Evidence That Moses Existed

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
4,370
Reaction score
5,138
Points
1,903

Several ancient writers mentioned him
Oh brother----bad news for you. The word MOSES means SON. Yeah----their were all sorts of MOSES's.
Mow-Sheh is an Egyptian word meaning "Drawn from", as in drawn from the Nile.

Mow-Sheh?

These were Egyptian hebrews--so moses is a thought to be a derivative of the Egyptian Hebrew word MES for son...which makes sense given the names we see of ancient Egypt and that realize that ancient times were always in most civilized cultures obsessed with the sun and the son as far gods went.

Nope...The sister or daughter of Paroah named Moshe; Moshe's parents named him Tuvia, meaning "Good".
It's right there in the verses.
And MOSES means son---which is right there in the name.
Which is about what this tread is about---FINDING THE name MOSES in other ancient writings. Moses in those writings meant SON which may or may not be a reference to the biblical moses at all regardless of who named him.
 

Blackrook

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
18,979
Reaction score
7,322
Points
350
If the first five books of the Bible doesn't convince you Moses is real, what would?
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
48,845
Reaction score
11,249
Points
2,030

Several ancient writers mentioned him
Oh brother----bad news for you. The word MOSES means SON. Yeah----their were all sorts of MOSES's.
Mow-Sheh is an Egyptian word meaning "Drawn from", as in drawn from the Nile.

Mow-Sheh?

These were Egyptian hebrews--so moses is a thought to be a derivative of the Egyptian Hebrew word MES for son...which makes sense given the names we see of ancient Egypt and that realize that ancient times were always in most civilized cultures obsessed with the sun and the son as far gods went.

Nope...The sister or daughter of Paroah named Moshe; Moshe's parents named him Tuvia, meaning "Good".
It's right there in the verses.
And MOSES means son---which is right there in the name.
Nope
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Well, what did you mean when you said Moses isn't a historical figure?
There's no widespread accounting of him in the region ... as I said above, folks writing down the day-to-day activities of their community ... scribes and clerics ... from a body of writings we can construct a written history of the times ... then match the archeological evidence for the deeper understanding of the times ...

We have only the one narrative, that alone doesn't establish verifiable facts ... go back to the desert and keep digging ... [giggle] ...
If Moses wasn’t an historical figure, then what was he? A fictional character?

Was Jesus an historical figure? Jesus spoke of Moses.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,049
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
If Moses wasn’t an historical figure, then what was he? A fictional character?
Was Jesus an historical figure? Jesus spoke of Moses.
What ever you want him to be ... your choice ... if you don't have a body historical documents that mentions him, then he's not historical ... yea, I know, you're oblivious to other people's definitions, confounding to you that other people think differently ... vainity and vexation of spirit ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If Moses wasn’t an historical figure, then what was he? A fictional character?
Was Jesus an historical figure? Jesus spoke of Moses.
What ever you want him to be ... your choice ... if you don't have a body historical documents that mentions him, then he's not historical ... yea, I know, you're oblivious to other people's definitions, confounding to you that other people think differently ... vainity and vexation of spirit ...
I'm asking what you believe. I'm good with your belief either way.

My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. They should not be afraid to express their beliefs and the basis for their beliefs. Hearing different beliefs and different basis for beliefs is a good thing. So your opinion of me is wrong.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,049
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.

I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.

So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,049
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
... written accounts ... written accounts ... written accounts ... oral accounts ... these accounts ... purpose of the accounts ... the accounts ... these accounts ...
I have ONE written account in my hands, the Bible ... pray tell ... where can I find all these other written accounts? ...
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
69,794
Reaction score
15,688
Points
2,180
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.

I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.

So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
Written accounts of moses while he was alive?
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
... written accounts ... written accounts ... written accounts ... oral accounts ... these accounts ... purpose of the accounts ... the accounts ... these accounts ...
I have ONE written account in my hands, the Bible ... pray tell ... where can I find all these other written accounts? ...

Damn wiki, as much as I want to criticize it they have something on just about darn near everything.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.

I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.

So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
Written accounts of moses while he was alive?
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
That's a standard that doesn't exist anywhere in antiquity.

 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
69,794
Reaction score
15,688
Points
2,180
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.

I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.

So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
Written accounts of moses while he was alive?
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
That's a standard that doesn't exist anywhere in antiquity.

So, no.
Buuuut dragons :dance:
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.

I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.

So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
Written accounts of moses while he was alive?
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
That's a standard that doesn't exist anywhere in antiquity.

So, no.
Buuuut dragons :dance:
If that's how you processed it, then that's on you.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,049
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Written accounts of moses while he was alive?
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
Ha ha ha ... advertising copy for his family's business ... ha ha ha ... not really ...

"History that Deserves to be Remembered"

Skip to 2'25" to avoid modern advertising copy ...
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,049
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
... written accounts ... written accounts ... written accounts ... oral accounts ... these accounts ... purpose of the accounts ... the accounts ... these accounts ...
I have ONE written account in my hands, the Bible ... pray tell ... where can I find all these other written accounts? ...

Damn wiki, as much as I want to criticize it they have something on just about darn near everything.
Yes ... I have The Bible right here in my hands ... this is ONE written account ... where are the others to be found? ...
 

Marŝi tra la Cindro

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
112
Points
43
Always believe and do the opposite of what jews say. The fact jews want you to believe this is itself evidence against it.
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,469
Reaction score
6,147
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
... written accounts ... written accounts ... written accounts ... oral accounts ... these accounts ... purpose of the accounts ... the accounts ... these accounts ...
I have ONE written account in my hands, the Bible ... pray tell ... where can I find all these other written accounts? ...

Damn wiki, as much as I want to criticize it they have something on just about darn near everything.
Yes ... I have The Bible right here in my hands ... this is ONE written account ... where are the others to be found? ...
I can't make you drink. I can only lead you to it.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,049
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...

My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...

Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.

I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.

So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
Written accounts of moses while he was alive?
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
That's a standard that doesn't exist anywhere in antiquity.

So, no.
Buuuut dragons :dance:
If that's how you processed it, then that's on you.
That's how scholarship addresses it ... not our rules ...

Do you believe Achilles was dipped in the River Styx because Homer said so? ...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top