Old and New Testament, and Koran, as a mystical Egyptian initiation

[Wepwawet]

By the time Josephus drew the connection between Joseph and the Hyksos, Isreal was in open war with Rome. It wasn't long after that the 2nd temple was destroyed by the invading Roman army. This would be about 1600 years after Joseph

Biblical timelines show centuries had passed between the time of Josephs governance in egypt and the hyksos incursions, it would be centuries more before the time of Moses. so no i dont beleive the exodus and the expulsion of the hyksos are even equated through causality. 
I also do not ascribe the biblical drought forseen by Joseph as a "great drought" in any term outside a biblical reference, i did not use quotations to depict any significance. There is record of a massive and prolonged drought believed to have been about 2200 bc, but this is likely before the timeline of Joseph, probably before the Isrealites entered Egypt. I have edited out the word "great" from my post, if that helps...

How many great ancient civilizations have attributed their rise or fall to the workers (slaves) who supported them. Regardless, there is more evidence to support the "nation building mythology" of the Isrealites than there is against it. Historically, and within the archeological evidence.

Joseph's "governance of Egypt" is not supported. This leads into "nation building mythology". What is happening here is that the Israelites are "piggy backing" on Egypt. It was their neighbour and sometime ruler for generations, so it's understandable that they make Egypt their "oppressor and bogey man". A change in the religion of the Hebrews from polytheism to henotheism, and I use that word because the Hebrews of Exodus did not deny the existence of other gods, needed a mechanism by which they could create an "evil empire" to justify and explain their new identity. They were engaging in gaslighting and propaganda no less than that which we are subjected to in modern times. They say they were "slaves" in Egypt, yet there is no evidence that the Egyptians ever kept entire peoples as slaves. That they had a form of slavery is not in doubt, but it was never like slavery in Rome, it was more like bonded labour.

You say that there is archaeological evidence to support this, but there is nothing that puts any people calling themselves either Hebrews or Israelites in Egypt. Yes, I know that many people grasp at all sorts of straws as "evidence", but it all falls eventually. Then there are the absolutely ridiculous stories made up about Akhenaten, even by some folks who otherwise seem reasonable and intelligent. Dogma, blind belief in a religion, it is the enemy of truth.

[Datguy]

Joseph's "governance of Egypt" is not supported. 

It is though, that was the video I posted, I'm guessing you didn't watch it...
The evidence can found in places other than that video, I'm just using it as quick reference to a compilation of physical and historic evidence.

please don't conflate evidence with truth. I will be the first to admit that history is inaccurate in all its forms. But evidence can compel knowledge and understanding

[Wepwawet]

It is though, that was the video I posted, I'm guessing you didn't watch it...
The evidence can found in places other than that video, I'm just using it as quick reference to a compilation of physical and historic evidence.

please don't conflate evidence with truth. I will be the first to admit that history is inaccurate in all its forms. But evidence can compel knowledge and understanding

No I didn't watch it. There are thousands of videos like this, all clamouring for attention, all saying that they have "the truth", some are from people who are honest, but wrong, most are from click baiters and outright grifters, some are from outright nut jobs, such as a guy who has made a video stating that Amunhotep II is the "Pharaoh of the Exodus". I just don't have time or inclination to watch all these things, I prefer arguments presented in writing.

You say "please don't conflate evidence with truth", a rather odd saying, but I think I know what you are on about. My reply is, don't conflate a book written hundreds or even thousands of years after events it says happened, with evidence. The only truth is what actually happened, all we can do is to try to find this truth without direction from a dogmatic religious book written and compiled long after the truth was dead and buried.

[Datguy]

No I didn't watch it. There are thousands of videos like this, all clamouring for attention, all saying that they have "the truth", some are from people who are honest, but wrong, most are from click baiters and outright grifters, some are from outright nut jobs, such as a guy who has made a video stating that Amunhotep II is the "Pharaoh of the Exodus". I just don't have time or inclination to watch all these things, I prefer arguments presented in writing.

You say "please don't conflate evidence with truth", a rather odd saying, but I think I know what you are on about. My reply is, don't conflate a book written hundreds or even thousands of years after events it says happened, with evidence. The only truth is what actually happened, all we can do is to try to find this truth without direction from a dogmatic religious book written and compiled long after the truth was dead and buried.

I think you misunderstand the bible. It is a compilation of books, written by many scribes and witnesses of history as it happend, over time. The bible was around for thousands of years before the dead sea scroll were found and the literary translations are almost exact. Sure there are some differences between the Greek and Aramaic translations on certain words and phrases but the overall accuracy combined with archeological evidence shouldn't be overlooked. 
From Mt.Ararat to calvary, from Avaris to Sodom to Jerusalem the evidence piles up high, that the bible is true.
The people and the places are real.
And the truth did die, on a cross, to save us from eternal damnation. But He did not stay buried.

[Byrd]

I think you misunderstand the bible. It is a compilation of books, written by many scribes and witnesses of history as it happend, over time. The bible was around for thousands of years before the dead sea scroll were found and the literary translations are almost exact. Sure there are some differences between the Greek and Aramaic translations on certain words and phrases but the overall accuracy combined with archeological evidence shouldn't be overlooked. 
From Mt.Ararat to calvary, from Avaris to Sodom to Jerusalem the evidence piles up high, that the bible is true.
The people and the places are real.
And the truth did die, on a cross, to save us from eternal damnation. But He did not stay buried.

You're going to have a hard time with that argument.

Yes, it's a compilation of books and there's a lot of sources for several of them.  But it's not a book of history or science and it gets a lot of things wrong.

For instance, when the Hebrews are headed for the promised land, they pass the city of Pi-Ramesses... which was built by Ramesses the Great, and we know that neither he nor his father drowned or had their reign cut short.  Likewise, in Deuteronomy 1, the Amorites are reported to live in cities whose walls "stretch up to the sky" and that they're all giants.

We have the remains of their cities.  Nothing giant about them.

...and so forth.

[Wepwawet]

I think you misunderstand the bible. It is a compilation of books, written by many scribes and witnesses of history as it happend, over time. The bible was around for thousands of years before the dead sea scroll were found and the literary translations are almost exact. Sure there are some differences between the Greek and Aramaic translations on certain words and phrases but the overall accuracy combined with archeological evidence shouldn't be overlooked. 
From Mt.Ararat to calvary, from Avaris to Sodom to Jerusalem the evidence piles up high, that the bible is true.
The people and the places are real.
And the truth did die, on a cross, to save us from eternal damnation. But He did not stay buried.

No, I don't misunderstand it. Part of what I am saying is that because it is a mishmash written long after the events said to have taken place, then it disqualifies it as being historical, and please note that I'm referring here to the references to Egypt. Another point is that no matter it's origins, the Bible is now a complete work, and it is used as a complete work and believed to be the word of God by many people, and it is the fact of this belief that also disqualifies it as being used as historical.

On it's "accuracy" concerning Egypt, and Egypt alone, it is entirely inaccurate, so inaccurate that even the name of the pharaoh of Exodus cannot be pinned down to an actual pharaoh, hence the date of the Exodus being scattered across millennia and nobody can agree on when it is supposed to have occurred. The closest we have to a history of events in Egypt is that which is written by the Egyptians themselves, or by the representatives of states extant at the time who had relations with Egypt, not by people who by their own account were a homeless tribe wandering around in Egyptian territory at the time of these events, and whom the Egyptians failed to notice, Sinai being just as much Egypt in those days as it is now. This is one of many serious anomalies in Exodus, so serious that it cannot be taken as being historical in any way shape or form.

[Datguy]

You're going to have a hard time with that argument.

Yes, it's a compilation of books and there's a lot of sources for several of them.  But it's not a book of history or science and it gets a lot of things wrong.

For instance, when the Hebrews are headed for the promised land, they pass the city of Pi-Ramesses... which was built by Ramesses the Great, and we know that neither he nor his father drowned or had their reign cut short.  Likewise, in Deuteronomy 1, the Amorites are reported to live in cities whose walls "stretch up to the sky" and that they're all giants.

We have the remains of their cities.  Nothing giant about them.

...and so forth.

More accurately, Pi-Ramesses is the location where the Exodus began. Which was built by the Isrealites for Ramesses II. The bible does not mention him by name only by "pharoah" 
Exodus 1:11 "Therefor they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with thier burdens. And they built for Pharoah treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses"

Not sure what drowning has to do with it?

No they are not all referred to as giants, OG The king of the Amorites in Canaan was beleived to be the last decendent of a Rephaim race of giants. It is thought he stood 9-13 feet tall (taller than Goliath).
There are many modern accounts of "giants" or people born with "gigantism". This should come as nothing new or surprising or mythically unrealistic.

Many of the ancient amorite cities had great walls, Babylon, Heshbon, even Jerusalem were surrounded by large fortified walls...

But thank you for pointing out the historical truth in the bible

[Datguy]

No, I don't misunderstand it. Part of what I am saying is that because it is a mishmash written long after the events said to have taken place, then it disqualifies it as being historical, and please note that I'm referring here to the references to Egypt. Another point is that no matter it's origins, the Bible is now a complete work, and it is used as a complete work and believed to be the word of God by many people, and it is the fact of this belief that also disqualifies it as being used as historical.

On it's "accuracy" concerning Egypt, and Egypt alone, it is entirely inaccurate, so inaccurate that even the name of the pharaoh of Exodus cannot be pinned down to an actual pharaoh, hence the date of the Exodus being scattered across millennia and nobody can agree on when it is supposed to have occurred. The closest we have to a history of events in Egypt is that which is written by the Egyptians themselves, or by the representatives of states extant at the time who had relations with Egypt, not by people who by their own account were a homeless tribe wandering around in Egyptian territory at the time of these events, and whom the Egyptians failed to notice, Sinai being just as much Egypt in those days as it is now. This is one of many serious anomalies in Exodus, so serious that it cannot be taken as being historical in any way shape or form.

But in reference to Egypt specifically, they were not simply nomads wandering about, they had lived there for hundreds of years, worked and lived with Egyptians as Egyptians.  
The Isrealites did not become a homeless wandering tribe until the exodus (unless you account for the tribe Esau who remained in Canaan when his brother entered egypt.)

Some would argue that the bible is a complete work, some would disagree as the ethiopian bible is said to contain all of the books that were removed over time, 88 in total. and all a translation of even older hebrew, greek and aramaic writings.

You should read it sometime. 10/10 would recommend 

[Creaky]

No I didn't watch it. There are thousands of videos like this, all clamouring for attention, all saying that they have "the truth", some are from people who are honest, but wrong, most are from click baiters and outright grifters, some are from outright nut jobs, such as a guy who has made a video stating that Amunhotep II is the "Pharaoh of the Exodus". I just don't have time or inclination to watch all these things, I prefer arguments presented in writing.

You say "please don't conflate evidence with truth", a rather odd saying, but I think I know what you are on about. My reply is, don't conflate a book written hundreds or even thousands of years after events it says happened, with evidence. The only truth is what actually happened, all we can do is to try to find this truth without direction from a dogmatic religious book written and compiled long after the truth was dead and buried.

So every historical book ever written can be considered useless

[Wepwawet]

So every historical book ever written can be considered useless

I'm talking about the Bible, which when it comes to Exodus specifically, is not history, it is mythological nation building. It has no more validity as history than the Roman myth of Aeneas coming from Troy as the ancestor of Romulus and Remus.