
...etc etc etc


The Luke

Just as you know sooooooo much about the account of Jesus Christ  .

If you're afraid of anything, it's that I will demonstrate just how silly these claims are, just as I've done with the others.

And, BTW, there were TEN plagues, not just seven......OOOPS!!! Let me stop!!!

[The Luke]

Just as you know sooooooo much about the account of Jesus Christ  .

If you're afraid of anything, it's that I will demonstrate just how silly these claims are, just as I've done with the others.

And, BTW, there were TEN plagues, not just seven......OOOPS!!! Let me stop!!!

...you are a fundamental Evangelical Christian literalist who copies and pastes reams of apologist hogwash from intellectually dishonest pro-Christian websites.

How could you make anyone else seem silly?

Maybe copy and paste a block of text which explains how a talking snake is historical fact, and literally true...?



The Luke

[MCWAY]

...you are a fundamental Evangelical Christian literalist who copies and pastes reams of apologist hogwash from intellectually dishonest pro-Christian websites.

How could you make anyone else seem silly?

Easy!!! By using such information to counter the rambling of a left-winged atheist blowhard who copies and pastes reams of skeptic/"Enlightment" period foolishness from anti-Christian websites (yet is too cowardly to cite the specific sources of such).

The garbage you spew is nothing new, which is why finding the rebuttals and refutations to such is quite simple to do.

[MCWAY]

I saw the original & the remake....I was on a Universal Studio tour and they showed how it was done....

Who plays Moses in DeMille's 1923 film?

[The Luke]

Easy!!! By using such information to counter the rambling of a left-winged atheist blowhard who copies and pastes reams of skeptic/"Enlightment" period foolishness from anti-Christian websites (yet is too cowardly to cite the specific sources of such).

The garbage you spew is nothing new, which is why finding the rebuttals and refutations to such is quite simple to do.

...eh, I don't copy and paste.

I work from memory because I can think for myself and have read a second book.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...eh, I don't copy and paste.

The HELL you don't!! In fact, I've found some of the very sites, from which you've copied and pasted some of the mess you posted here. Proof positive of that is from the other side from GC. You copied and pasted some of the laundry lists you've posted, line by line, jot and tittle, in the exact same order and format.

I work from memory because I can think for myself and have read a second book.


The Luke

So, you're up to a whopping TWO books now....YAAAAAAAAYY!!!! Your memory ain't that sharp, because you botched up more facts than I care to count.

[The Luke]

The HELL you don't!! In fact, I've found some of the very sites, from which you've copied and pasted some of the mess you posted here. Proof positive of that is from the other side from GC. You copied and pasted some of the laundry lists you've posted, line by line, jot and tittle, in the exact same order and format.

So, you're up to a whopping TWO books now....YAAAAAAAAYY!!!! Your memory ain't that sharp, because you botched up more facts than I care to count.

...your "GovernmentControlled" gimmick account doesn't qualify as turning the other cheek.


The Luke

[BayGBM]

Who plays Moses in DeMille's 1923 film?

The IMDB link is provided above.

[MCWAY]

...your "GovernmentControlled" gimmick account doesn't qualify as turning the other cheek.


The Luke

Add this to your long line of rock-headed posts. I am not GC or any other poster on this forum.

[The Luke]

I was just trying to proffer my expertise if any anyone might be interested; I've read extensively on the subject of the Biblical Exodus (because I'm very interested in the Ark of the Covenant mystery).

There has been a lot of quality research in this field, much of it overshadowed/muted by religious sensibilities...
-Moses has been pretty well identified as an actual historical figure
-the point where the seas parted has likewise been identified
-the cause of the plagues has been identified

More interestingly, the location of the "Mountain of God" has also been found: a discovery which re-writes much of early Hebrew history, as well as the nature of the Old Testament god.


If that's a little too close to actual facts for the religiously minded, I apologise.


The Luke

[Eyeball Chambers]

Anyone see the show about the Exodus on The History Channel last night?

Very neat

They located what they thought was very likely Mount Sinai.

[The Luke]

Anyone see the show about the Exodus on The History Channel last night?

Very neat

They located what they thought was very likely Mount Sinai.

...unless they identified Jebul Madbh in Petra (Jordan) they are off base.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

I was just trying to proffer my expertise if any anyone might be interested; I've read extensively on the subject of the Biblical Exodus (because I'm very interested in the Ark of the Covenant mystery).

There has been a lot of quality research in this field, much of it overshadowed/muted by religious sensibilities...
-Moses has been pretty well identified as an actual historical figure
-the point where the seas parted has likewise been identified
-the cause of the plagues has been identified

Overshadowed by religious sensibilities? PLLLLLLLEASE!!!!

This is simply another case of Biblical skeptics, ending up with their feet in their mouths, as yet another person/place/event, which they claimed never happened or was fabricated, has been shown to be true.

Moses' historicity was hardly in doubt, excluding folks like you who must engage in severe back-tracking (once again).

Of course, when their outright denials get smashed to bits, the next skeptic step is marginalization. In other words, they grudgingly admit it happened but not to the scale to which the Bible states (i.e. the Israelites were merely squatters, not slaves; there weren't really about 2 million of them; the plagues were merely natural coincidences, etc.).

More interestingly, the location of the "Mountain of God" has also been found: a discovery which re-writes much of early Hebrew history, as well as the nature of the Old Testament god.


If that's a little too close to actual facts for the religiously minded, I apologise.


The Luke

The only thing for which you need to apologize is hurting my stomach (from all this laughing).

 

 

[The Luke]

For the record...

Most scholars accept a historical basis for the Old Testament. It is only the Jesus story that is mythical (ie: without any basis in reality at all).

There is even a good chance that the actual body of Moses has been recovered. In fact, what is most likely his special staff is kept at the British Museum.


The thing that irks most scholars/archaeologists is the attitude of literalist Christians/Jews/Muslims when it comes to scientific inquiry regarding the subject of Biblical historicity.

If a scientist asserts that there is no archaeological evidence to support an Old Testament story, he is dismissed by believers... if evidence is subsequently found, the scientist will simply change their opinion. Which is how the Scientific Method works; evidence, then conclusion.

But believers insist upon denigrating such changes of opinion, as it is incompatible with their unquestioned belief first; evidence a bonus approach.


For example, most Christians still contend that Moses parted the Red Sea...

Despite the fact that the Bible says nothing of the kind, it refers to a body of water named "Yam Suf" (spelling?) which is Hebrew for "The Sea of Reeds".

So for generations of English-speaking Christians a simple mistranslation in the King James Bible became the literal, unquestionable word of God. Any scholar who questioned such an absurdity (Moses somehow parting a body of water the size of the Red Sea) was summarily dismissed.

Of course, Yam Suff (The Sea of Reeds) is still remembered as such today, it's Lake Manzaal: a small seaside lake (full of reeds) which floods with salt water during high tides and regularly subsides to reveal a thin coastal strip of dry land across which one can walk.

Egyptian style chariot wheels have been found in Lake Manzaal, but that doesn't matter, it's not the Red Sea is it?


How can we discuss the Exodus rationally when evidence is anathema to the most vocal posters on this board?



The Luke

[MCWAY]

For the record...

Most scholars accept a historical basis for the Old Testament. It is only the Jesus story that is mythical (ie: without any basis in reality at all).

That, like much of your musings, is utter baloney. Most scholars agree that Jesus Christ is an historical figure. The debates, regarding Christ, usually center around His divinity, not His existence.

There is even a good chance that the actual body of Moses has been recovered. In fact, what is most likely his special staff is kept at the British Museum.


The thing that irks most scholars/archaeologists is the attitude of literalist Christians/Jews/Muslims when it comes to scientific inquiry regarding the subject of Biblical historicity.

If a scientist asserts that there is no archaeological evidence to support an Old Testament story, he is dismissed by believers... if evidence is subsequently found, the scientist will simply change their opinion. Which is how the Scientific Method works; evidence, then conclusion.

Wrong again. What happens is that a scientist with an anti-Christian slant starts running his mouth about an account being fabricated, when such is chronicled primarily or exclusively in Scripture. The proverbial egg-on-the-kisser comes when the archaeological evidence supports the Biblical account. Loco and I have cited numerous examples of such.

Once this happens, the backtracking begins. It's happened in the Exodus case, as it has far too many times in other examples from the Bible.

But believers insist upon denigrating such changes of opinion, as it is incompatible with their unquestioned belief first; evidence a bonus approach.

If you keep quiet, few will realize how silly you sound. Believers don't denigrate such changes of opinion. As a matter of fact, many Biblical scholars today BECAME CHRISTIANS by examining the evidence and finding the items that support Scripture. Josh McDowell is a prime example; others include Sir William Ramsay. Even posters here like GC and Loco (I think).

For example, most Christians still contend that Moses parted the Red Sea...

Despite the fact that the Bible says nothing of the kind, it refers to a body of water named "Yam Suf" (spelling?) which is Hebrew for "The Sea of Reeds".

So for generations of English-speaking Christians a simple mistranslation in the King James Bible became the literal, unquestionable word of God. Any scholar who questioned such an absurdity (Moses somehow parting a body of water the size of the Red Sea) was summarily dismissed.

Of course, Yam Suff (The Sea of Reeds) is still remembered as such today, it's Lake Manzaal: a small seaside lake (full of reeds) which floods with salt water during high tides and regularly subsides to reveal a thin coastal strip of dry land across which one can walk.

Egyptian style chariot wheels have been found in Lake Manzaal, but that doesn't matter, it's not the Red Sea is it?


How can we discuss the Exodus rationally when evidence is anathema to the most vocal posters on this board?


The Luke

Face it!! When it comes to facts, you are as bereft as you are clueless. Evidence is hardly amathema here. To the contrary, it is the evidence that I (and other use) to slap down your repeated cluckings of inaccuracy.

That is usually done, by using historical documents, references, and data gleaned from scholars, scientists, and others who have studied some of these very topics. And as is usually the case, the finding put the wrecking ball to your skeptic musings.

[The Luke]

I don't see a point to your post McWay... just a lot of thoroughly unchristian ad hominem attacks.


Is there an error in what I wrote regarding the mistranslation of "Red Sea"?

I thought this was a well known fact.

Just like Moses having horns (he was depicted as such throughout the Middle Ages due to another mistranslation); Jesus coming from Nazareth (a mistranslation of Nazorite, an esoteric Jewish sect. Nazareth was built long after Jesus' time); Moses receiving the ten commandments on Mount Sinai (it was Jebul Madbh, the "Mountain of God" in Petra); the "eye of a neede" being some form of narrow mountain pass through which only unloaded camels could pass (there was no such usage of the phrase); or the use of the phrase Sheshach describing a non-existant city (it's actually Atbash Cypher code for Babel).

If I'm wrong on some factual point by all means correct me, but your hystrical protesations ring hollow when you have no point to correct.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

I don't see a point to your post McWay... just a lot of thoroughly unchristian ad hominem attacks.


Is there an error in what I wrote regarding the mistranslation of "Red Sea"?

I thought this was a well known fact.

Just like Moses having horns (he was depicted as such throughout the Middle Ages due to another mistranslation); Jesus coming from Nazareth (a mistranslation of Nazorite, an esoteric Jewish sect. Nazareth was built long after Jesus' time); Moses receiving the ten commandments on Mount Sinai (it was Jebul Madbh, the "Mountain of God" in Petra); the "eye of a neede" being some form of narrow mountain pass through which only unloaded camels could pass (there was no such usage of the phrase); or the use of the phrase Sheshach describing a non-existant city (it's actually Atbash Cypher code for Babel).

If I'm wrong on some factual point by all means correct me, but your hystrical protesations ring hollow when you have no point to correct.

IF? You mean WHEN you're wrong on some factual points.

One glaring example is the Nazareth thing. Artifacts from Nazareth (and this came from a site linked by, of all people, Deicide) date as early as 70 A.D., less than 40 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

And that's just using the LATE DATES from this particular skeptic. Traditional Biblical scholars date such artifacts much earlier.

This, of course, is yet another skeptic backtrack mode, after earlier claims that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL got destroyed.

As for the "Red Sea" issue,

Standard discussions of this issue normally focus on an alleged dichotomy between the Red Sea and the "Sea of Reeds". The Hebrew phrase in the passage above does not indicate this, but other passages call this body of water yam suph or "sea of reeds". The LXX understood this to refer to the Red Sea, and translated it so. Recent archeological studies have made a case that the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez extended much farther north at times in Egypt's history, and that the two phrases 'sea of reeds' and 'Red Sea' are therefore describing a part of the Red Sea that would have extended north-westward to the Bitter Lakes region. The likely character of this section is described by Hoffmeier after discussing in detail the recent research [OT:IIE:209]:

"Geological, oceanographic, and archaeological evidence suggest that the Gulf of Suez stretched further north than it does today and that the southern Bitter Lake extended further south to the point where the two could have actually been connected during the second millennium. This linking may have stood behind the Hebrew naming the lake yam sup as well as the Red Sea to which it was connected."  - Glenn Miller, citing James Hoffmeier's, "Israel In Egypt: The evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition"

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html

 
Your "well-known facts", are frequently anything but that.

[The Luke]

As for the "Red Sea" issue,

Standard discussions of this issue normally focus on an alleged dichotomy between the Red Sea and the "Sea of Reeds". The Hebrew phrase in the passage above does not indicate this, but other passages call this body of water yam suph or "sea of reeds". The LXX understood this to refer to the Red Sea, and translated it so. Recent archeological studies have made a case that the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez extended much farther north at times in Egypt's history, and that the two phrases 'sea of reeds' and 'Red Sea' are therefore describing a part of the Red Sea that would have extended north-westward to the Bitter Lakes region. The likely character of this section is described by Hoffmeier after discussing in detail the recent research [OT:IIE:209]:

"Geological, oceanographic, and archaeological evidence suggest that the Gulf of Suez stretched further north than it does today and that the southern Bitter Lake extended further south to the point where the two could have actually been connected during the second millennium. This linking may have stood behind the Hebrew naming the lake yam sup as well as the Red Sea to which it was connected."  - Glenn Miller, citing James Hoffmeier's, "Israel In Egypt: The evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition"

christian-thinktank[/b].com/5felled.html]http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html

...any evidence from impartial sources?

Or just this crazy conjecture?



The Luke