Quick question for M*W and Trilairian

What the book of vivifying the dead forever said and these scholors is the sholorly evidence and credible references. You just refuse to face the fact that your religion was proven wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You just keep repeating the same thing, and you do no research.

At the end of these threads, if people follow them they will see the large and continual ignorance you display. That's why that HeavyMetal dude blasted on you... But it's cool because when people read for themselves the whole entire conversation they will see that you just repeat yourself, and overlook evidences. Which is fine with me because I'm out here sharing my ideas for the people that take time to read and do research and consider all the possibilities.

Your opposition only grounds and reinforces my testimony.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe it's just me, but when someone spells "scholarly" as "scholorly," I tend to disbelieve they have any scholarly skills whatsoever, LOL.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trilairian,

Your first source ONLY says that the tabernacle construction given to Moses in" Exodus 25-27 " and the camp described in "numbers 2" , show some egyptian influence - that is all - when they mention Akhenaten later in that article it is to tell that some letters (describing something in Jerusalem ) , were contemporary with him - that is ALL !!

Artapanus wrote that Moses had been an egyptian army leader , winning a war against the ethiopians, he was at the pharaonic court during Pharaoh Khaneferre - and both he and the israelites just came from Egypt - not strange that there might be some egyptian influence in their constructions ...........

 

Your first source do NOT prove that Akhenation build the tabernacle at mount Sinai !!

 

Trilairian ,
First the validation of your second source:

Your second source is from " Laurence Gardner´s book : bloodline of the holy grail"
where he quotes - yes you guessed it - Ahmed Osman :

"Ahmed Osman has made an in depth study of these personalities in their contemporary egyptian environment, and his findings is of great significance"

all the story (not history) after the above sentence is quoted from Ahmed Osman - it is his usual tale of Aminadab and Akhenaten - as usually Ahmed never reveals his source for his statements ......
what is the historical quality of that ?


Second the content of your second source:
NOWHERE in this source, is it mentioned that Akhenaten build a tabernacle ..... !!!!!!
Your second source (Ahmed Osman) ONLY claims that MOSES build a tabernacle - and then claims that Akhenaten could be MOSES .....

That is one of the worst cases of a lousy non-valid source , that I have ever seen !!

In your post, you state as a historical fact, that Akhenaten build a tabernacle at mount Sinai - but please give us a source that actually says so !!

 

This is actually impressing, at first I didn´t believe it, so I read both sources again and even looked in the Torah under exodus and numbers :

Trilairian has managed to qoute on two sources , NONE of which is claiming that Akhenaten build a tabernacle at mount Sinai:

Source 1: never mentions that Akhenaten built a tabernacle ......
Source 2: mentions that MOSES built the tabernacle ....

Absolutely wacko .......

 

Now let us see exactly what these sources contain .....hmmmmmmmm

Source 1 never writes anything about Akhenaten making a tabernacle !!!

Source 2 says : quote :
" Among the retainers who fled with Moses were the sons and families of Jacob (Israel).Then at the instigation of their leader, they constructed the tabernacle at the foot of mount Sinai. Once Moses had died , they began their invasion of the country left by their forefathers so long before. "

Should this prove that Akhenaten made a tabernacle at the Sinai mountain ???
It says Moses not Akhenaten !!!!!!
even in your own source 2 it says: Moses NOT Akhenaten !!!

 

An exerpt from; http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/moses.htm

The Historicity of Moses:
Our only source of knowledge about an individual named Moses is the Bible. Archaeology has not unearthed objects bearing his name, nor do ancient Near Eastern documents contain references to him. Therefore, judging his historicity, like the historicity of other early biblical figures, depends on one’s view of the historicity of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch where the preponderance of Mosaic references are found. The historicity of the Pentateuch is a vexed question in biblical scholarship. Based on inconsistencies and doublets, scholars have isolated separate sources dating from different periods. Because some of the Moses stories show inconsistencies (e.g., in some of the wilderness narratives) or occur in doublets (e.g., intercessions in Exodus and Numbers), it is difficult to know which material is historically authentic, if any. Most scholars think that the most reliable references to Moses come from the J and E sources, the two earliest.

Some scholars have gone further and isolated four different themes or traditions connected with Moses: the exodus from Egypt, the revelation at Sinai, the wandering in the wilderness, and the entrance into the Promised Land. These themes, according to modern scholars like M. Noth and G. von Rad, originated in separate settings among various tribes and preserve different historical experiences. It would then seem doubtful that the same leader could have figured in all of them. According to this view there is a gap between the original themes/traditions and the picture presented even in the earliest sources of J and E.

This difficulty is refuted by those who suggest that even if the traditions developed independently, it is not impossible that Moses originally had a place in all of them. Each tradition developed differently, and so each developed a different view of Moses as well. Thus different aspects of the same person are preserved in different traditions.

Another problem is posed by some: in one of the earliest references to the Exodus, the poem in Exodus 15, Moses is not mentioned. By the same token, references to Moses outside of the Pentateuch (especially in prophetic and hymnic literature), even in connection with exodus or Sinai motifs, are relatively few. Thus the historicity of the man, as opposed to the events, is called into question. But this does not mean that Moses was actually a negligible or nonexistent person; it results simply from the fact that prophetic and hymnic literature is concerned with God and Israel, not with individuals, and therefore it highlights very few historical personages.

It is unlikely that a quick consensus will be reached concerning the historicity of the Pentateuch. Indeed, it might be better if this concern were replaced by concern for its literary and religious aspects. Here there is no need to rely on the hypothetical reconstruction of sources or traditions. The Pentateuch makes abundantly clear (and it is not contradicted by references elsewhere in the Bible), that there was one person who, at least from the point of view of Israel’s literary-religious tradition, played a major role at the crucial point when the nation was born and its religious norms established. The importance of Moses, like the importance of all great national heroes, transcends his historicity.

 

I guess you cant add 1 + 1.

 

You didn't understand what it said.

 

I did. Go back and read it.

 

Picking on spelling, yep this shows you have no valid arguement.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Yes it does.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Still not seeing a valid argument. Oh yeah, its because you don't have one as evident in your turning to picking on spelling instead.

 

You are truly amazing Trila , first you serve the statement , that it is a historical fact , that Akhenaten constructed a tabernacle at mount Sinai .....

And then you serve 2 sources that both fail to prove it ......

LOL, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,......... you are so funny .......

 

Saying "Still not seeing a valid argument" is not a valid argument. Please try again.

Oh, and...is my argument valid?

Yes, it is.

 

Without Moses "Jews" wouldn't be "Jews"... Moses taught them their religion, sacrifices, how the tabernacle should be built, which later became their temple.

That's a good quote nameless.