'13-11-08, 05:46 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus I have a collection of images of Egyptian gods and a rather extensive description of each of them. I can't find any references to "angels" in that collection. The only winged gods are the one depicted on that image of a sarcophagus above (Isis) and the other is the Ureaus sun disk from the Akenaten period of a sun disk with wings. There aren't angels in Egyptian mythology, so the Hebrews definitely didn't get their idea of angels and cherubs from the Egyptians, they got it from, as can be seen from Stijn's images above, the Babylonians. Which only reinforces my claims that they copied their ideas from them during the first millennium BCE, and also reinforces my claim that the Ark didn't exist. There's another aspect that nobody is talking about: Read the description of the construction here. Using "pure" gold to cover the ark, and especially the poles to be used for carrying it, would create a problem as anyone who is familiar with gold would know. 24 carat gold, i.e. pure gold, as required in Exodus, is too soft. Gold is always alloyed with other metals so that it can be used for jewellery, the higher the carat, usually 18 for the highest, makes it capable of being worn without being damaged. Using pure gold would cause it to collapse under the weight of two tablets of stone (called stellae which was how information was recorded at the time). So not only is the idea of angels from Egypt just wrong, the whole concept of a box covered in pure gold, and carried on the shoulders using poles covered in pure gold, just improbable.
'13-11-08, 05:50 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus The Babylonian images aren't actually angels are cherubs either. The point being that the jews could've gotten their imagery from the Babylonians, or even from the Greek. No need for an exodus that we don't have any evidence for anyway.
'13-11-08, 05:56 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Exactly. The images are merely of gods with wings, from both Babylon and Egypt. They could merely have seen those, thought they looked enough like birds to be able to fly to the "heavens" and then invented some extra beings living with "God" as his helpers and thus angels became part of their mythology. (Just thumb-sucking supposition on my part, but is that any worse than people imagining that the sky is occupied by gods and winged beings?)
'13-11-09, 01:19 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Agrippina wrote: There aren't angels in Egyptian mythology, so the Hebrews definitely didn't get their idea of angels and cherubs from the Egyptians, they got it from, as can be seen from Stijn's images above, the Babylonians. Which only reinforces my claims that they copied their ideas from them during the first millennium BCE, and also reinforces my claim that the Ark didn't exist. Did Tut copy the idea from the Babylonians during the first millennium BCE? I thought that Tut died in the 14th Century BCE.
'13-11-09, 05:50 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Did Tut copy the idea from the Babylonians during the first millennium BCE? No, and no-one claimed that.
'13-11-09, 11:50 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Agrippina wrote: There aren't angels in Egyptian mythology, Nobody told Tut. Agrippina wrote: Using "pure" gold to cover the ark, and especially the poles to be used for carrying it, would create a problem as anyone who is familiar with gold would know. 24 carat gold, i.e. pure gold, as required in Exodus, is too soft. Gold is always alloyed with other metals so that it can be used for jewellery, the higher the carat, usually 18 for the highest, makes it capable of being worn without being damaged. Using pure gold would cause it to collapse under the weight of two tablets of stone (called stellae which was how information was recorded at the time). So not only is the idea of angels from Egypt just wrong... Oops, Tut must have fucked up. Bad Tut. Baaaaaaaad Tut. Agrippina wrote: ...the whole concept of a box covered in pure gold, and carried on the shoulders using poles covered in pure gold, just improbable. So, the verbal description of a ceremonial box describes something that is impractical, because gold leaf doesn't wear well, and you dismiss the whole thing? When did practicality ever figure into the design of a ceremonial box? Besides, it was a verbal description. The box was never built, because the verbal description was impractical? I used to build houses for a living. And in 10 years in the business, I never once saw a set of prints that could be built as designed — there was always something on the prints that just wasn't physically possible. Yet all of those houses got built. How is that possible? Anybody who has ever built something knows that what was prescribed, and what actually happened, are never the same thing. Furthermore, I repeat that whether or not the Ark was ever built is actually irrelevant anyway. We don't have the artifact (nor do we have Sargon's basket), so we're just analyzing what we do have, which is the verbal description. And the words prescribe two opposing cherubs with their wings outstretched, spanning the extents of the box, and touching in the middle. And of all of the imagery presented so far, the closest matches to this description all come from Amarna. But because it doesn't suit your pet theory, that the Hebrews got nothing from Egypt, you refuse to see the similarity. Then comes the difference, that the Ark was supposed to be adorned with cherubs, while the Amarna art depicts angels, which is consistent with Atenism and with the fundamental principles Judaism, and with the modern depictions of the Ark, but is inconsistent with the description in the OT. So in a rare departure from literal interpretations of scripture, the Jews prefer that the Ark be drawn with angels instead of cherubs. And this is dismissed as patronization of Christian sensitivities? So when were Christians ever scared of depicting mythical creatures? And take a look at all of the gargoyles in Christian art and architecture. Some of them are simply grotesque humans, but many of them follow the ancient tradition of cherubs, combining elements from different species, as attested by St. Bernard of Clairvaux's complaints against them in the 12th century CE. What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them. So it sure seems that mythical creatures are popular among Christians, whether prescribed by the Bible or not (as in the case of gargoyles), but not so popular with Akhenaten or Tutankhamun, nor with the modern Jews. Hmmm...
'13-11-09, 16:51 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Agrippina wrote: There aren't angels in Egyptian mythology, so the Hebrews definitely didn't get their idea of angels and cherubs from the Egyptians, they got it from, as can be seen from Stijn's images above, the Babylonians. Which only reinforces my claims that they copied their ideas from them during the first millennium BCE, and also reinforces my claim that the Ark didn't exist. Did Tut copy the idea from the Babylonians during the first millennium BCE? I thought that Tut died in the 14th Century BCE. Other than having wings what resemblance do see between the Babylonian reliefs and the Egyptian? stijndeloose wrote: "Cherubs", neo-Assyria (between 900 and 700 BC). "Cherubs", excavated at Nimrud, 9th century BC. Another. Another. Another. Anyway, only three in the first Babylonian relief could actually be called cherubs. Here are some cherubs, something very popular in Babylonia for guarding gates, kings, and the sacred. Where the Jews were when they wrote the story. So what seems more likely: That the author/s of the story were talking about cherubs that they were very familiar with at the time or Egyptian goddesses that their ancestors might have heard of 600 years before?
'13-11-09, 18:05 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: Other than having wings what resemblance do see between the Babylonian reliefs and the Egyptian? Ummm, that they all have wings, and that they all are standing on their hind legs? What's your point? Oldskeptic wrote: So what seems more likely: That the author/s of the story were talking about cherubs that they were very familiar with at the time or Egyptian goddesses that their ancestors might have heard of 600 years before? I acknowledge that: the OT specifies cherubs, at the time the story was canonized, the Israelites were heavily influenced by, if not fully under the captivity of, people who were fond of cherubs, and the reason for the specification of cherubs instead of angels was said influence. But I also acknowledge that: cherubs are inconsistent with Atenism, cherubs are inconsistent with the principles of Judaism, the OT specifies two opposing cherubs with their wings outstretched, spanning the extents of the box, and touching in the middle, none of the Babylonian cherubs are stretching their wings to cover something, and touching in the middle, as they are at Amarna, and in the OT, and modern depictions of the Ark in authoritative literature show angels, not cherubs, in spite of the Christian fondness for mythical creatures, and contrary to the wording of the OT description of the Ark. This all makes sense if the Ark story was originally Egyptian, but the story got changed a little bit during the Babylonian captivity (i.e, angels to cherubs), to appease their masters. Why else would the Israelites indulge in such idolatry, except under duress? This tells me that that part of the story wasn't a Hebrew tradition. So either the whole story was invented under the influence of the Babylonians, or the Hebrews had an earlier tradition that got tweaked a little bit, courtesy of the Babylonians. The reason why I don't think that the whole thing was Babylonian is the outstretched wings touching in the middle, which was not Babylonian, and which was distinctly Egyptian (at least during the Amarna period).
'13-11-09, 18:12 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: And the words prescribe two opposing cherubs with their wings outstretched, spanning the extents of the box, and touching in the middle. And of all of the imagery presented so far, the closest matches to this description all come from Amarna. Err, no, the box from King Tut's tomb that you posted an image of doesn't match that. It doesn't have 2 opposing cherubs on it whose wings touch in the middle. But because it doesn't suit your pet theory, that the Hebrews got nothing from Egypt, you refuse to see the similarity. Why don't you start by provide evidence that there was such a people as Jews/Hebrews back in King Tut's day? Without that, your claims that the Hebrews got their imagery from Armana Egypt are worthless. They could easily have gotten the imagery hundreds of years later, from the Assyrians, as the images I posted earlier demonstrate. And it doesn't take an 'exodus' that you don't have any evidence for anyway. (As a side note, OldSkeptic, YES, I know those images aren't actually angels. Neither are those from King Tut's tomb for that matter.) Then comes the difference, that the Ark was supposed to be adorned with cherubs, while the Amarna art depicts angels, which is consistent with Atenism and with the fundamental principles Judaism, What? How? Evidence, please. and with the modern depictions of the Ark That doesn't mean anything. Catholics tend to get quite a bit of things wrong about Jesus as well. Hundreds of years for the original imagery to be distorted by external influences. but is inconsistent with the description in the OT. And I reckon the Jews back in the day knew best what they believed, no? That was your argument, wasn't it? That Jews know their own beliefs? So in a rare departure from literal interpretations of scripture, the Jews prefer that the Ark be drawn with angels instead of cherubs. And this is dismissed as patronization of Christian sensitivities? So when were Christians ever scared of depicting mythical creatures? And take a look at all of the gargoyles in Christian art and architecture. Some of them are simply grotesque humans, but many of them follow the ancient tradition of cherubs, combining elements from different species, as attested by St. Bernard of Clairvaux's complaints against them in the 12th century CE. What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them. So it sure seems that mythical creatures are popular among Christians, whether prescribed by the Bible or not (as in the case of gargoyles), but not so popular with Akhenaten or Tutankhamun, nor with the modern Jews. Hmmm... They weren't all that popular with medieval Christians either, as your quote from St. Bernard of Clairvaux demonstrates. Neither are they all that popular today, judging by the imagery inside Christian churches. Apart from all that, a human with wings isn't all that difficult an image to arrive at without influences from abroad. You ever dreamt of flying, Chandler?
'13-11-09, 18:39 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Compare: Exodus 25, NIV wrote: 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Even if we grant your unsubstantiated claims that the cherubim should actually have been angels, Chandler, I wouldn't call that a close match.
'13-11-09, 20:17 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: But I also acknowledge that: cherubs are inconsistent with Atenism, So what? cherubs are inconsistent with the principles of Judaism, It's the second time you claim this. You have yet to substantiate it. the OT specifies two opposing cherubs with their wings outstretched, spanning the extents of the box, and touching in the middle, It doesn't. It doesn't specify that the wings should touch in the middle. It does specify a couple of other things that the winged goddesses on the box from King Tut's tomb don't correspond to, though. See above. none of the Babylonian cherubs are stretching their wings to cover something, and touching in the middle, as they are at Amarna, and in the OT, and That's because, as with the Egyptian "cherubs", they're not really cherubs, and they're not on top of an arch, and the jews didn't HAVE to steal every single detail from someone else. You think they had no imagination AT ALL?? modern depictions of the Ark in authoritative literature show angels, not cherubs, in spite of the Christian fondness for mythical creatures, and contrary to the wording of the OT description of the Ark. This doesn't mean shit. See my previous post(s). This all makes sense if the Ark story was originally Egyptian, but the story got changed a little bit during the Babylonian captivity (i.e, angels to cherubs), to appease their masters. No. Because, as far as has been possible to demonstrate so far, the Egyptians didn't have any more of a concept of Angels than the Babylonians did. Why else would the Israelites indulge in such idolatry, except under duress? What? How is a depiction of a human with wings any more or less idolatrous than a depiction of a human with wings and a bull's head? You do remember that the good book also says the following, don't you? Exodus 20:4-6, KJV wrote: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; This tells me that that part of the story wasn't a Hebrew tradition. So either the whole story was invented under the influence of the Babylonians, or the Hebrews had an earlier tradition that got tweaked a little bit, courtesy of the Babylonians. The reason why I don't think that the whole thing was Babylonian is the outstretched wings touching in the middle, which was not Babylonian, and which was distinctly Egyptian (at least during the Amarna period). And which isn't in Exodus anyway, so hear, hear!
'13-11-09, 21:42 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: Why don't you start by provide evidence that there was such a people as Jews/Hebrews back in King Tut's day? Without that, your claims that the Hebrews got their imagery from Armana Egypt are worthless. The archeological evidence shows that in the 13th Century BCE (immediately following the Amarna period), Hebrew settlements started popping up throughout Canaan. These are clearly identifiable by the absence of pig bones in their trash heaps. Note that this was just after the Amarna period. I'm not saying that there were Hebrews during the Amarna period. I'm saying that the pastoral nomad culture in Canaan was fertilized with ideas from a small group of nobility exiled from Egypt at the end of the Amarna period. They knew the prayers that could only be recited by high priests, and they knew the art and architecture at Amarna, which few people at the time knew, and which were subsequently suppressed, and not known again until modern times. stijndeloose wrote: They could easily have gotten the imagery hundreds of years later, from the Assyrians, as the images I posted earlier demonstrate. They could easily have gotten some imagery from anywhere. But where did they get that imagery? As with the literary similarities between Psalm 104 and Amarna poetry, if these images are so commonplace, why don't you just show me some angels from outside of Egypt, with their wings outstretched, spanning the length of some object? stijndeloose wrote: Then comes the difference, that the Ark was supposed to be adorned with cherubs, while the Amarna art depicts angels, which is consistent with Atenism and with the fundamental principles Judaism, What? How? Evidence, please. I'm not sure what you're questioning, but just to take a wild stab at it, if you're questioning whether or not idolatry (including the depiction of mythical beasts) is taboo in Judaism, and therefore angels are less offensive than cherubs, I can quote from the page that Agrippina cited on the construction of the Ark: Read the description of the construction here. As a general rule, Judaism rejects physical manifestations of spirituality, preferring instead to focus on actions and beliefs. Indeed, the story of Judaism begins with Abraham who, according to ancient sources, shattered the idols that were the conventional method of religious observance at the time. Worship of graven images is harshly condemned throughout the Torah, and perhaps the greatest sin the Israelites collectively committed was the construction of the Golden Calf (in Ex. 32), intended to serve as a physical intermediary between them and God. Today, Jews do not venerate any holy relics or man-made symbols. So for there to be any relic at all was a bit of a sacrilege, and it's arguable that the Ark was just a concession to the pagan instincts of the common people, while the theologians would have preferred nothing at all. Still, angels are less mythical than cherubs. stijndeloose wrote: and with the modern depictions of the Ark That doesn't mean anything. Catholics tend to get quite a bit of things wrong about Jesus as well. Hundreds of years for the original imagery to be distorted by external influences. More like thousands of years. But my point is that it would otherwise be odd that after so much distorting by external influences, especially where the most powerful would be the Christians, who don't see anything wrong with paintings of mythical beasts, the consensus settles on a distinct departure from the OT, which explicitly calls for cherubs, and which are well-known creatures, in ancient and modern art, and rather, chooses angels instead. You don't find that odd? For me, there has to be a reason. And the reason is obvious enough to anybody who knows anything about Judaism. Re-read the quote above, or I can provide more if you like. (For one thing, you could check the ten commandments — one of them explicitly forbids idolatry.) Taken in context, cherubs on a Jewish relic are red herrings, which could only have come from outside of Hebrew culture. stijndeloose wrote: So it sure seems that mythical creatures are popular among Christians, whether prescribed by the Bible or not (as in the case of gargoyles), but not so popular with Akhenaten or Tutankhamun, nor with the modern Jews. Hmmm... They weren't all that popular with medieval Christians either, as your quote from St. Bernard of Clairvaux demonstrates. Neither are they all that popular today, judging by the imagery inside Christian churches. No, the quote from St. Bernard of Clairvaux demonstrates that they weren't all that popular with St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and we can infer that there had to have been something for him to be complaining about. Or we can just look at the medieval architecture, and see plenty of gargoyles. stijndeloose wrote: Apart from all that, a human with wings isn't all that difficult an image to arrive at without influences from abroad. You ever dreamt of flying, Chandler? Similarly, a baby in a basket floating down a river could have happened in any number of cultures, without anybody getting the idea from elsewhere. Two poems could have 14 out of 16 verses in common just by random chance. Everybody in the Mediterranean could have independently invented the same alphabet. Such things are all physically possible. My only point there is that if you are going to require forensic evidence for everything, that's fine, so long as you require forensic evidence for everything. In other words, don't bother putting forward any of your own hypotheses without such evidence, or you'll prove yourself to be a hypocrite. But then if you're going to be like that, I truly don't know why you would even spend time debating ancient history. Even modern forensic science is fallible. By comparison, ancient history is all hunch-work, and always will be. stijndeloose wrote: the OT specifies two opposing cherubs with their wings outstretched, spanning the extents of the box, and touching in the middle, It doesn't. It doesn't specify that the wings should touch in the middle. My bad. It says that "the cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them." To overshadow the cover, they have to touch in the middle, or overlap, but it doesn't specify which. On the sarcophagus from Tut's tomb, on the long side, the wings meet in the middle. On the short side, they overlap. Thanks so much for that important point of order!!! Excuse me while I go wipe myself after that one... stijndeloose wrote: This all makes sense if the Ark story was originally Egyptian, but the story got changed a little bit during the Babylonian captivity (i.e, angels to cherubs), to appease their masters. No. Because, as far as has been possible to demonstrate so far, the Egyptians didn't have any more of a concept of Angels than the Babylonians did. Then Tut fucked up, didn't he? Bad Tut. Baaaaaaaad Tut. Why don't you just go ahead and destroy the evidence that doesn't suit your pet theory?
'13-11-09, 22:05 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: stijndeloose wrote: Why don't you start by provide evidence that there was such a people as Jews/Hebrews back in King Tut's day? Without that, your claims that the Hebrews got their imagery from Armana Egypt are worthless. The archeological evidence shows that in the 13th Century BCE (immediately following the Amarna period), Hebrew settlements started popping up throughout Canaan. These are clearly identifiable by the absence of pig bones in their trash heaps. Canaan is not Egypt. CharlesChandler wrote: Note that this was just after the Amarna period. And? CharlesChandler wrote: I'm not saying that there were Hebrews during the Amarna period. I'm saying that the pastoral nomad culture in Canaan was fertilized with ideas from a small group of nobility exiled from Egypt at the end of the Amarna period. And the evidence for this claim is....? CharlesChandler wrote: They knew the prayers that could only be recited by high priests, and they knew the art and architecture at Amarna, which few people at the time knew, and which were subsequently suppressed, and not known again until modern times. Citations??
'13-11-09, 23:49 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm not saying that there were Hebrews during the Amarna period. I'm saying that the pastoral nomad culture in Canaan was fertilized with ideas from a small group of nobility exiled from Egypt at the end of the Amarna period. And the evidence for this claim is....? First, you'll have to define the word "evidence". Give me an example of something that you consider to be incontrovertible proof.
'13-11-10, 00:41 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm not saying that there were Hebrews during the Amarna period. I'm saying that the pastoral nomad culture in Canaan was fertilized with ideas from a small group of nobility exiled from Egypt at the end of the Amarna period. And the evidence for this claim is....? First, you'll have to define the word "evidence". Give me an example of something that you consider to be incontrovertible proof. That you don't understand what evidence is explains a lot.
'13-11-10, 03:26 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus I understand the evidence is a drawing from 1906 and two vaguely similar poems.
'13-11-10, 04:47 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: I understand the evidence is a drawing from 1906 and two vaguely similar poems. No, I'm asking you to give an example of something that you consider to be valid evidence of something. I'm looking for a benchmark here. Just being "critical", without employing an explicitly declared standard of value, isn't necessarily useful. So we need something to which the present analysis can be compared. For example, a forensic scientist could show you two fingerprints, and say that they match, by the legal standards set for such things. Then you could say that you are not convinced, because you see differences. Well yes, there are always going to be differences between two different prints — the only way to get pixel-for-pixel equality between two images is for one to be a direct copy of the other. So fingerprinting is not useful? I disagree. Fingerprints are unique, and have been used to solve a lot of crimes, despite the fact that no two samples were ever a pixel-for-pixel match. By studying enough samples, the forensics experts determined how many features have to be in common for two prints to be considered a match beyond a reasonable doubt, and now that's what they use. So long as everybody understands the standards, it's a worthwhile endeavor. The point here is that there is a difference between good critical reasoning versus just being ornery. A good comparative analysis in ancient history, of literature or art or whatever, is a search for trends and patterns, in the interest of better understanding how civilization has progressed through the years. It isn't pixel-for-pixel equality, which never existed, and never will. It's a matter of looking at enough samples to come to know how similar two things have to be for it to be a legitimate match. The fewer the data, the more interesting this gets. But finding differences doesn't disprove a match. You have to find more similarities somewhere else to disprove a proposed similarity.
'13-11-10, 08:49 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Agrippina wrote: There aren't angels in Egyptian mythology, Nobody told Tut. Flippancy is not a proper response. You don't know what Tutenkamun knew and didn't know. Isis and the Uraeus are not angels. Agrippina wrote: Using "pure" gold to cover the ark, and especially the poles to be used for carrying it, would create a problem as anyone who is familiar with gold would know. 24 carat gold, i.e. pure gold, as required in Exodus, is too soft. Gold is always alloyed with other metals so that it can be used for jewellery, the higher the carat, usually 18 for the highest, makes it capable of being worn without being damaged. Using pure gold would cause it to collapse under the weight of two tablets of stone (called stellae which was how information was recorded at the time). So not only is the idea of angels from Egypt just wrong... Oops, Tut must have fucked up. Bad Tut. Baaaaaaaad Tut. Again with the flippancy. Produce some science that shows that it's possible to make a box out of acacia wood, put two dirty great big stones in it, cover it with gold leaf, and then make gold rings attached to it to hold acacia sticks covered in gold leaf to use to carry it, and then show that the gold won't be damaged. I've just had an 18 carat gold bracelet repaired. The little charms that hang from it are also made of the same 18 carat gold, and I've been warned by the jeweller to be careful because they will break off again as the gold is too soft. So please tell me how four gold rings are going to support the weight of a wooden box and two stellae. Please? Agrippina wrote: ...the whole concept of a box covered in pure gold, and carried on the shoulders using poles covered in pure gold, just improbable. So, the verbal description of a ceremonial box describes something that is impractical, because gold leaf doesn't wear well, and you dismiss the whole thing? When did practicality ever figure into the design of a ceremonial box? It was not a ceremonial box when it was being schlepped around the desert. It was supposed to be able to hold the two stones engraved with the law, so of course it would require some engineering expertise to make it possible for the goddamned box to survive the journey. This is not a gold coach being drawn by six horses through the streets of London. It's a box being carried on the shoulders of men. Besides, it was a verbal description. The box was never built, because the verbal description was impractical? I used to build houses for a living. And in 10 years in the business, I never once saw a set of prints that could be built as designed — there was always something on the prints that just wasn't physically possible. Yet all of those houses got built. How is that possible? Anybody who has ever built something knows that what was prescribed, and what actually happened, are never the same thing. Your experience is not science. Who is "anybody?" Obviously your building codes don't require that you ask permission to make alterations to approved plans. You must live in a very small environment and deal with very small-scale building. If you're going to build a bridge that requires engineering and don't stick to the plans and the scientifically calculated measurements, the thing is going to fall down. Or doncha know that? Furthermore, I repeat that whether or not the Ark was ever built is actually irrelevant anyway. We don't have the artifact (nor do we have Sargon's basket), so we're just analyzing what we do have, which is the verbal description. And the words prescribe two opposing cherubs with their wings outstretched, spanning the extents of the box, and touching in the middle. And of all of the imagery presented so far, the closest matches to this description all come from Amarna. But because it doesn't suit your pet theory, that the Hebrews got nothing from Egypt, you refuse to see the similarity. We also don't have any solid evidence for the lighthouse at Alexandria. Is that a myth as well? It's not a matter of having actual artefact, it's a matter of having evidence for its existence in historical records. There are no extra-biblical historical records for the existence of the ark, however there are images showing the Egyptian sarcophagi (and the lighthouse) and we have actual examples of the sarcophagi in museums. There is no physical evidence whatsoever for the ark, thus it's a myth. Then comes the difference, that the Ark was supposed to be adorned with cherubs, while the Amarna art depicts angels, which is consistent with Atenism and with the fundamental principles Judaism, and with the modern depictions of the Ark, but is inconsistent with the description in the OT. So in a rare departure from literal interpretations of scripture, the Jews prefer that the Ark be drawn with angels instead of cherubs. And this is dismissed as patronization of Christian sensitivities? So when were Christians ever scared of depicting mythical creatures? Biblical descriptions are not evidence for things written in the Bible. I don't know what the angels thing and the worship of the sun disk is about. Akhenaten worshipped the sun disk. There were no priests, officials or other beings or gods, people worshipped the sun (the disk, the Aten) directly. I can't see why you see angels. And take a look at all of the gargoyles in Christian art and architecture. Some of them are simply grotesque humans, but many of them follow the ancient tradition of cherubs, combining elements from different species, as attested by St. Bernard of Clairvaux's complaints against them in the 12th century CE. There is no mention of angels or description of them in the Bible except for the description in the details about how to build the ark. The idea could have been copied from the Babylonian art. What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them. So it sure seems that mythical creatures are popular among Christians, whether prescribed by the Bible or not (as in the case of gargoyles), but not so popular with Akhenaten or Tutankhamun, nor with the modern Jews. Hmmm... Gargoyles were popular at the time simply because of the building style, just more mythology being depicted.
'13-11-10, 09:33 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm not saying that there were Hebrews during the Amarna period. I'm saying that the pastoral nomad culture in Canaan was fertilized with ideas from a small group of nobility exiled from Egypt at the end of the Amarna period. And the evidence for this claim is....? First, you'll have to define the word "evidence". Give me an example of something that you consider to be incontrovertible proof. That you don't understand what evidence is explains a lot. For example your claim that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan in the 13th century BC would require either archeological evidence of their presence or contemporary and credible sources mentioning their presence.
'13-11-10, 09:35 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: The point here is that there is a difference between good critical reasoning versus just being ornery. A good comparative analysis in ancient history, of literature or art or whatever, is a search for trends and patterns, in the interest of better understanding how civilization has progressed through the years. It isn't as simple as subjectively seeing similarities and thereby making the positive conclusion that they share a cultural heritage. The pyramid example has already been mentioned.