Posted on 07/07/2025 2:40:29 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Moses or Epstein? Which one has more documentation now?
Of course ‘Moses’ is a very rare name ... jumping to conclusion is always the best idea. Right?
Any source that uses the idiotic “BCE” date label is suspect.
The Bible doesn’t need historical or archeological corroboration, as nicely affirming as it sometimes may be. The historical reliability of the biblical text has been proven many times over.
Kilroy was here.
Prior to the period in Egypt the Hebrews had no sacred edifices, temporary or permanent. “Alters” were erected where local custom chose and abandoned as families and clans migrated. Then Moses designated a specific tabernacle to be erected with the migrating Hebrews during the Exodus and its dimensions became the model for the Holy of Holies exclusive inner chamber in the later temple in Jerusalem. Moses, the experience in exile in Egypt, and the Exodus affected later formation of some Hebrew religious practices.
A lad, grown too tight, one supposes,
Was dreadfully sore with phimosis
The doctor said, “Why,
Circumcision we’ll try...
A plan recommended by Moses.
Owie owie
One of *those* topics, and a nice twofer.
But it looks like the Hebrews invented the zot. Who knew?
OK, you win the thread!
Could have been another Moses. It was not an uncommon name.
Well it is obvious that this is a significant discovery because there is the standard checkered ruler right beside it. It has been my observation that every time an archeologist finds one of those checkered rulers an important discovery is made close by. Maybe we should tune our satellites to look for those checkered rulers and we would find many more significant pieces of history much faster.
So most Archaelogists in the World are idiots? The designation of AD and BC was first ceated by a Christian monk named Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD, who was trying to formalize the date for designated Easter. The Roman Calendar is a Solar Calendar, while most Middle Eastern Calendars were Lunar Calendars, and most folks did not recognize the Roman Calendar. Most observed their Holy days by it, not the Roman. Calendar. It was imposed forcefully by the Romans on all who it conquered. The AD and BC Roman Calendar was Venerable Bede popularized the “AD” system in his “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” completed in 731 AD. Bede used the Latin “ante... incarnationem Dominicam” (in the year before the incarnation of the Lord) to refer to years prior to AD 1, Which cemented the time from the birth of Christo. If an Archaelogist is trying to recon time, he does so from the current date backwards, since so many cultures vary in their Calendars. Also, the Catholic Church arbitrarily labed the birth, and in their own Encyclopedia admit that the date is designated. They also mention that the date is four years off.
It’s what they’ve got to do to keep the grant money flowing.
Ping!........
Yeah, it didn’t say THE Moses.,.,.......
“Any source that uses the idiotic “BCE” date label is suspect.”
Agreed.
Kilroy was here.
I always write: Barb is cool.
'And yo, the Gyp-chum Fare-Road Man say "Who dat be who emerged from a semi-permeable membrane?"
"Osmosis!"
(thank you; you've been an audience. Please tip your waitress)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
