[_ Old Earth _] Genesis and the age of the earth

[lordkalvan]

?

I don't get the point here.

It matters little to my point that the discovery took place in 1963, or as I have been telling you, in the late 19th century.
The POINT is that no one, throughout all the ages, knew about this analogous and factual monotheism.

Well, it goes to the heart of your understanding of Egyptology and the understanding it provides us with of that culture. For example, how often is it necessary to point out to you that what what Akhenaten introduced was the idea and worship of a supreme deity rather than monotheism, 'analogous or factual' (it's either one or the other, not both).

The only written report of such an event is Exodus.

Please provide evidence that such a 'report' says what you assert it does, that it relates to the Akhenaten period and that, if it does, this means anything other than that the writers of Exodus (whose contemporary status with Akhenaten you have done nothing to provide substantive evidence for) simply incorporated common knowledge of the events in Egypt into their legendary tale.

Second point is that this embarrassing transformation into a short lived monotheism was intentionally covered up immediately after the next Pharaoh came to power, and hence there is no chance that Exodus was merely using that incident as a histroical event which it could take credit for.

Why not? How effectively can you 'cover up' the memories of several hundreds of thousands of people (including foreign traders, travelling Egyptian merchants, diplomats and soldiers, etc) who experienced the events you referred to?

Quite the other way around, the Jews have maintained the argument that Moses was so empowered that he confronted the whole society of Egypt single handedly and won.

As you have yet to establish the historicity of this legendary account, invoking it as evidence to support your claim amounts to a circular argument at best.

Even Pharaoh, a first son, lived because he converted to monotheism.

Well, if you are referring to Akhenaten, the supreme deity he worshipped wasn't the Hebrew God, he wasn't a monotheist in the proper sense of the word, and you have not established that he was the 'first son' of Amenhotep III and/or Queen Tiy, soy our point appears moot.

He was forced to re-install himslef as a new God on Earth, the supreme God over all the previous known ancient gods of Egypt.

I don't know what you mean. Forced by whom? Are you saying Akhenaten elevated himself to the position of 'supreme God'?

I believe you are reasonable and can see that archeology and Exodus are refering to the same monotheism.

I can reasonably see that you have failed to provide substantive evidence to this effect and that, even if this were to be the case, you would still need to provide evidence that Exodus was written near-contemporaneously with Akhenaten's reign and that it retold events that actually happened rather than a legendary account.

All we had until 1877 was the Bible, which some doubted and anyone could criticize as unsupported by any evidence.

And yet here we are nearly 140 years later and most scholars still regard the Exodus account as legendary and even those who don't disagree as to the date of the alleged events it recounts. This should give you a hint as to the doubtful basis on which you make your arguments.

 

[lordkalvan]

So, to this initial discussion I return in order to point out that the Old Testament is actually part of those same writings that were written in Egypt.

You have provided no substantive evidence to this effect. My understanding is that the Book of Exodus is generally regarded as a product of the Babylonian exile, some seven centuries later than the time you attribute.

They add a contrary perspective to the knowledge of Egypt, and an addition to the history of Egypt informing us that a period of monotheism appeared in that nation.

Again, you have not supported this claim to any extent.

That sudden and previously inexplicable change in a long existing Theocracy was so disruptive as to be called a plague, and one so embarrassing to that ancient theocracy as to have hidden it intentionally until we dicscovered the truth in archeology.

The elevation of Aten in Egyptian religion can be seen beginning in the reign of Amenhotep III. Indeed, Aten was but one aspect of Amun, the sun-god, and referred specifically to the visible body of the sun. Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti together representing the mythical twin children of the creator-god Atum's, Shu and Tefnut. The hostility to Akhenaten arose from his proclamation of a god who could only be worshipped through his son, the pharaoh, and the reaction that followed was to establish Amun-Ra as a universal, transcendent god, the other deities of Egyptian religion becoming viewed as manifestations of this god. The 'truth' as you call it was not so much hidden as simply overthrown and replaced.

 

[cupid dave]

V


///


LORD:
Well, it goes to the heart of your understanding of Egyptology and the understanding it provides us with of that culture. For example, how often is it necessary to point out to you that what what Akhenaten introduced was the idea and worship of a supreme deity rather than monotheism, 'analogous or factual' (it's either one or the other, not both).

Monotheism does not mean there are not other Gods.
Christians and Jews are well aware that the bible refers to these other gods, and the congregations of people that worship them.

Monotheism in Egypt in 1362BC, and for the Jews who were leaving with Moses, meant there was a supreme God, an almighty god to be held as the only God to worship.
The 10 commandments specifically states that you will have no other God, because YHVH is jealous of such behavior.


What happened in 1362 BC though, was similar to what happened to the Roman World when Emperor Theo I mandated Jesus as lord and God, and outlawed the temples, the priesthoods, and the worship of mythologically founded Gods.






Death of the Old
The change was sudden. The shift probably took place between 1352 BC and 1338 (Assman, 214).

Temples were shut down, religious texts destroyed, and all practice of the old faith brought to a standstill. In Ancient Egypt there was no concept of the separation of church and state; on the contrary, the church was a branch of the state, integrally tied into state business.

In this political climate, the Pharaoh could reinvent church doctrine if he chose to, and Akhenaten did just that. It is difficult to imagine quite what this would have done to the collective mind of the Egyptian populace, but it would most likely have taken the rug out from underneath them; religion for the masses is never quite the same as it is for the priests who administer it, but popular faith plays a basic role in daily life.
All of a sudden the truths and modes fo thought to which the people had become accustomed were forbidden or destroyed. The reaction of a people trying to come to terms with this loss of their entire psychological and theological foundation resembles the grief of those who are faced with the death of a family member.
Egyptian cultural life and the identity of an individual rested on state festivals, which Akhenaten prohibited as part of his eradication of the old faith. (Assman, 223) This was the death of a fundamental way of life.
Akhenaten killed the old faith to bring about his new one, an example of an end joined with a beginning.
For the majority of Egyptians, the Age of Amarna was one of destruction, persecution, suppression, and godlessness of darkness by day, [the formula used to refer to the experience of divine absence."

One can imagine confusion and mourning on a country-wide scale, for the death and plunging into darkness of the old way; it is cruel irony that this dark time was symbolized at the official level by the pre-eminence of sunlight in all aspects of life.
And yet, following on the heels of this death came an ideological rebirth.
　

Exod. 11:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring (another), one plague more, (a Kenosis, or emptying out of his sacred status), upon (him, himself), Pharaoh, (Akhenaten or Amenhotep IV, 1379-1362 BC), and, (hence), upon Egypt, (upon which he shall mandate religious conversion); afterwards, (Akhenaten, Amenhotep IV, 1379-1362 BC, the religious reformer was he who would come to worshipped a single god, and transformed himself into a cosmic monotheistic pharaoh, who manifested himself as the Aten or sun-disk. His queen NEFERTITI, and their children were a holy family, with the king appearing as, virtually, the Aten on earth), he will let you go hence (for he has usurped the name of Almighty, himself): when he shall let you go (he will be free to claim himself the God you set before his people), he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether (for his people have seen my power through you, and they are open-minded to an almighty monotheistic God whom he will appropriate as himself, anthropomorphically).

 

[cupid dave]

You have provided no substantive evidence to this effect. My understanding is that the Book of Exodus is generally regarded as a product of the Babylonian exile, some seven centuries later than the time you attribute.QUOTE]


Yes, I know that is your position.

My position is that the discovery of an event where for no other reason available than the Hebrew history we find in Exodus, all REgypt became monotheistic for a few years.
Then, that fact was hidden from their history, which, had they reported it, would have confirmed the story told from the persective of Moses.


Then, our recent genetic evidence supports Exodus which says Aaron's son became the priests. We find that a very high degree if genetic similarity in the Y-chromosome of these priests living today indicated that they we all related to just one man, (Aaron).

Add to this the evidence of the same genetics that this one father of these priests living today lived at the same time as the monotheism took place in Egypt.

That is my case for Exodus in 1362BC.

 

[cupid dave]

It is important to acknowledge that in the Exodus story, the unnamed pharaoh did NOT accept a momotheistic practice. God had hardened his heart and killed his firstborn.

This pharaoh followed the Isrealites into the midst of the Red Sea and was drowned. Exd 14:8-10 and Exd 28-30


Akhenaten, on the other hand, was buried in a burial tomb. His body was preserved and not lost in a deluge among thousands of others.

Atually, I was to bring uop the fact that Akhenaten's mummy has not been found.
The events that followed after Moses had left are mysterious, indeed.
Some speculate that Akhenaten was superceded by his wife, supposedly desguised as a male.
The suspicion is that Smenkhkare, long considered a relative who successed Akhenaten, was really his wife, Nefertiti.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#cite_note-13
^ "News from the Valley of the Kings: DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten". Kv64.info. 2010-03-02http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html
. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten
Posted byKate Phizackerley on Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Abstract

The paper Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
by Hawass al. (Journal of American Medicine, 2010 - JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647), states that the mummy in KV55 is "probably" Akhenaten – hereafter "the JAMA paper". The media has accepted the attribution as affirmed fact, although the attribution has attracted considerable comment and debate with a number of writers questioning the forensic data. I believe, however, that the correct focus of dissent to the attribution should be the STR analysis which shows that the KV55 mummy is highly unlikely to be Akhenaten and that an alternative family tree is a better fit to the genetic findings of the Hawass study.

 

[Adam]

You have provided no substantive evidence to this effect. My understanding is that the Book of Exodus is generally regarded as a product of the Babylonian exile, some seven centuries later than the time you attribute.QUOTE]


Yes, I know that is your position.

My position is that the discovery of an event where for no other reason available than the Hebrew history we find in Exodus, all REgypt became monotheistic for a few years.
Then, that fact was hidden from their history, which, had they reported it, would have confirmed the story told from the persective of Moses.


Then, our recent genetic evidence supports Exodus which says Aaron's son became the priests. We find that a very high degree if genetic similarity in the Y-chromosome of these priests living today indicated that they we all related to just one man, (Aaron).

Add to this the evidence of the same genetics that this one father of these priests living today lived at the same time as the monotheism took place in Egypt.

That is my case for Exodus in 1362BC.

That isn't a case.

Your genetics claim is false.

 

[lordkalvan]

Monotheism does not mean there are not other Gods.
Christians and Jews are well aware that the bible refers to these other gods, and the congregations of people that worship them.

Well, that goes against my understanding of what monotheism means. What you seem to be talking about is monolatrism, the recognition that many gods exist, but the worship of only one of those gods.

Monotheism in Egypt in 1362BC, and for the Jews who were leaving with Moses, meant there was a supreme God, an almighty god to be held as the only God to worship.

You are assuming your conclusion again. You have not established that either Moses left Egypt during the reign of Akhenaten, let alone that there were any Jews to accompany him in his departure.

The 10 commandments specifically states that you will have no other God, because YHVH is jealous of such behavior.

So other gods do exist, it's just that the Jewish god wants to be top god, so to speak?

What happened in 1362 BC though, was similar to what happened to the Roman World when Emperor Theo I mandated Jesus as lord and God, and outlawed the temples, the priesthoods, and the worship of mythologically founded Gods.

Well, not exactly as you are now declaring other gods to be mythological rather than just of lesser status than the top god.

Death of the Old
The change was sudden. The shift probably took place between 1352 BC and 1338 (Assman, 214).

Given that average lifespans in Dynastic Egypt were around the early to mid-30s, 14 years amounts to nearly half a lifetime and is not what I would call sudden, especially as it is foreshadowed in Amenhotep III's reign.

Temples were shut down, religious texts destroyed, and all practice of the old faith brought to a standstill. In Ancient Egypt there was no concept of the separation of church and state; on the contrary, the church was a branch of the state, integrally tied into state business.

In this political climate, the Pharaoh could reinvent church doctrine if he chose to, and Akhenaten did just that. It is difficult to imagine quite what this would have done to the collective mind of the Egyptian populace, but it would most likely have taken the rug out from underneath them; religion for the masses is never quite the same as it is for the priests who administer it, but popular faith plays a basic role in daily life.

All of a sudden the truths and modes fo thought to which the people had become accustomed were forbidden or destroyed. The reaction of a people trying to come to terms with this loss of their entire psychological and theological foundation resembles the grief of those who are faced with the death of a family member.

Egyptian cultural life and the identity of an individual rested on state festivals, which Akhenaten prohibited as part of his eradication of the old faith. (Assman, 223) This was the death of a fundamental way of life.

Akhenaten killed the old faith to bring about his new one, an example of an end joined with a beginning.

For the majority of Egyptians, the Age of Amarna was one of destruction, persecution, suppression, and godlessness of darkness by day, [the formula used to refer to the experience of divine absence."

One can imagine confusion and mourning on a country-wide scale, for the death and plunging into darkness of the old way; it is cruel irony that this dark time was symbolized at the official level by the pre-eminence of sunlight in all aspects of life.
And yet, following on the heels of this death came an ideological rebirth.

Can you cite the source for what I take to be an extended quote?

Exod. 11:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring (another), one plague more, (a Kenosis, or emptying out of his sacred status), upon (him, himself), Pharaoh, (Akhenaten or Amenhotep IV, 1379-1362 BC), and, (hence), upon Egypt, (upon which he shall mandate religious conversion); afterwards, (Akhenaten, Amenhotep IV, 1379-1362 BC, the religious reformer was he who would come to worshipped a single god, and transformed himself into a cosmic monotheistic pharaoh, who manifested himself as the Aten or sun-disk. His queen NEFERTITI, and their children were a holy family, with the king appearing as, virtually, the Aten on earth), he will let you go hence (for he has usurped the name of Almighty, himself): when he shall let you go (he will be free to claim himself the God you set before his people), he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether (for his people have seen my power through you, and they are open-minded to an almighty monotheistic God whom he will appropriate as himself, anthropomorphically).

This seems to be an imaginative construction for which there is little substantive evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes, I know that is your position.

And also the position of most scholars.

My position is that the discovery of an event where for no other reason available than the Hebrew history we find in Exodus, all REgypt became monotheistic for a few years.

You have not established that 'all Egypt became monotheistic' and that the monolatrism that was imposed under Akhenaten was 'for no reason available than the Hebrew history we find in Exodus'. You simply seem to be making an unwarranted connection between the reign of Akhenaten and the legendary account of Exodus on the basis of one or two doubtful correspondences.

Then, that fact was hidden from their history, which, had they reported it, would have confirmed the story told from the persective of Moses.

Except that there was contemporary evidence available, but we were unable to decipher it until after Champoliion's foundational work on the translation of hieroglyphics:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/6d The failed reforms.pdf

Then, our recent genetic evidence supports Exodus which says Aaron's son became the priests. We find that a very high degree if genetic similarity in the Y-chromosome of these priests living today indicated that they we all related to just one man, (Aaron).

Well, Adam has disputed this interpretation, but even if it is correct this does not establish the historical connection between the reign of Akhenaten and the legendary events of Exodus.

Add to this the evidence of the same genetics that this one father of these priests living today lived at the same time as the monotheism took place in Egypt.

Again, I think Adam has critiqued ths argument quite effectively.

That is my case for Exodus in 1362BC.

A case which I am afraid does not carry much ability to convince with it.

 

[cupid dave]

That isn't a case.

Your genetics claim is false.

The claim is true.

But the point has been made:

Genetics supports Exodus was dated 3362 BC.
The historical evidence from Archeology confirms, indeed, that some weird and unaccountable episode of a monotheism, instituted by of one later disgraced Pharaoh, changed the religion to one supreme God at that time, (no doubt to compete with Moses who had hard scientific evidence for the YHVH which could not be discounted).

The point I make is more important than your contrary opinioin, since people will take sides for and against these arguments and say that they are the one who is correct.

 

[cupid dave]

And also the position of most scholars..

That has been the opinion of one school of scholars.
They have no evidence except their linguistic analysis. They argue that the way the language is used can tell then all sorts of things about when these books were written.

I use hard evidence in archeology and genetics to support what I say.

That is the difference.

 

[lordkalvan]

That has been the opinion of one school of scholars.
They have no evidence except their linguistic analysis. They argue that the way the language is used can tell then all sorts of things about when these books were written.

I use hard evidence in archeology and genetics to support what I say.

That is the difference.

Actually, you use no 'hard evidence' at all, simply an interpretation of that evidence that appears mostly circular. That most scholars regard the Exodus story as legend and having little or nothing to do with Akhenaten (except perhaps through some process of cultural exchange amongst the greatly interconnected ANE cultures) is a consequence of the absence of any substantive archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis and the contrary evidence that indicates Exodus as a narrative is tied inexorably to the period of the Babylonian exile, although some oral traditions may date to some centuries earlier.

 

[cupid dave]

Actually, you use no 'hard evidence' at all, simply an interpretation of that evidence that appears mostly circular. That most scholars regard the Exodus story as legend and having little or nothing to do with Akhenaten (except perhaps through some process of cultural exchange amongst the greatly interconnected ANE cultures) is a consequence of the absence of any substantive archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis and the contrary evidence that indicates Exodus as a narrative is tied inexorably to the period of the Babylonian exile, although some oral traditions may date to some centuries earlier.

Yes, yes, yes...

You can and will repeat that unfounded argument and ignore the other side mentioned here.

The concurrency of Akhenaten/Moses monotheism, both shown to have existed in 1350BC, by hard evidence, can be denied, but this case I bring forward here stands against the criticism you make that there is nothing to support the Bible story.



You are hardly the judge between us.
Your argument is basically that you doubt it under all circumstances.
My argument is that 3 years of monotheism throughout Egypt at the same time Moses appeared is convincing evidence that this first case of monotheism anywhere was one and the same.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes, yes, yes...

You can and will repeat that unfounded argument and ignore the other side mentioned here.

The argument is not unfounded and 'the other side' is not 'ignored'; I have simply pointed out that the evidence you present is insufficient to support the conclusion you wish to build upon it.

The concurrency of Akhenaten/Moses monotheism...

For example, you have not established a link between Akhenaten and Moses except for what you refer to as 'monotheism' in each instance.

....both shown to have existed in 1350BC...

And, beyond the coincidence of this so-called monotheism, you have failed to offer any grounds to suppose that Moses and any Hebrews at all were present in Egypt in 1350 BC, let alone that they were in any way responsible for Akhenaten's monolatrism.

...by hard evidence, can be denied...

I deny that what you have offered amounts to substantive evidence for your hypothesis, because it doesn't.

...but this case I bring forward here stands against the criticism you make that there is nothing to support the Bible story.

Well, there is virtually nothing to support the idea that the Exodus describes anything other than legendary events, that it is contemporaneous with Akhenaten, or that biblical monotheism has very much at all to do with Akenaten's monolatrism.

You are hardly the judge between us.

I never claimed to be. This is a difference of opinion which others can decide between for themselves.

Your argument is basically that you doubt it under all circumstances.

Nope, my argument is that the evidence does not support the conclusion you wish to draw from it.

My argument is that 3 years of monotheism throughout Egypt at the same time Moses appeared is convincing evidence that this first case of monotheism anywhere was one and the same.

Well, again you have failed to establsh the coexistence of Moses and Akhenaten, let alone Moses' presence in Egypt and any of the events of Exodus, so I am afraid your evidence is not as convincing as you assert.

 

[Adam]

The claim is true.

But the point has been made:

Genetics supports Exodus was dated 3362 BC.
The historical evidence from Archeology confirms, indeed, that some weird and unaccountable episode of a monotheism, instituted by of one later disgraced Pharaoh, changed the religion to one supreme God at that time, (no doubt to compete with Moses who had hard scientific evidence for the YHVH which could not be discounted).

.

It is impossble for Genetics to date the Exodus account.

But, since you insist, you need to source the studies, the experiments, the geneticists, the journal submissions and the peer reviews.

Otherwise, this conversation is over.

 

[Adam]

That has been the opinion of one school of scholars.
They have no evidence except their linguistic analysis. They argue that the way the language is used can tell then all sorts of things about when these books were written.

I use hard evidence in archeology and genetics to support what I say.

That is the difference.

Where is this evidence then?

 

[cupid dave]

Now let's consider some of the meaning of this evidence.

1) That we have archeological evidence for a monotheism in Egypt at the same time as the Book of Exodus was written, (as genetic evidence so supports).

This would be a strange coincidence, that Moses, the Exodus story, the cataclysmic upheavel of the society all transpired at the same time for no reason we can otherwise think of, if not the connection between Moses and this first appearance anywhere of monotheism.

The probability is that the Pharaoh tried to usurp the claim, making himself the supreme god on earth as pharaohs had always claimed.
This is the only hyothesis that is reasonable and the only one known, presently.

The reason this occurred was that Moses had discovered a new Planet, i.e. another God in the heavens, Uranus.

This scientific evidence, Uranus, is the only possible, reasonable, explanation that he could confront the Pharaoh, the whole social structure and live to write about it.

Moses was an old man, even a criminal, a wanted man for the murder of an Egyptian, and a Jew amongst jews who were now slaves.
He clearly had to have something that could support his preaching a new God, an unseen never noticed, therefore supreme God who had long been watching the other Planet/Gods/Religions.

2) This all becomes a Theory, (superior to a mere hypothesis), when we learn that Genetic Tests can show that half of the men living today (among those who can show/claim they are related directly to Aaron) prove to have a common father who lived 1360BC.

This date, 1360BC, is the same exact time as this archeological evidence for Akhenaten.

Then we have the Exodus confirmation, that this particular Pharaoh is the one whose body/mummy has never been found.
The reason his tomb is empty is because he died when the Rea Sea drown every man with him.


that could support the story which says Moses could point out in defense of his claim is the only reasonable way

 

[Adam]

Now let's consider some of the meaning of this evidence.

1) That we have archeological evidence for a monotheism in Egypt at the same time as the Book of Exodus was written, (as genetic evidence so supports).

If you have evidence, please cite it.

 

[lordkalvan]

Now let's consider some of the meaning of this evidence.

1) That we have archeological evidence for a monotheism in Egypt at the same time as the Book of Exodus was written, (as genetic evidence so supports).

As you have failed to establish the claim that genetic evidence supports the hypothesis that Exodus was written contemporaneously with Akhenaten, this point does not stand. Again, the best evidence we have indicates Exodus was written during the Babylonian exile, with further evidence that elements of the story existed some centuries earlier stemming from a somewhat earlier oral tradition.

'Dating the book of Exodus is interconnected with the issue of authorship. If Moses is regarded as the sole author, then the date of composition is several centuries before the time of David. If one adopts the documentary hypothesis, then the earliest strand was written in the period of David and Solomon and the latest in the exilic or postexilic period, with final editorial work being completed in the postexilic era. If one understands the origins of book along a more supplementary model, then composition extends from a time prior to David to the postexilic period.'

Source: http://www.enterthebible.org/oldtestament.aspx?rid=21

This would be a strange coincidence, that Moses, the Exodus story, the cataclysmic upheavel of the society all transpired at the same time for no reason we can otherwise think of, if not the connection between Moses and this first appearance anywhere of monotheism.

Well, first of all the 'upheaval' in Egypt wasn't 'cataclysmic'.

'In everyday practice, the new religion probably only replaced the official state cult and the religion of the élite; the majority of the people must have continued to worship their own traditional, often local gods. Even at Amarna itself there are a fair number of surviving votive objects, stelae, and wall paintings that depict or mention [other] gods....'

Sourrce: 'The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom' by Jacobus van Dijk' p. 287 in 'The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt', Ian Shaw (ed.), Oxford 2000.

Furthermore, even under Amenhotep III religion in Egypt was adopting an increasingly monolatric structure, with an emphasis on solarisation of worship. So Akhenaten's elevation of Aten as the supreme deity follows this clear trend.

Connecting this to the presence of Moses, which you have failed to provide any other evidence for, and to the events of Exodus - for which no archaeological evidence exists connecting them to the reign of Akhenaten - seems to have little obvious merit.

The probability is that the Pharaoh tried to usurp the claim, making himself the supreme god on earth as pharaohs had always claimed.

The 'probability' is that Akhenaten was wholly uninfluenced by anything other than theological developments and understandings that had nothing at all to do with an individual whose presence in Egypt at the time is unevidenced.

This is the only hyothesis that is reasonable and the only one known, presently.

Clearly not so given the multiple hypotheses concerning the dating of the legendary events of Exodus. See, for example, http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm.

The reason this occurred was that Moses had discovered a new Planet, i.e. another God in the heavens, Uranus.

Insofar as Uranus was not recognised as a planet until the 19th Century, I would be interested in your source for this claim.

This scientific evidence, Uranus, is the only possible, reasonable, explanation that he could confront the Pharaoh, the whole social structure and live to write about it.

This doesn't make sense. What do you mean?

Moses was an old man, even a criminal, a wanted man for the murder of an Egyptian, and a Jew amongst jews who were now slaves.
He clearly had to have something that could support his preaching a new God, an unseen never noticed, therefore supreme God who had long been watching the other Planet/Gods/Religions.

Or the story could simply be legendary.

2) This all becomes a Theory, (superior to a mere hypothesis), when we learn that Genetic Tests can show that half of the men living today (among those who can show/claim they are related directly to Aaron) prove to have a common father who lived 1360BC.

This date, 1360BC, is the same exact time as this archeological evidence for Akhenaten.

Except that the genetic evidence you have presented allows you to conclude no such thing, as Adam has pointed out.

Then we have the Exodus confirmation, that this particular Pharaoh is the one whose body/mummy has never been found.

Many pharaohs' bodies/mummies have never been found, so this 'evidence' is meaningless.

The reason his tomb is empty is because he died when the Rea Sea drown every man with him.

Or his body was removed when the royal court returned to Thebes and reburied in the Valley of Kings. Many royal tombs are empty, not least because of the assiduous efforts of grave robbers.

that could support the story which says Moses could point out in defense of his claim is the only reasonable way

Again, I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate, please?

 

[cupid dave]

As you have failed to establish the claim that genetic evidence supports the hypothesis that Exodus was written contemporaneously with Akhenaten, this point does not stand. Again, the best evidence we have indicates Exodus was written during the Babylonian exile, with further evidence that elements of the story existed some centuries earlier stemming from a somewhat earlier oral tradition.
?

1) The best SUPPOSITIONS in your opinion are those students of the language who would side with you on this idea of Babylon.

2) The genetic evidence has been established that supports identifying certain Jews as related to one man who lived in 1360BC as a common father to them all.

These men are all Jewish priests who can claim an unbroken string of father-son relationships since that time as part of their religious duty.

Whereas the necessary distinction between these priests who, throughout the ages, were actually true to the requirement to intermarry with only Levites shows that only 47% did, indeed, attend to that responsibility, the common father can be assumed to have been Aaron, and the date of Exodus can be supported as 1360BC since Exodus initiated this ritualized priesthood that would follow thereafter.


(PS- the claim to best scholarship is still open, as is always the case. Clearly, what I have shown with concrete supporting evidence will best the best of them to date, since what these linguists claim is based upon their own expertise, these experts are making their claims based upon their criticism of the language used. All they really have is their opinion and their expertise in language, as far as I understand.)



Thomas, et al. dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths).

 

[Adam]

2) The genetic evidence has been established that supports identifying certain Jews as related to one man who lived in 1360BC as a common father to them all.

These men are all Jewish priests who can claim an unbroken string of father-son relationships since that time as part of their religious duty.

Those are claims which you have yet to substantiate.

Further, I have already explained the issue of "Y Chromosomal Aaron" and the Kohanim Haplotype Tree and how it not only does not support your claim, it disproves it.


"The original scientific research was based on the discovery that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, which researchers named the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). However it subsequently became clear that this six marker pattern was widespread in many communities where men had Y chromosomes which fell into Haplogroup J; the six-marker CMH was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago"


Also, the date you give it quite arbitrary to this research. 1360 BC does fall into the range of possible dates for the Cohen DNA, but so does 2600 BC as well as 500 BC.

"The J1e and J2a possible Cohen clusters, when including those tested who are of Sephardi background, have been estimated as descending from most recent common ancestors living 3,200 ± 1,100 and 4,200 ± 1,300"


You are picking a date that you want based on trying to force this data to say something it doesn't.


And, again, without an actual sample of DNA from the actual Aaron, there is no way to assert that these lineages are linked to him at all.

They are not all Jewish and they cannot all claim an unbroken father-son chain.



Your claims are unsupported. As well, they are untrue.