Marduk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lolol
> this is hilarious

You're telling me ...

> heres a few inconsistencies in the old testament
> story for you to consider [...]
>
> 1) the israelites at the time they were being
> handed ten laws written by god were illiterate

If you look at Exodus itself, rather than relying on vague recollections of the Cecil B. DeMille version, I think you'll find that you're slightly confused on this particular point.

Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do". And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain [...] - Exodus 24:3-4

As far as your confident assertion that "at the time" the Israelites "were illiterate", perhaps you missed the following when it made the headlines five or six years ago?

Oldest Alphabet Found in Egypt (BBC News, November 15, 1999)
([news.bbc.co.uk])

First Alphabet Found in Egypt (Archaeology, Volume 53, Number 1, January/February 2000))
[www.archaeology.org]

For a slightly more up-to-date discussion, there's this from James K. Hoffmeier (2005):

The recent discoveries by John Darnell at Wadi el-Hol in the western desert of Egypt have revealed a collection of rock drawings and inscriptions, including a couple of early Semitic-alphabetic texts [1]. Although they are still being studied, preliminary reports indicate that these texts may be the oldest West Semitic alphabetic writing known. The team of scholars who are examining these texts provisionally believe, based upon the orthographic comparison with Egyptian hieratic signs from First Intermediate Period texts, that the Wadi el-Hol script dates to ca. 2100 BC. This new evidence might indicate that the Semitic alphabetic script was actually invented in Egypt by Semites at the end of the third millennium, rather than in Canaan or Sinai, a date much earlier than Semitists had thought.

The importance of Darnell's discovery is that the Semitic alphabet originated several centuries earlier than previously thought [...]. If we place Moses in the thirteenth century, then more than a half millennium separates him from the earliest known Semitic alphabetic writing [...] (p. 179).


[1] Publication of some of the Egyptian texts has recently appeared: John Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, Volume 1: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1-45 and Wadi el-Hol Rock Inscriptions 1-45 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2002). Owing to the complex nature of the early Semitic-alphabetic texts, however, and because a team of scholars, including specialists in early Semitic scripts, are working together on the new texts, more time is required prior to the publication of these Semitic texts.

> "Exodus (original version)
> 35,1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of
> the children of Israel, and said unto them: 'These
> are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that
> ye should do them.
> And the congregation did say "what is the first
> law of God" master
> And moses did reply "something something
> something, Kill" i think "
>
> 2) Why were the commandments written on tablets.

Slight confusion here. Moses had already written the 'commandments' down. The "tables of testimony" were presented on a subsequent trip up the mountain:

The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give you the tables of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction [...] - Exodus 24:12

And he gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God - Exodus 31:18

> Thats a mesopotamian legacy and according to their
> own lips the Hebrews hadn't been enslaved by the
> Babaylonians yet [...].

'Tables' of stone "written with the finger of God" are a Mesopotamian legacy?

> Surely as Moses was allegedly an
> egyptian the commandments would have been written
> on papyrus, in hieroglyph

See above. Besides, I was under the impression that stone stelae and clay tablets were all the rage in the Bronze Age Near East (the Amarna archives come to mind for some reason), so I'm not sure what's necessarily 'Mesopotamian' about this legacy?

> 3) The slavery in egypt was circa 1500bce with
> Moses acting as Patriarch. The slavery in Babylon
> was circa 500bce with Ezekial acting as Patriarch.
> Seems YHWH was intent on having his chosen people
> enslaved once every millenia as a matter of
> course.

Over the last four thousand years, the city of Jerusalem has been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged twenty-three times, attacked an additional fifty-two times, and captured and recaptured forty-four times (see Cline's Jerusalem Besieged for details). I guess YHWH doesn't much care for Jerusalem either, although I'm not quite sure what this has got to do with the price of eggs in China. Or what your example above has got to do with your list of alleged "inconsistencies in the old testament story", for that matter ...

> 4) There has never been any evidence proving that
> the Israelites were slaves in egypt, nor any
> evidence for the existence of Moses [...].

What kind of evidence is required to 'prove' that the Israelites were in Egypt? What kind of evidence can we expect to find 'proving' the existence of Moses? On the other hand, what kind of evidence 'proves' that the Israelites were never in Egypt, or that Moses never existed? This insistence on certainty seems to me to miss the point about historical evidence completely.

> however babylonian captivity is a historical fact and at
> the time the name "Moses" was well known in
> mesopotamia due to the diplomatic ties that
> existed between the two nations. bit like calling
> a fictional character "John Smith"

Could you let me know what your evidence is for your statement that "at the time [of the babylonian captivity] the name 'Moses' was well known in mesopotamia due to the diplomatic ties that existed between the two nations".

You'll forgive me for being a little dubious ([www.hallofmaat.com]).

That aside, not all scholars agrees that Moses is an Egyptian name (see Hoffmeier and Kitchen, in particular), which slightly scuppers your suggestion above.

I would suggest having a little peruse of chapter 10 of Hoffmeier's book, "Egyptian Personal Names and Other Egyptian Elements in the Exodus-Wilderness Narratives". Other Israelite names from the Pentateuch (especially among the Levitical tribe) thought to be of Egyptian etymology include Aaron, Ahira, Assir, Hori, Hur, Merari, Miriam, Phineas, Puah, and Putiel. There are also a number of other Israelite names of Egyptian origin outside the Pentateuch (included in genealogical lists etc.). Some of these, according to Hoffmeier, include Ahimoth, Harnepher, Hophni, Jarha, Jeremoth, Pashhur, and Sheshan.

> 5) The wandering in the desert lasted for 40 years
> and the israelites were led by a flame at night
> and a column of smoke by day. It's less than 250
> miles from the red sea to israel
> what were they doing, sightseeing ?, that means
> they averaged less than 10 miles a year [...]

Er, no it doesn't. The biblical account says absolutely nothing about a route march from A-B. Here's a helpful synopsis from Hoffmeier (2005):

"Although the number forty often appears to be used symbolically in the Bible, here the number actually represents a tallying of the years from the departure from Egypt (first month of the year, day 15; cf. Exod. 12:18-32; Lev. 23:6; Num. 33:3), to the arrival at Mt. Sinai six weeks later (ie., the third new moon; cf. Exod. 19:1), the eleven months at Mt. Sinai (cf. Num. 10:11), the time to travel from Mt. Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea, and thirty-eight years - the wandering period - in the area of Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 2:14) [...]" (pp. 36-37).

> whereas Jonah who is dropped off by "the whale" on
> the coast makes it to nineveh in less than a day, a
> journey of no less than 1000 miles, thats
> averaging over 40 mph [...].

Again, you seem a little confused. If you look at the Book of Jonah itself, you'll find that it says something quite different. In fact, the biblical account gives no indication at all of the distance between where Jonah was 'spat' ashore by the "great fish", and the distance he travelled to Nineveh itself. Instead, it says the following:

And the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you". So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a day's journey [...] - Jonah 2:10 - 3:1-4

So your idea that Jonah travelled "1000 miles" in a day ("averaging over 40 mph") bears no relationship to what's written in the biblical account itself, which states clearly that Jonah travelled "a day's journey" into the city itself (the city being "three days' journey in breadth").

> clearly whoever wrote those
> two accounts had no idea of the geography of the
> local area because they'd never been there.

Well, based on what you've argued above, you've done absolutely nothing to demonstrate your point.

> 5) the ark of the covenant which they allegedly
> placed the fragments of the tablets into after
> moses had broken them exists no where outside the
> bible, yet it was allegedly carried throughout the
> land and shown to the people, however in
> mesopotamia scribes learnt to read and write by
> rote, the first few words that appear on hundreds
> of students tablets are "gods" "holy" "wooden"
> "box". These would have been accessible by the
> Jews exiled in babylon during the babylonian exile
> who would have been trying to learn the language
> of their captors at the time. Bit of a coincedence
> that they should see that after claiming to have
> had one. is it cart before the horse or horse
> before the cart

I'm not quite sure of your point here. Portable shrines in a variety of forms were an intrinsic feature of the Late Bronze Age.

Hoffmeier (2005): "The Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties offer numerous depictions of portable shrines being carried by priests. In the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, a relief of Seti I shows a phyle of priests transporting a shrine by its poles in a religious procession. A striking detail is included that is not shown inthe Eighteenth-Dynasty scenes: statues of Amun and re are shown in the shrine, with a pair of goddesses extending their wings to protect the deities [...]" (p. 213).

Grierson & Munro-Hay (1999): "Should we be looking for the Ark among the processional barques of Egypt, the chests of Tammuz, the carts of the Phoenicians or the sacred stones and tent shrines of the Arabs?" (p. 15).

An interesting side note: according to Exodus, acacia is the principal wood used in the construction of the tabernacle and the the ark of the covenant. According to Hoffmeier, the Hebrew word for acacia is sittah or sittim, which in turn is a loanword from Egyptian, snd.t. And where do we find acacia trees? In barren regions like the Sinai Peninsula and the Arabian Desert.

Hoffmeier: "[Of] the twenty-eight occurrences of sittim in the Old Testament, twenty-six are found in Exodus and one is found in Deuteronomy (10:3), where Moses recalls making an ark out of acacia. The lone reference to acacia outside of the Pentateuch is in Isaiah 41:19, but even here it is located 'in the wilderness' [...]" (p. 209).

> 6) this one i know all regular posters at Maat
> will agree with,
> here is a description of the tower of babel which
> everyone knows was a mesopotamian ziggurat

All "regular posters at Maat" known that the Tower of Babel "was a Mesopotamian ziggurat"? Wow, I guess I don't qualify as a regular poster

> "They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks
> and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead
> of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said,
> "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower
> that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a
> name for ourselves and not be scattered over the
> face of the whole earth."
> they were exiled in babylon for 70 years and that
> is their description of what they saw there.
> yet in 400 years of slavery in egypt they didn't
> mention a single pyramid
> not one. they wrote an account of their time there
> and neglected to mention the one awe inspiring
> sight that every visitor to egypt sees and
> comments on. How many of you reading this have
> visited Egypt, and how many of you have written
> about the pyramids since you returned.

This is all getting a bit silly now. I hadn't realised the biblical account of the Exodus had been written by scribes working for the Ancient Egyptian Tourism Board.

Besides, I thought Egypt was a big place, and had a variety of things to see and do? We have various accounts of Alexander the Great's visit to Egypt, but to the best of my knowledge none of them make a point of mentioning the pyramids. They do describe his visit to the oracle at Siwah Oasis, though, but do we conclude from that that he was never in Egypt in the first place?

The Bible mentions the Israelites in Egypt with specific reference to the building of Pharaoh's "store-cities, Pithom and Raam'ses" in the Eastern Delta. What this has got to do with their biblical scribes' failure to mention the pyramids seems to me to be ever so slightly besides the point.

Incidentally, given what the biblical writers did have to say about the Israelites' (alleged) sojourn in Egypt, I find the following detail (courtesy of Hoffmeier) quite intriguing:

"[...] [The] occurrence of Ramesses in the exodus narratives points to the city of Pi-Ramesses, which flourished for only 150 years (ca. 1270-1120 BC). Tanis soon replaced it as the dominant city of the northeast Delta, beginning in the eleventh century, for the next thousand years. The identification of Rameses in Exodus 1:11, 12:37, and Numbers 33:3 makes best sense as Pi-Ramesses. Furthermore, the appearance of Rameses in the exodus story suggests that either the memory was preserved to later times, when the city no longer existed, or that the actual writing took place when the city still flourished. Had the biblical writer(s), as Lemche has imagined, been creating a 'fictitious picture' five to six hundred years after the purported event, then an amazing coincidence occurred. They blindly got the name right!" (pp. 57-58).

> The old testament is mostly fiction
> and the catholic church agrees

Funny that, but the link you've provided does nothing to support your insistence that the Old Testament "is mostly fiction".

Just a couple of relevant extracts:

[...] The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect "total accuracy" from the Bible.

"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision," they say in The Gift of Scripture [...].

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: "Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come."

I'm sure they'd probably agree that the story of Jonah being swallowed by a "great fish" shouldn't be taken too literally, either.